About photo licenses

Community and Forum → Insects images → About photo licenses

PVOzerski, 21.11.2011 0:43

The theme is created in the footsteps of freshly laid out photos of butterflies. It seems that my explicit indication of the license for these photos causes confusion among some forumchan. I explain the reasons for these actions.

First, about my chosen license ( Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike CC BY-SA 3.0 ): it belongs to the category of so-called "free" and allows anyone who downloads these photos to use them in any way, including commercial use. The only two restrictions are: you must reproduce the original authorship and you can not prevent the further distribution of these photos under the same conditions. In my opinion, quite acceptable conditions.

And now about why I did it. Already several times I had a situation when I needed photos of certain insects posted on the site for some purpose. However, there was no information about the possibility of their further use. Thanks to the authors, they always allowed me to use these photos after I contacted them. However, this is inconvenient for everyone - both the person who wants it (you need to write a letter, wait for a response...), and the author himself (you need to think about whether to allow it or not). And if the author is unavailable for some reason? Therefore, I think that if the author explicitly specifies what can and cannot be done with the photo, this will only make it better. By the way, the license chosen by me does not prohibit renegotiating with the author regarding other terms of use.

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 21.11.2011 01: 04

Comments

Pages: 1 2

Likes: 2

Likes: 8

03.12.2011 21:40, Hierophis

Me??? Bad Den, maybe you imagined it? Well, the degree is high there... Here it used to be - squirrels, devils.. now with this Western influence, with these rings of all sorts, urks, trolls of all sorts have gone.. where is the national tradition, history!!???

The PS
will force you to admit the mistake in your sarcasm, because plagiarism is really not beautiful. I download e-books myself and read them, yes, oh horror, so all my writing and pictures that I upload to the network, by default, I consider the common domain, well, as if to clear my conscience, including if suddenly)))) someone will earn a million with the help of my picture-of course it will be a shame, but what to do

But plagiarism as for me is just stupid, although also, you'll think, a praying mantis or some kind of butterfly

And in general, the pictures are garbage-the main thing is that I saw it all live, but the one who assigns it is not, somewhere like this)

This post was edited by Hierophis - 03.12.2011 21: 58

Likes: 1

04.12.2011 23:44, Victor Titov

A little off topic... But the problem is urgent.
I recommend looking at the photos on Wikipedia from comrade Anaxibia.
http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Ga...0&ofs=0&max=250
I found more than a dozen of my own there, and I'm sure there will still be owners...
Discussion here:
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%....D0.B0_Anaxibia

To the question of Comrade. Anaхibia. These are also his "works":

http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Ga...amp&format=html

I post it here just in case anyone objects to using their photos under someone else's name. You can report this to the wikipedia managers. I don't have any direct evidence that Anahibia = Reanimator86, but I do have full confidence in the identity of these companions.

PS: I apologize for further clogging up the topic. If there is a new topic , I am ready to move my posts there.

recently there was a topic about "authorship and so on" - this topic is called differently....

Friends, well, it's not at all in the subject, and the conversation seems to be delayed... For whom it is still relevant-follow these links here, for whom it is to your liking:
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=492981
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=482984

05.12.2011 11:56, Hierophis

Oh, I understand the point - it would also be necessary to fix a site with photos, better quality there, but more, and then search for them on third-party resources - it's cool

PVOzerski, in principle, your thoughts are absolutely correct, but at the same time, all these licenses and other nonsense turn the Internet into a "zone" in the truest sense of the word - with strict restrictions and sets of rules. In the beginning, the Internet was a zone of freedom, but with the growth of a certain contingent, the increase in the average age of Internet users, there are more and more "smart rules"in it. How good that I found the time "when the trees were big", and all sorts of snobs and big people - was less

Then there will probably be more - to open the site, you will need a license, to learn on forums-non-anonymous documentary registration, extension of the Criminal Code rules to the Internet(such as - for someone else's photo-term), and so on, these are the prospects)

Likes: 1

05.12.2011 18:03, Victor Titov

Generally discuss questions about photo theft on the site molbiol.ru where half are based on stolen articles-weird to say the least. If you steal and consider theft to be the norm, then be aware that your work can also be stolen over many years. Think logically and consistently, not just for yourself.

The statement that on molbiol.ru "half of them are based on stolen articles" is at least incorrect. Which half is it? What are you talking about? If about the topic "Scans of books with entomological topics" - duc, it is only one of many on the site.
As for theft, it is condemned in any case. But, as they say, there is a nuance. It is one thing to post a book, monograph, or article for general download without changing the authorship, but also without obtaining the author's consent. By the way, some authors (even if there are quite a few of them) do not object to such actions: both advertising and their work serve people - in short, there is no material reward, but there may be (and many have) moral satisfaction with the demand for their work among specialists and colleagues (authorship in this case is all the same specified). And another thing is to post a photo online, or even more than one, posing as the author. From the point of view of damage to property (material) - an act that may be less significant. But from a moral point of view, it's disgusting to pass off someone else's work as your own. Especially when the authorship of an entire site is assigned.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 05.12.2011 18: 12

Likes: 6

05.12.2011 18:20, Hierophis

Dmitrich, you probably should have been a lawyer after all

In the case of books and articles, a completely different problem - they have already chewed, chewed, chewed - basically, the law prohibiting scanning, distributing, etc. books and articles protects publishers, and the placement of such a book is always not legal, and the authors are not particularly asked, they have already sold part of the rights to the publisher, at least for a specific publication, and even if the author is in favor of digitizing the book, the publisher will be against it - and this is true according to the law.
There is an option - to post only the text of the book, without title pages where the publisher is indicated, only indicate authorship, but in this case the publisher can sue, as there is usually something that prohibits other publications in any form, even by the author himself! All this has long been written and rewritten on various resources.
I do not really support such laws, but this does not make them any less significant, since you and your colleagues support them

No one says that something is bad and something is better, that you don't need to try to restore authorship, in my understanding scandals and screams are appropriate even if the site was stolen, and then - it's strange, aren't sites registered in the <url> zone according to the passport? Website http://sungaya.ru/ clearly the first level and must be registered using your passport, or is there something I don't understand? How then can it be stolen, well, you can steal it, but it's also easy to return it!
And if someone pulled pictures for their page-it's funny

Volkov correctly wrote

"As you measure, so you will be measured"

05.12.2011 19:10, Victor Titov

Dmitrich, you probably should have been a lawyer after all

Roman, I'm already beginning to get annoyed by your insistence on putting up labels, deciding for others who they should be. I became what I became. And I'm not going to change in my sixties. Read carefully the posts of those for whom you are trying to draw inappropriate conclusions:

As for theft, it is condemned in any case.

Well, who am I protecting-from the point of view of the law? If you didn't manage to learn my point, I'll put it another way: croak out loud: "It's me, I made it up!" - not being a travel frog is disgusting. If you don't agree with this, I'm not going to change your mind - I'm sorry for the time and effort.

And if someone pulled pictures for their page-it's funny

Well, laugh to your heart's content. Everyone has their own sense of humor. Once again, I want to note that it is one thing to "pull" pictures (even if without asking) and post them on your page with the authors of the photo, but another thing is to "pull" them and pass them off as your own. To me, a person who assigns authorship (regardless of what-a book, a piece of music, a photograph, etc.) seems not ridiculous, but pathetic.

Volkov correctly wrote "With what measure you measure, so they will measure you"

Well, since you have shown yourself such a champion of the rule of law here, let me clarify: the measures are different. And the responsibility of the legislator for such acts is even "divorced" according to various criminal law norms: part one of Article 146 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for liability for attribution of authorship (plagiarism), and part two and part three-for illegal use of copyright objects. Don't see the difference? But in vain: the object of encroachment is one, but the actions (the objective side) are different.

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 05.12.2011 19: 11

Likes: 4

05.12.2011 20:11, Vorona

The statement that on molbiol.ru "half of them are based on stolen articles" is at least incorrect. Which half is it? What are you talking about? If about the topic "Scans of books with entomological topics" - duc, it is only one of many on the site.
As for theft, it is condemned in any case. But, as they say, there is a nuance. It is one thing to post a book, monograph, or article for general download without changing the authorship, but also without obtaining the author's consent. By the way, some authors (even if there are quite a few of them) do not object to such actions: both advertising and their work serve people - in short, there is no material reward, but there may be (and many have) moral satisfaction with the demand for their work among specialists and colleagues (authorship in this case is all the same specified). And another thing is to post a photo online, or even more than one, posing as the author. From the point of view of damage to property (material) - an act that may be less significant. But from a moral point of view, it's disgusting to pass off someone else's work as your own. Especially when the authorship of an entire site is assigned.

Ahem, I'm sorry, Dmitrich, but your opponent... not quite adequate, you don't know that, you don't hang around in the Gazebo, and his last foray into entomology seems to have been forgotten...

Likes: 2

05.12.2011 20:16, Victor Titov

I saw something similar to double standards in your statements, like "yes, this is bad, but this is nothing, but this is worse." And double standards are evil.

I fully agree: double standards are still evil. But if you saw them in my post, you are mistaken (or I didn't put it accurately enough, if I gave you a reason to misunderstand me). I evaluated plagiarism (attribution of authorship) and illegal use of copyright objects not from a legal, but from a moral point of view, or even from the point of view of a number (far from all, I will make a reservation) of copyright holders. At the same time, I also expressed my attitude to the legal aspect of the problem: I repeat, as for theft (if it is really theft), it is condemned in any case.
And then, VVolkov's post contains a clearly exaggerated and uncomplicated accusation against everything I respect (I hope, and you?) of the site ("...on the site molbiol.ru where half is based on stolen articles"), and to individual forum members ("If you steal and consider theft the norm, then be aware that your work can be stolen over many years"). Are colleagues who expressed indignation at the attribution of their authorship in this topic personally convicted of illegal use of copyright objects?! Is half of our website based on theft?!

By the way, I read this
http://www.pravo.vuzlib.net/book_z1116_page_169.html

and I didn't find any distinctions there, and plagiarism and other acts - everything goes in the same sense, or am I wrong somewhere?

Well, I say - read (and generally be) more careful. And they got it wrong, and the editorial board of the article was given an outdated one. Here is the current one (see article 146)): http://www.consultant.ru/popular/ukrf/10_27.html
Small remarks:
1) Attribution of authorship ( plagiarism) is the publication of someone else's work under one's own name, or the publication exclusively under one's own name of a work created in collaboration with other persons, without specifying their surnames.
2) Illegal use of copyright objects is, for example, forced co-authorship (forcing the author to include inco-authors persons who are not related to the creation of the work (although it is extremely common in some scientific institutions?

), and most often - illegal reproduction and (or) distribution of someone else's work against the will of the author.
Do you see the difference? In the first case, a person publishes someone else's work under his own name, claiming that he (the plagiarist) is the sole author, and in the second-benefits for himself from the distribution of someone else's work, without assigning authorship alone as such, without denying that the author of the work distributed by him is not him (not only him). Both are criminally punishable. But plagiarism - under the first part of Article 146 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and illegal use of copyright objects - under the second and third parts.

Likes: 1

05.12.2011 20:30, Hierophis

Dmitrich, yes, this link is another option, now I understand everything. By the way, the penalty for plagiarism is generally easier than for the second part, which includes illegal posting of books

About double standards, I'm telling you, you don't need to convince me, why waste time on someone like me

Anyway, I'm unlikely to change my mind, since I think they are there. For me, the truth is important, and not all sorts of flowers-gratitude, familiarity and "weight in society", it is known that it interferes with the flight of thought))))

Volkov said about the site hyperbolized, but not without reason. I know what I'm talking about, since I've been here almost since the site was created. I will not develop this topic, it is interesting for you - ask your colleagues, only objective ones, and not those who are used to telling everyone what they like.

But when someone talks about someone's inadequacy, I'm sorry, it's already something with something ))))))))))

05.12.2011 20:37, vasiliy-feoktistov

2) Illegal use of copyright objects is, for example, forced co-authorship (forcing the author to include inco-authors persons who are not related to the creation of the work (although it is extremely common in some scientific institutions? ), and most often - illegal reproduction and (or) distribution of someone else's work against the will of the author.

How exactly is that: If you are the author of any photos that are posted here and your authorship is not indicated, please write to me (pav_soap[@]rambler.ru), I will definitely fix it.
This is from the site where the borrowed photos are present. Is it really difficult to indicate the authorship right away? After all (I will say for myself)

I always post photos only of my own. And here and on two other resources in general under your own name. What does the site owner not know how to read?

05.12.2011 20:49, Victor Titov

Dmitrich, yes, this link is another option, now I understand everything. By the way, the penalty for plagiarism is generally easier than for the second part, which includes illegal posting of books

Did I say otherwise? You're reading again inattentively:

As for theft, it is condemned in any case. But, as they say, there is a nuance. It is one thing to post a book, monograph, or article for general download without changing the authorship, but also without obtaining the author's consent. And another thing is to post a photo online, or even more than one, posing as the author. From the point of view of damage to property (material) - an act that may be less significant. But from a moral point of view, it's disgusting to pass off someone else's work as your own. Especially when the authorship of an entire site is assigned.

About double standards, I'm telling you, you don't need to convince me, why waste time on someone like me Anyway, I'm unlikely to change my mind, since I think they are there.

And who persuaded you? I have only tried to explain my position to you as best I can, without trying to get you to agree with it. As for what is and isn't in my post, your opinion doesn't matter here at all: You have repeatedly, including today, proved that mindfulness and the ability to understand what you read is not your strong suit. I'm sorry to be so frank about it, but it's what it is.

Volkov said about the site hyperbolized, but not without reason. I know what I'm talking about, since I've been here almost since the site was created.

Since the appearance?! Oh, right? You are registered here only on 19.04.10. However, if you are another clone... Although, don't mention it here: the site has its own topic about such clones.

05.12.2011 21:35, Victor Titov

Yeah, of course, my opinion doesn't matter, it's in the style of big uncles, I understand, I understand
And the ability to denigrate an opponent is also very necessary in some, ahem, cases, yes

Horror, trolls, clones, photo thieves, just some kind of phobia, yes, how hard it is to live, but viya was still not enough here )))

1) Roman, your opinion does not matter to me personally only on a specific issue (indicated by me) and as a result of the arguments I have given.
2) No one has denigrated you. At least I did. All my statements about you are based solely on the content of your own posts.
3) My guess about whether you are a clone, again, is based only on your own statement that you have been on the site since its creation. According to your personal data, which you deigned to provide, you are registered on the site on 19.04.10. I - 03.01.07, and then-not from the moment of creation. This leads to a logical conclusion - either you exaggerate the period of your stay on the forum, or you have already appeared here under other nicknames (that is, cloned).

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 05.12.2011 21: 36

06.12.2011 1:14, VVolkov

It stung.

It's good. Then I will continue in a more mocking style. To make it clear.

"With what measure you measure, it will be measured to you" - exactly.

Here on the site, almost all books are stolen, articles are bypassed by licenses and publishers. Can I ask the authors? But you prefer it fast and without asking. As a result, publishers will run out of money, and they will pay authors less for their work over the years. Hungry authors won't feed their children. Well, etc ... no one will want to work... And the financial crisis will break out! Here.

About photos-maybe you came up with insects yourself? How long did it take to make the photo? I would have stolen the site from you, too. Basically. That you are sorry that someone else will use it better and promote science more actively? Couldn't protect the site? About the pathetic photos of butterflies and beetles-generally silent. Funny thing about photos. Pride stuck, and not a love of pure entomology?

Good luck.

Pages: 1 2