|
Profiles and information on fanpop's users.
|
|
Invite friend
Image Credit for Dummies
|
|
|||||
I recently saw something that made my blood boil. A Fanpop user criticizing another user for not crediting an image - and then advising that user on how to credit the image in an irresponsible and legally unsound way. Bad stuff there.Let's forget for a moment that it's just plain rude to troll people's submissions and demand they add credit to them. Credit isn't required by this site and isn't going to be required any time soon, but some people seem to enjoy acting like it is. But like I said, we'll forget about that issue for now. Let's focus on the point of this article: Image Credit, itself. Who do you credit for an image? I've seen lots of answers to this question - most of them wrong. So who does get credit for an image? The person or entity who owns the rights to that image. In short, this is the person or group that is responsible for the image's existence. Of course, it's not always that simple. Let's look at some common kinds of Fanpop content and see who should be credited for them. Amateur photos: Credit belongs solely to the photographer that took the photo. Candid/Tabloid photos of celebrities: The photographers who take these photos sell their rights to either their employers or to contractors. These employers/contractors are usually magazines or image out-sourcing companies. In either case, the rights have been sold - and they now belong to the purchaser of those rights. If a photo is an "exclusive" to a magazine/site (think Brangelina's baby photos), then the rights belong to that source alone. However, if an image is seen in several official magazines/sites, then rest assured that the image belongs to the out-sourcing company that provided it. However, most celebrity pictures go viral once they hit the web. It's nearly impossible to trace them back to their original copyright holder. Professional photographs: These would be those glam photos of celebrities on the covers of magazines, fashion spreads, things like that. You can usually tell the glitz and shine of a professional photo as compared to a candid shot. Rights for these images are a little less tricky, as out-sourcing companies aren't usually involved. Also, since the images are part of an established photographers portfolio, they tend to retain the rights to all of their images and only license their use elsewhere. In these cases, credit should still go to the photographer. These images also tend to go viral and tracing them back to the copyright holders can be hard (though easier than with tabloid shots). Images of popular characters from anime/cartoons/toys/etc: These images almost always belong to whatever company owns the rights to that character. For instance, a picture of the Little Mermaid will always belong to Disney. It might've been licensed out to a company to make a shirt or a plate or something - but Disney still holds the rights to that image. Sometimes different companies will own the rights to a character internationally (for instance, in anime) - in which case, it's acceptable to credit whichever rights-holder you're most familiar with. Wallpapers: The rights to these belong to two parties. A) The person who owns the rights to the image(s) used in the wallpaper. B) The person who made the wallpaper. It's most common (and acceptable) to credit the person who made the wallpaper. Unless the site you've gotten it from is an artist's personal site, crediting the site you found it on is NOT proper crediting. Most wallpaper sites simply collect wallpapers from artists, slap their own watermark on the images, then provide them for download - often without the approval of the wallpaper artists, themselves. Icons: Icons are exactly like wallpapers in terms of crediting - only they tend to be more viral in nature. Often times, credit gets lost as people use them on forums or collect them on their webpages. But rest assured, the credit belongs to the person who made the icon - not the site you grabbed it off of. For instance, crediting "Livejournal" for an icon is incorrect. Crediting "usernamehere at Livejournal" is the right way to do it. FanArt: The characters used in the fanart still belong to whoever owns the rights for those characters (see the section for images of characters). However, the artist holds the rights to their art. Their usage of the characters is generally considered to be "fair use" and is usually looked over, but not always (ie Anne Rice). Screencaps: These images belong to the company that owns the rights to the movie/show/game that the screencap came from. Well, that covers just about everything. Hopefully, if you've read all of this, you have some idea of who to credit (and who not to!) for your images. Also, this might help some of you fight back the next time you're trolled for not providing proper credit. But... Just in case that's not enough ammo for you, here's some more things to consider. 1. Improper credit is WORSE than no credit! Artists HATE to see someone else credited for THEIR work. It's FAR better to admit that you don't know where an image is from and invite the rights-holder to contact you so that you can provide credit than to just guess and end up crediting the wrong person! 2. It's not STEALING if you don't provide credit. Nothing is more laughable than this one. Essentially, reproducing an image without the prior consent of the rights-holder is stealing. Now answer me this: Can anyone on this site claim that they've gotten permission from the rights-holder for every image they've posted? Of course not. Putting "Image from People.com" under an image doesn't make it any less stealing! In either case, you're still reproducing an image without People's permission. 3. Credit doesn't belong to the site you've taken an image from unless that site actually owns the rights to that image. The next time someone faults you for not crediting the site that a picture came from, remind them of this. Then invite them to find the actual copyright holder of the image and tell them you'll gladly add credit once they do. And finally... WHAT IF YOU HAVE NO FREAKIN' CLUE WHO AN IMAGE BELONGS TO? Your best bet? Be honest. Mention in the description that you're unsure who to credit. Ask for anyone who does know to comment and let you know, so you can credit properly. As in almost all cases in life, it's better to admit you don't know and you need help than to fake it and end up doing something wrong. |
||||||
Share this Link
| connect with us on | |||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Join this Spot
Well done, thank you, saved ,love it, five stars etc
I have said before that most stuff on fanpop is "illegal" or did i miss some kind of collaboration between tudou/zepped etc and cbs,abc etc?
thanks for writing this you make excellent points and seem to know what youre on aboot :)
i try to credit properly...but its not as simple as it seems :D
*cough*bulk uploading kills keywords*cough*
ditto gerley :p ♥
@Germany - I think we both must've missed that merger of Fanpop with, uh, everything and everybody! LOL :) I always try to credit as best I can, too - but it's almost impossible in some cases. It's like trying to trace dandelion seeds back to the dandelion that dropped 'em!
*runs off to upload bulk images just to annoy the bejesus out of germany* ;D
*casually walks away whistling*
*reports chel as a spammer*
*cough*And they're probably not likely to sit through such a long article*cough*
i remeber a article saying whoever had put the image up was responsible for following the credit along sort of thing
so thankyou for explaining some stuff, there is clearly a lot of false information on everything, or maybe it's different...i dunno
i would just like to say though, i did contact the user personally the other day about the not posting anymore stuff remark and explain my intentions, i explained how i was sincerely trying to help and that i had raised my rating to five after it had been edited, i hope you believe me in that only because i do not wish you to think ill of all fanpop users
thankyou thought for correcting me and publically calling me a dummy and a troll
Also, I think a lot of people have misconceptions about credit and who to give it to, as well as how important it is (or isn't). This article was written to try to clear those misconceptions up, so people on BOTH sides of the issue (if there even is sides to this) can be well-informed.
So yes, that incident upset me and spurred on the writing of this article, but the actual content of the article had very little to do with that incident and was not meant, in any way, as a personal attack on you. I apologize for being a bit snippy in the comment I made to you there, but this article was meant in no way as an attack on you and I'm sorry you took it that way.
*prepares to be yelled at*
oh aaand how much you like er mysteries ;)
but i like you anyway *hugs shadow*
edit: thanks germ 'e'. :P
I do try to credit all of my submissions as accurately as possible, for my own peace of mind. But if someone else doesn't care if they credit or not... Well, it's really no business of mine. They're free to not credit, if they want to.
But for those who DO care about crediting (either crediting their own submissions or "policing" the submissions of others), I hope this will be a handy reference.
3. Keywords? Are you kidding me? Please tell me you're kidding there. That is the most nitpickiest thing since nitpicky came to Nitpick Town. Seriously. I can't even argue why that's ridiculous... because I'm having a hard time imagining why anyone would think it ISN'T.
now THAT is baaaaad! because keywords are the only way to find specific content on this site and its hard enough as it is...
Also, I think this site is a bit OVER keyworded. You do a search for something and "specific content" isn't what comes up most of the time. It's general stuff popping up because people are adding every keyword conceivable for an item, instead of just the main ones.
I find it sad that the content on the site is playing second fiddle to the semantics of credit and keywords.
thats is just as bad as saying: put any credit you find and all keywords just so its keyworded and credited
What it comes down to isn't a difference of opinion about keywords/credit - but a difference of opinion on how to relate to other users. I don't believe it's my business to tell other people how to submit their content. Credit is an optional field. Keywords are an optional field. Both of these things are entirely optional and it isn't against site rules to leave either slot blank.
It isn't my job to add to the site rules and police other users' behavior regarding these issues. Do I think it would be nice if everything was properly keyworded and credited? Of course. Am I going to do my part to help by properly submitting my content to the best of my ability? Yes. Am I going to tell other users what to do and demand they adhere to my ideals? No.
The only answer I seem to differ on is the last one.
Frankly, if you ask me... I'd rather see more content on the site and less crediting/keywording, than less content on the site but with better credits/keywords. I mean, isn't this site all about content?
Also i have HUGE issue with the "fan art". Yes the character does belong to who created it but you can't just go "oh it's Cartoon Networks character, stuff the person that actually put their time and effort into it". That'd be like doing that to icons or wallpapers made by fans.
Another one you didn't mention is scans...who should be credited for scans? the website you got them from, the magazine they come from or the person who scanned them?
As far as scans... They fit into all of the above categories. A scanned photo of a celebrity is no different than any other photo of a celebrity. Putting an image on a scanner and pushing a button doesn't transfer ownership or any rights to the person scanning. The image is still subject to the same copyrights and laws as any other image and to the same rights and laws the image was subject to prior to scanning. It's polite to thank the scanner, if you happen to know who it is - but credit should not need to be given. They own the rights to the image no more so than someone who uploads a movie to the internet owns the rights to that movie. In other words, credit should STILL go to the original copyright holder. Granted, some scanners would argue this and insist they get credit - but in the real world, they don't have a legal leg to stand on. It's essentially up to you if you want to add credit to them or not. It's certainly not a requirement.
As for the keywords... Well, that doesn't actually have anything to do with this article. But nonetheless, I do support keywords. I've said this multiple times in these comments. I just don't support the OVER use of keywords and I also don't support bullying other users into adding keywords if their submission doesn't have them. It seems nitpicky and rude to me to criticize someone's submission based on whether it has keywords or not. But ultimately, those comments were brought in from another discussion elsewhere that has nothing to do with this article (or even the people who brought them up). Maybe someone else could write an article on THAT topic and we could all discuss it there ;)
Also, my comment about keywords was taken out of context. I don't find KEYWORDS ridiculous. I find picking on users for not using keywords ridiculous. There is a big difference there and I wish people would understand that before commenting on the issue.
With scans i feel they're the same as fan art. People put time and effort into scanning them and to not recognise them in any way, i think this may stop people from bothering to do anything.
Also i'm unsure now as to some other things...or a lot because you have made that article so tricky. Say i scan a magazine image, i upload it to a LiveJournal group and say the photographer and what magazine it is from...who gets the credit? Me, the photographer, the magazine, the LJ group or the company that owns the magazine?
(example in words is Snerkie scans and uploads a photo to WWE Photos on LiveJournal and notes the photographer is Kareem Black and the image is from WWE Magazine August '08, which is owned by WWE)
I think there is an article (or 10) on keywords already...and with the help of keywords i'm sure they could be found :) Also i think the fact you are saying comment shouldn't be made over keywords...people don't understand things for different reasons. One might be this article is too complex for people to understand crediting even now or people don't see the use of keywords unless told.
I must say I love ShadowFlame's admission as to why he does not always credit. I'm not sure I agree with his reasons (although I do clearly see where he's coming from) but I do so admire his honesty.
Certainly people can keyword however they want, sure...in much the same way that they can urge others to use proper keywords however they want. How you do these things (or whether) is therefore not a "how to use the site" so much as a matter of etiquette. On that note, might I suggest that this article be more appropriate in the Fanpop spot - as an instruction on one way to use the site - or the Fanpop Etiquette spot - as a recommendation for how to use the site? (waiting for debs to object) I don't really see what this has to do with Fanpop Users.
A final note on keywords: while I have seen some users post content with all ten keyword slots taken, just to arbitrarily hit more searches, my experience has been that such misbehavior is much more rare than content posted with no keywords. I am not a fan of lambasting users for "improper" keyword use - I much prefer reaming folks for miscategorized content! - but writing an article or even comments politely requesting more specific keywords for good content that would otherwise be lost seems a better outlet for such energies than to battle to fight than to let it be for fear of causing people to post TOO MANY keywords, precisely because there's so much content with no keywords. But I'd be delighted to hear if your experience has been different - it's quite possible that you've seen many many more links with extra, inappropriate keywords than content with no keywords. Let me know.
A final note on credits: some users are particularly touchy about image credits because they've said that images have needed to be removed from Fanpop for improper image crediting in the past. The copyright holders are paying attention to what happens with their property, and some users have expressed concern that, if left to continue as it has been, Fanpop will one day be bereft of a whopping large number of images if the major media copyright holders take similar umbrage. Of course, that may never happen. It's likely to become an issue only when Fanpop becomes very successful, as money is what is likely to focus major attention. If Fanpop never really succeeds, it's likely that it will continue to only be independent artists, small TV networks and minor production houses that cause a ruckus, making a relatively small impact on the site.
However to those folk that are really concerned about people 'stealing' their images off their websites they can take steps and prevent this. I am in the middle of creating a website myself and what I'm doing is disabling right-hand click on ALL images. It saves a lot of stress and takes a few seconds to do.
As far as scans go... Legally, scanning an article is reproducing it without the permission of the copyright holder. As I said already: you can credit the scanner if you want to be polite, but it isn't required. In the example you used, you would credit Kareem Black and/or WWE. Their ownership of that image does NOT change just because someone scanned it in. The image is still THEIR property and not anyone else's. That's not to say that you can't ALSO credit the place you found it or the person who scanned it. Again, that would be POLITE - but not REQUIRED. I hope that clears some of that up.
As for keywords... This article isn't about keywords. Crediting and keywording are two entirely separate issues and I don't want to confuse the intent of this article by mixing the two.
I also agree... I think this debate will probably rage on forever!
And I totally agree with you taking down the images that you did. If you own the images, it is your right to do with them as you please - and to stop others from using them in ways you don't approve of. Also, taking credit for another person's work is horrible. I'm glad you stopped that person from continuing!
To be honest, I was a little afraid of posting it in the Fanpop community, as I assumed that spot was a little more "official" and should be, as you put it, more for articles on how to use the site. I just assumed that an opinion would be better placed here, but I definitely see your point. As a new user, though, I have no idea how to move it... LOL :)
It might be the spots I'm hanging out in or maybe just me not noticing the empty keyword slots, but I seem to notice much more OVER-keywording than non-keywording. It's also likely a matter of me only using the keyword search function to find more spots. I can honestly say I've never used it (yet) to find content. Over-keywording a spot is a HUGE pet peeve of mine, since the search results only show a handful of spot results before you have to click "more results". Due to the random nature of the spot results in searches, it's very easy to totally miss a spot if there are too many spots keyworded to your search term. To be honest, at the time my comments about keywords were made, I was completely unaware that keywords are such a "hot" topic and that people even use them to find content regularly. I admit to being uninformed on the topic of keywords - which is why I didn't write an article about THEM! (Thank goodness!) ;)
I agree 100% with everything contained in your last paragraph. Image crediting IS important and I DO believe in crediting everything I submit as properly as I can. Although YouTube is a good example of a larger site effected by the "big wigs" of the world. Things are constantly being taken down from that site because of copyright infringement - and the copyright holders usually don't care if the works are credited properly or not. After all, the "stealing" aspect is in the reproduction itself, not in the lack of credit. Although I think Fanpop will be saved by the fact that the videos are only embedded here, but stored elsewhere - and by the fact that even "big wigs" aren't too interested (usually) in small-scale image theft.
I was a little bit concerned after reading your comments about your uncertainty on image crediting especially your fear of any backlash from other users. I am the first to agree that I strongly believe that one should at all times credit images and I know for a fact that most of the fanpoppers feel the same way. However I will repeat what I said in my earlier comments...
Fanpop does NOT hold image crediting as a requirement. This has been stated quite a few times by the F4. There is a recent forum where papa clearly states this (i'll try and look for the link and put it up). I have added this bit of information as you seemed so genuinely worried about the consequences of not crediting/crediting correctly an image. As much as I do encourage image crediting as I have already stated and I do credit everything I submit, I have never underrated anyone's content (if I think it is good) because they might not have credited the image, video, etc.
And if it's true that every week someone writes a new article about it... then obviously keywords are a bigger issue than I thought they were, since none of these articles come up on a search for "image credit" - aside from mine and something from DrD about movie image credits (and that's about 8-9 pages into the search results, so most people might not bother to look that far into them).
Also, my article might differ from some of the others. I'm seeking to educate on image credit, yes. But I'm also hoping to educate the very people who treated Blackdoggy so poorly (whoever they were). Not crediting an image isn't "illegal" and crediting the site one found an image on is NOT proper crediting. That someone harassed Blackdoggy with such MISinformation is unfortunate. It's the exact same kind of thing I saw that spurred me on to write this article in the first place. If I can give users like BlackDoggy ammo to defend themselves with against such people, then great. And if my article keeps some people from behaving that way in the first place - even better.
And I have to admit, it's wonderful to see another "grown-up" on Fanpop! ;)
astroasis: I very much admire your tenacity regarding this issue and your wanting to 'educate' the people that you feel are approaching this in an inappropriate manner. However,I have seen this same issue being flogged out over and over again and it's really a no-win situation. I do believe that most fanpoppers do support image crediting but the simple fact that Fanpop does not re-enforce it, is the main reason why this will never get solved. Well, not to EVERYONE's satisfaction anyway.
However, I've received comments here, in props and in private messages telling me that my article was helpful to them and that they appreciate it. I suppose my article has served a worthwhile purpose to some, even if not to you.
Ultimately... If this article helped even just ONE person understand the issue better, then I'd say it was worth posting. That it's helped more than one person... Well, that's even better.
Sign In or join Fanpop to add your comment