Jump to content

Menu

ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL. ALL USERS PLEASE READ


Recommended Posts

According to the U.S. Copyright office, the following is true:

 

 

 

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, signed into law on October 28, 1998, amended the United States Copyright Act, Title 17 of the U.S. Code, to provide in part certain limitations on the liability of online service providers (OSPs) for copyright infringement. Subsection 512©of the Copyright Act provides limitations on service provider liability for storage, at the direction of a user, of copyrighted material residing on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if, among other things, the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement by providing contact information to the Copyright Office and by posting such information on the service provider’s website in a location accessible to the public. The provision of information to the Copyright Office about the service provider’s designated agent is a condition for reliance on the limitations on liability for service providers.

 

 

IOW, if someone is allowing people to add materials to the site on their own, it is required that they designate an agent for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), specifically section 512, the "Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act" to have some protection. This agent is to be notified by a copyright holder if that copyright holder feels they have been infringed upon. The agent would receive a "takedown notice" from the alleged copyright holder and would then be required to  take the material down "expeditiously" and then notify the user who posted it that it had been taken down. If the user felt the copyright was actually theirs, they could take action as outlined here. Here's an image of a Youtube video for which someone filed a takedown notice.

 

So by providing an agent to receive takedown notices and removing the offending content, web sites protect themselves from the liability of user uploaded content, and the liability falls on the user themselves. More information is on wikipedia and at the copyright office, with information on how to designate an agent and pay the $105 fee.

 

Lastly, my DH, who is fairly knowledgeable about the DMCA due to his profession, wrote this for me to post:

 

-------------------

 

Hi. I'm the husband of "idnib".  Former editor of a

web site.  I Am Not A Lawyer, This Is Not Legal Advice

(IANAL, TINLA).

 

I just wanted to point out couple of useful resources

that the maintainers of this site might be able to

use.

 

 How to Register a DMCA Agent

 http://www.newmediarights.org/guide/copyright/how_register_dmca_agent

 

 Protecting Yourself Against Copyright Claims Based on User Content

 http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/protecting-yourself-against-copyright-claims-based-user-content

 

A site that accepts postings from users is an

"online service provider" for purposes of the law.

Someone who maintains a personal blog or company

site doesn't count, but as soon as someone runs a web

board or mailing list that accepts posts from outside

users, he or she can register a DMCA Agent to receive

notifications when one of the site's users posts some

infringing material.

 

The DMCA notice and takedown system is the reason

that big web sites such as Pinterest can stay in

business despite their hordes of users eagerly posting

copyrighted pictures.

 

Here's how Pinterest handles it:

 http://about.pinterest.com/en/copyright

 

Other web sites that carry user-generated content have

similar pages, clearly linked from their home pages.

If a copyright holder finds an infringing photo on

Pinterest, the copyright holder must send a DMCA

"Notice of Alleged Infringement" including the

specific URLs where the infringing photo can be found.

As long as the site owner follows the steps of the

"notice and takedown" process (covered in the first

two links), the site has substantial protection

that is not available to sites that don't register

a DMCA Agent.

 

If you have any questions, there is free legal help

for "promising ventures and innovative thinkers"

available from the Digital Media Law Project:

 

 http://www.dmlp.org/legal-assistance

 
  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Susan, I hope that seeing so many supporting you, and seeing all of us old timers who heard about this and came back for a moment to support you, makes it crystal clear to you what a special, beautiful thing you created when you created these boards and your resources.  To this day, I talk fondly of the diverse, interesting, smart women I've met because of you, and how rich and interesting my home school journey was as a result.  I met you personally the summer before my daughter began "Kindergarten", and have depended on your advice and all my "imaginary" friends from the WTM boards throughout the entire process, and I always tell everyone who will listen how very fortunate I feel to have been given the opportunity to experience the unique path you blazed.  I'm better because it, and I know others are, too.

 

Thank you for all you have done, for most of it blessed me in some way at some time and continues to do so.  It would be hard to overstate how loved and appreciated you are and what a difference you have made.

 

Praying for this to end quickly and favorably, my dear friend.

 

Well said Robin!

 

It is so nice to see people here in this thread that I haven't seen in so very long! Lovin' it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot possibly read this whole thread, but I've looked over my profile and I don't think I have anything that needs to be deleted. The forums have changed so much since last time I was here that I'm not sure I even know how to access all of my old posts. 

 

Susan, I'm sorry about this. You certainly don't need this headache.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is brilliant!

Well, you don't have to stop posting birthday cake photos, you just have to make sure the ones you do post are either pics you took yourself, pics the photographer gave you permission to post, or pics in the public domain.  

 

Why not start a "cake pictures needed" thread asking people to "donate" pics they have taken, to be used in the birthday threads?  You can then right click, save them to your computer, and use them either by uploading them to WTM for your "image library" and clicking on the "my media" button to include them in the post, OR hosting them elsewhere and either clicking the "image" button or using the src=URL  HTML command.

Every time any of us makes a birthday cupcake, we can send the picture in to Negin!  We'll have a whole database of admissible images in no time at all.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I've searched & deleted as much as possible for .jpg, .jpeg, .gif, and .bmp. Seemingly, that got me back to sometime in 2010.

 

However, if I search archived posts, I cannot edit or report those? Some do have pictures? What to do in those cases? Are there other earlier posts I need to check?

 

Also, some of my posts were in threads that have been deleted. But, when I search my posts, I can still see those posts with images, but I can't edit them and clicking on them just leads me to a page saying it doesn't exist. The photos are still showing in the search pages though....

 

Please help. Awaiting further instructions....

Not to quote myself, but I'm bumping this in hopes of further clarification or response....

 

In the meantime, I also searched for & deleted any .png files in my posts.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, this is the week I go on a tech vacation and don't check in. So sorry Susan! I hope someone reported my avatar--I see it has been deleted. Thanks! I have also gone through as many of my posts as I could access and removed the few pics that weren't my own. Sorry to have missed the notice and caused extra work. I hope that everything is resolved quickly.

 

Now I'm off to have an identity crisis and pick a new avatar...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SWB - I am so sorry this has sprung on you.  I started to say sprung up but sprung on seems much more accurate.  And you weren't even looking up!

 

I just wanted to warn everyone that even if you don't know how to add a photo to your post, you may still need to do some deleting.  If you quote a post that has a photo in it, that photo apparently shows up in your post.  At least, Laura's son's frighteningly imposing test center showed up in an advanced search for .jpg files within my posts, so I suspect this is true.  I wonder how many Calvin and Hobbs comics I posted?  They were ages and ages ago, probably on the old board, and I don't know whether I cut and pasted them or linked them.  They didn't show up in a search so hopefully they are old enough to have been deleted long ago.

 

Hugs SWB,

 

Nan

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is brilliant!

Every time any of us makes a birthday cupcake, we can send the picture in to Negin!  We'll have a whole database of admissible images in no time at all.

 

EXACTLY!!!

 

There are also a lot of pictures of cupcakes on FLCKR with Creative Commons licenses that could legally be used if the various CC rules are followed.  That said, it might be easier to build a WTM library of permissible cupcakes, as it would be easier to verify permission, because the "paper trail" would be in the "we need cupcake pics" thread.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And most of the photos posted here are not uploaded, but hotlinked via the icon button. In theory, it should be the same thing. I don't want Susan or PHP to engage in a legal battle over it, but I disagree with those who imply that people are doing something unethical by hotlinking. The point of hotlinking is that 1) you aren't taking an image and 2) you aren't taking hits away from the original site, they get the hits to improve their google ranking match for that item, even if the thread here has more hits (especially with refresh).

 

Right now we are in this muddy stage of the internet where many things are not well defined and most judges don't understand the issues or the difference between uploading and hotlinking.

I disagree that hotlinking is OK.  

 

Hotlinking, as I understand it, works like this:  

 

Say I have a website, and I have taken a fabulous picture of a gentleman wearing a kilt while eating a cupcake.  I upload the picture onto my host server computer, and include it on my page of vintage Scottish cupcake recipes.  There is a URL for the recipe page, but the photo has it's own URL too.  Whenever someone uses the URL to look at the recipe page, the code on the page tells the server to go get the kilt/cupcake photo and put it in the appropriate place on the page.  That's the way it's supposed to work.

 

I, as the web site owner, pay the host server company to use their computer to store these files, and for the bandwidth used by others to access these files over the internet.  I have a limit on the amount of bandwidth that can be used each month; if the demand exceeds this amount, I must pay more (perhaps by upgrading my hosting package), or in some cases the host company shuts down the site temporarily.

If someone looks at the recipe page, they also see the ads on the page, or they see the link to buy my book, or whatever other things I have done to make money from my page.  

 

However, say someone from WTM sees my kilt/cupcake photo and thinks it's just the thing to add to their post at WTM.  They add the photo to their post by "hotlinking" - either using the image button or putting in their own code that tells the WTM software to include the photo, using the photo's URL.  

 

Here's the problem - 

1) Every time someone looks at the WTM post, their browser goes to my host server to get the photo, adding to my bandwidth usage for the month.  If this happens enough, I have to pay more to host my site of vintage Scottish recipes.

 

2) BUT - There's nothing in the WTM post, or, generally speaking, the photo's URL, to let people know where the picture came from or refer them to my recipe page.  (Technically speaking, sometimes you can find the original page by looking at the photo's URL, but it can be tricky, and most people can't/don't do it.)  They don't have to look at the recipe page at all, and in some cases couldn't find it even if they wanted to.

 

3) None of my careful attempts to monetize my site are triggered.  No one has looked at the ads on my recipe page, or bought my book.  While there are more pageviews of the photo, there are NOT more pageviews of the recipe page - and that's where the ads are.  And in my experience, pageviews of the photo alone may not even be counted, and generally aren't useful to the site owner, again because that's not where the ads or other monetizing content are.

 

So the WTM poster has increased my costs, without increasing my profits, by looking at my photos away from the context of my recipe page.  This is generally considered theft of bandwidth - the WTM poster is using my bandwidth in a way that it was not intended to be used.

 

Now - As the site owner, I do have one thing I can do to deal with this.  It's petty, and won't solve the problem, but may give me some personal satisfaction.  I can replace the kilt/cupcake photo with, say, a picture of Ken Ham eating a watermelon (assuming, of course, that I have one that's legally mine to use).  To do this, I simply give the picture of Ken Ham exactly the same name that the kilt/cupcake picture had, and put it in the same directory in my server (basically overwriting/replacing the kilt/cupcake photo).  Now, whenever someone brings up the WTM thread (the helpfully-named "Kilts AND Cupcakes!" thread), anticipating a yummy pic with which to start their day, their browser will go to my site to get the photo specified by the URL in the post, and get the KH picture instead of the kilt/cupcake photo.  (Depending on how irate the photo's owner is by the hotlinking, the replacement photo can be much worse than the KH one in my example.)  

 

If the site owner gives you permission to hotlink a photo, that's fine.  But if not, I think it can reasonably be considered theft of bandwidth.

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, as the web site owner, pay the host server company to use their computer to store these files, and for the bandwidth used by others to access these files over the internet. I have a limit on the amount of bandwidth that can be used each month; if the demand exceeds this amount, I must pay more (perhaps by upgrading my hosting package), or in some cases the host company shuts down the site temporarily.

If someone looks at the recipe page, they also see the ads on the page, or they see the link to buy my book, or whatever other things I have done to make money from my page.

But, it is also counting as hits on your site. That increases your googlability and page views, which is part of what advertisers look at when they pay to put advertisements in your site. So, it does help you. I think this is one of those things that some sites care about and some don't. Some sites don't allow hotlinking and when you hotlink the image changes to say something to that effect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least, Laura's son's frighteningly imposing test center showed up in an advanced search for .jpg files within my posts, so I suspect this is true.  

 

I searched for this one, and it was a link to a picture, rather than the picture itself in my post.  I suspect that by linking to the picture (rather than to the site that hosted the picture) I may have failed to attribute.  Thanks for the heads up - I've gone through and deleted my .jpg links, just in case.

 

L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I checked my attachments and searched for .jpg and .gif and found nothing.

 

But I know for sure that I have posted at least one picture (of my shoes, made by me, so not a problem), so that makes me nervous that I am somehow missing things. I don't remember posting pictures, but I might have quoted others who did.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Susan, I'm so very sorry that you're going through this. :(

 

I think I've managed to delete all images from 40 pages of my posts/content. It seemed to take forever, but I did it. 

Few questions:

 

1. Is there more that I need to remove? Again, I went through 40 pages of my posts. 

 

2. I understand that we can post images of book covers. Can we post images of DVD covers? Sometimes, on the exercise thread, I post pictures of a DVD. 

 

Thank you. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, Angie in VA, you have my written permission to keep my brilliant quote in your signature. Even though *some people* don't get it.

Lol! I am glad I happened upon this post, as I haven't read this entire thread. You are so right about *those* people! Tell me, how long is that list? ;) And thank you for your permission to use that quote!

 

Oooh, we could FINE people who don't like BC! That income could go to defray the costs of running this site, and, God forbid, any legal help that might be needed due this mess.

 

Never mind. I just saw SWB's question about BC. And here I've thought she was brilliant all these years. *sigh*

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea about any of the complex legal issues here; just wanted to say...

I disagree that hotlinking is OK.  

Hotlinking, as I understand it, works like this:  

Say I have a website, and I have taken a fabulous picture of a gentleman wearing a kilt while eating a cupcake.  I upload the picture onto my host server computer, and include it on my page of vintage Scottish cupcake recipes.  There is a URL for the recipe page, but the photo has it's own URL too.  Whenever someone uses the URL to look at the recipe page, the code on the page tells the server to go get the kilt/cupcake photo and put it in the appropriate place on the page.  That's the way it's supposed to work.

I, as the web site owner, pay the host server company to use their computer to store these files, and for the bandwidth used by others to access these files over the internet.  I have a limit on the amount of bandwidth that can be used each month; if the demand exceeds this amount, I must pay more (perhaps by upgrading my hosting package), or in some cases the host company shuts down the site temporarily.
If someone looks at the recipe page, they also see the ads on the page, or they see the link to buy my book, or whatever other things I have done to make money from my page.  

However, say someone from WTM sees my kilt/cupcake photo and thinks it's just the thing to add to their post at WTM.  They add the photo to their post by "hotlinking" - either using the image button or putting in their own code that tells the WTM software to include the photo, using the photo's URL.  

Here's the problem - 
1) Every time someone looks at the WTM post, their browser goes to my host server to get the photo, adding to my bandwidth usage for the month.  If this happens enough, I have to pay more to host my site of vintage Scottish recipes.

2) BUT - There's nothing in the WTM post, or, generally speaking, the photo's URL, to let people know where the picture came from or refer them to my recipe page.  (Technically speaking, sometimes you can find the original page by looking at the photo's URL, but it can be tricky, and most people can't/don't do it.)  They don't have to look at the recipe page at all, and in some cases couldn't find it even if they wanted to.

3) None of my careful attempts to monetize my site are triggered.  No one has looked at the ads on my recipe page, or bought my book.  While there are more pageviews of the photo, there are NOT more pageviews of the recipe page - and that's where the ads are.  And in my experience, pageviews of the photo alone may not even be counted, and generally aren't useful to the site owner, again because that's not where the ads or other monetizing content are.

So the WTM poster has increased my costs, without increasing my profits, by looking at my photos away from the context of my recipe page.  This is generally considered theft of bandwidth - the WTM poster is using my bandwidth in a way that it was not intended to be used.

Now - As the site owner, I do have one thing I can do to deal with this.  It's petty, and won't solve the problem, but may give me some personal satisfaction.  I can replace the kilt/cupcake photo with, say, a picture of Ken Ham eating a watermelon (assuming, of course, that I have one that's legally mine to use).  To do this, I simply give the picture of Ken Ham exactly the same name that the kilt/cupcake picture had, and put it in the same directory in my server (basically overwriting/replacing the kilt/cupcake photo).  Now, whenever someone brings up the WTM thread (the helpfully-named "Kilts AND Cupcakes!" thread), anticipating a yummy pic with which to start their day, their browser will go to my site to get the photo specified by the URL in the post, and get the KH picture instead of the kilt/cupcake photo.  (Depending on how irate the photo's owner is by the hotlinking, the replacement photo can be much worse than the KH one in my example.)  

If the site owner gives you permission to hotlink a photo, that's fine.  But if not, I think it can reasonably be considered theft of bandwidth.

:lol: ...Priceless.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, all of my "kilt" posts are of my brother-in-law and are a-okay :).  Well, in terms of copyright, anyway :)  But good heavens . . . though I'm pretty sure I never posted more than 5% of anything anybody wrote, or unattributed.  If I come across anything that could be dicey, I'll kill it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to Settings and then Manage My Attachments. At that point you have the option to delete them. I had only 4, but some were old.

Ok, I've searched & deleted as much as possible for .jpg, .jpeg, .gif, and .bmp. Seemingly, that got me back to sometime in 2010.

However, if I search archived posts, I cannot edit or report those? Some do have pictures? What to do in those cases? Are there other earlier posts I need to check?

Also, some of my posts were in threads that have been deleted. But, when I search my posts, I can still see those posts with images, but I can't edit them and clicking on them just leads me to a page saying it doesn't exist. The photos are still showing in the search pages though....

Please help. Awaiting further instructions....

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I'm doubting you Susan, but I just can't understand this.  I mean, how are Twitter, Pinterest and FB still up?  I KNOW people don't own those photos.  Heck, half the blogs and boards I frequent would have to be taken down simply because of the overload of photos.  It just doesn't make sense how it would apply to this board and not anything else.  I'm going to go through and delete photos, but I'm still not getting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I'm doubting you Susan, but I just can't understand this.  I mean, how are Twitter, Pinterest and FB still up?  I KNOW people don't own those photos.  Heck, half the blogs and boards I frequent would have to be taken down simply because of the overload of photos.  It just doesn't make sense how it would apply to this board and not anything else.  I'm going to go through and delete photos, but I'm still not getting it.

 

See my post #472.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I mean, how are Twitter, Pinterest and FB still up?  I KNOW people don't own those photos.  Heck, half the blogs and boards I frequent would have to be taken down simply because of the overload of photos.  It just doesn't make sense how it would apply to this board and not anything else.  I'm going to go through and delete photos, but I'm still not getting it.

:iagree:  I see copyrighted pictures on Facebook and Pinterest and all sorts of places. My dd says that the rules are probably different for the big social media giants. I just don't get all this. As someone once said here on these boards (a long time ago), if a photographer doesn't want their pictures to be used, why post them on the internet? It completely baffles me. Then again, most human behavior does these days. 

 

I'm now venting here, and I hope it's okay to do so. I appreciate these boards so very much. It saddens me that some of the threads will look visually boring and dry compared to what they'd just become. I feel that we're returning to the '90s or something and stepping back in time, right when I was beginning to really enjoy technology, learning to post images and GIFs.

 

I loved doing the birthday threads, but can't see myself doing that anymore. Part of the fun were the nice, classy images. It's sad. 

 

I also enjoyed sharing health tips, etc. Can't do that anymore. :(

 

Sorry I had to vent. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See my post #472.

Thank you. I tried to read this a few times, but given that the past few days have been completely taken up by my going through 40 pages of posts and deleting/editing lots and lots of them, I just can't seem to be able to read and comprehend your post. My brain is fried. My neck and shoulders are killing me. I'm not being snarky or anything. Trust me, I appreciate you posting this. Do you have a Cliffs Notes version? I can barely take all of this anymore  :lol:. 

 

I still have questions from yesterday:

1. Is there more that I need to remove? Again, I went through 40 pages of my posts. 

2. I understand that we can post images of book covers. What would be considered a safe source? Sometimes I post book covers from B&N, sometimes amazon, sometimes Good Reads, and other times Book Depository, or even a newspaper review. 

3. Can we post images of DVD covers? On the exercise thread, I often post pictures of a DVD. 

 

Thank you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I really can't give you a lot of detail at the moment, but please take my word for it until I'm able to explain.

 

One thing I can tell you: At the time the image was posted, we had not registered an agent with the copyright office (required for safe harbor protection). Better believe we're registered now. But I'm not a professional web hosting company, I'm an educator and a writer, and it never occurred to me to register this forum. 

 

It's maddening and unfortunate. But not a single person ever, inside my company or outside, in the years I've been hosting this board, has ever pointed out that it might be necessary.

 

SWB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

:grouphug: SWB

:grouphug: Yes, and thank you so much Susan, for all that you provide for us here, for all your continued hard work and for this wonderful service.  :grouphug:

Edited by Susan Wise Bauer
Edited to remove quote (sorry!)
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree:  I see copyrighted pictures on Facebook and Pinterest and all sorts of places. My dd says that the rules are probably different for the big social media giants. I just don't get all this. As someone once said here on these boards (a long time ago), if a photographer doesn't want their pictures to be used, why post them on the internet? It completely baffles me. Then again, most human behavior does these days. 

 

 

The internet is just another way of publishing things. I know a professional photographer who also runs a very popular blog and posts many of her pictures on her blog. The fact the the pictures have been published does not negate her copyright, whether they are published in a book, a magazine, or online--that is precisely why copyrights exist! Photography is a business, just as writing, painting, journalism, etc. are businesses, and without copyright laws there is no way to protect the intellectual property rights and income of people who put their time and energy into such work. Can you imagine if there were some easy way for other people to "steal" the work you or your spouse do, with every theft a potential loss of income??? If I made straw hats for a living and sold them at a farmer's market, the fact that a hat was displayed on the table would not make it available for someone to walk away with at will anymore than publishing a photograph on a blog makes it available for someone to snatch and use elsewhere.

 

I know the rules seem silly and frivolous at times and really a picture posted on a social networking sight or forum is not likely to have a significant impact on someone's profits, but the need for copyright protection is real, even on the internet (maybe especially on the internet given the ease with which things can be copied and distributed!) and is not something to dismiss out of hand.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. I tried to read this a few times, but given that the past few days have been completely taken up by my going through 40 pages of posts and deleting/editing lots and lots of them, I just can't seem to be able to read and comprehend your post. My brain is fried. My neck and shoulders are killing me. I'm not being snarky or anything. Trust me, I appreciate you posting this. Do you have a Cliffs Notes version? I can barely take all of this anymore  :lol:. 

 

Cliffs Notes version: 

 

Companies protect themselves from users posting copyrighted material by registering a contact with the copyright office. In registering that contact, they have provided an agent who can be contacted in the event a copyright holder needs something removed. If they receive a request via that contact to remove the content, they must do so and notify the user who posted it. If there's a dispute in which the user says they actually own the copyright, it's more complicated. Without a designated agent, the site's owner, individual or organization, is on the hook itself for the users' copyright violations.

 

 

Slightly-longer-but-not-as-long-as-my-earlier-post version:

 

When the web began, it was truly the Wild West when it came to linking and copying content. After a series of lawsuits against companies for hosting copyrighted materials, it was deemed important that companies have some kind of shielding from liability for what their users post. The alternative would be to allow users to post nothing on web sites, leading to a chilling effect on the growth of the web.

 

A law, the DMCA, went into effect in 1998. It's a large and complex law, covering everything from copyright infringement to DVD copy protection software. This law outlined a process in which a company hosting user's own posted content could pay $105 and designate an agent with the U.S. Copyright Office to be contacted in the event a person feels their copyright has been violated. This agent can be contacted using a "takedown letter" from the copyright holder and if the hosting company receives a takedown letter, their duty is to remove the content and notify the user who posted it. If the user says they actually own the copyright, it's more complicated.

 

Companies like Pinterest and Youtube have designated agents and get DMCA takedown notices all the time. They remove content and notify the user. It's just that there's so much infringing content that copyright holders don't pursue that it seems like the companies are getting away with it. If you saw your copyrighted photo or video on a site, you would have a right to contact their agent and have it removed. In practice, it's mostly the large media companies and professional photographers who request it.

 

If a company fails to designate an agent, they are liable for all the infringing content and on the hook for potential damages.

 

 

Susan, I feel terrible that I knew this and it never occurred to me to ask if you had designated a DMCA agent. I can't even say I assumed you had; the thought simply never crossed my mind at all.  :( I haven't slept well since this episode began; I wish I had thought to ask.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I changed my avatar because I have no idea if my other one was 'legit' or not since I took it from a site that came up when I searched for 'avatars'.

 

The new me is a photo I took of dd's Petshop cats. That's allowed, right? It's the closest I could find to the orange & white cartoon cat I used to be. Hope everyone recognizes me!! :coolgleamA:

 

Susan, add me to the list of those who feel absolutely horrible for you. I hope whatever is going on goes away since you (and all of us) are doing everything we can to remedy the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I really can't give you a lot of detail at the moment, but please take my word for it until I'm able to explain.

 

One thing I can tell you: At the time the image was posted, we had not registered an agent with the copyright office (required for safe harbor protection). Better believe we're registered now. But I'm not a professional web hosting company, I'm an educator and a writer, and it never occurred to me to register this forum. 

 

It's maddening and unfortunate. But not a single person ever, inside my company or outside, in the years I've been hosting this board, has ever pointed out that it might be necessary.

 

SWB

 

More hugs.  Saying prayers for peace for you.  Count me as one of the many who are EXTREMELY grateful to you for the books you've written and these forums you've provided over the years.  Eleven years ago I had no clue what I was doing with regards to educating my kids at home.  Yours was the only book practical enough for me to use.  I even bought a copy of the 1999 WTM a few weeks ago, just because that was the first version I had read when my son was three years old!  :D  I will NEVER forget your gifts to the world of home education.  And I hope that whatever is going on will get sorted out without a whole lot more hassle for you.

 

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I really can't give you a lot of detail at the moment, but please take my word for it until I'm able to explain.

 

One thing I can tell you: At the time the image was posted, we had not registered an agent with the copyright office (required for safe harbor protection). Better believe we're registered now. But I'm not a professional web hosting company, I'm an educator and a writer, and it never occurred to me to register this forum. 

 

It's maddening and unfortunate. But not a single person ever, inside my company or outside, in the years I've been hosting this board, has ever pointed out that it might be necessary.

 

SWB

 

:grouphug: FWIW, I wouldn't have known either.

 

As a silver lining, I hope you can get a small sense just how much many of us appreciate you and all you have done both for homeschooling in general and with these forums as a bonus.  I could never express my gratitude adequately to be honest.  Thank you!  Without this annoyance, I'm not sure I would have THOUGHT to even try, but I sure am thinking of it now...

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know SWB said she would tell us when she could, but am I the only one dying to know what the devil is going on?  Who exactly got their panties in a twist that a homeschooling forum was targeted?   :grouphug: to you, Susan.

 

Jeepers....  Someone must've really not liked the paparazzi picture taken of them in a kilt, eating cupcakes, saying "hey, girl..."

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know SWB said she would tell us when she could, but am I the only one dying to know what the devil is going on?  Who exactly got their panties in a twist that a homeschooling forum was targeted?   :grouphug: to you, Susan.

 

Jeepers....  Someone must've really not liked the paparazzi picture taken of them in a kilt, eating cupcakes, saying "hey, girl..."

 

Wait, did someone post a pic of the creators of Common Core wearing a kilt?  Maybe they were angry that homeschoolers didn't just jump blindly on board with it.

 

I went and googled "Common Core" and kilt not as bad of a waste of time, I thought it would be....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...