ScuzzBlog: Diaries June 2017
Entry 10th June 2017: Post: 01
Images used from my website
Hi
There is a well known image site that seems to allow users to copy
content from other sites and then stick them onto a users page without
any real subject discussion for I assume the purposes of generating
interest. I assume the site obtains revenue from adverts and the like.
Additionally, you cannot view the content without logging in and I note
from the login the site is linked to all the more well known social
media sites.
Here is the thing though.... cus my site is image-based and has a lot of
easy to link pictures I find my photographs all over the place. Many
sites are in languages that I cannot understand. I could translate but
what am I going to do. The one that really annoys me is the one I
discuss above that I will not refer to by name but I get whole pages
full of my pictures but I am unable to check them out because I have to
register to look at the content. I mean how insulting is that that there
is this company allowing pilfered images on their site that the author
is not allowed to view.
Thing is, as I watch videos on that well known video site, now littered
with adverts, and I do wonder just how much royalty is passed back to
the authors. I mean a guy that does a feature on a certain computer and
then inserts photographic content without any credit to the authors
surely is in breach of copyright. And yet I doubt the main distributor
monitors this. I am not going to bang on about this but a number of
companies now are being scrutinised for their publishing power in the
way they allow users to distribute content, and yet they seem to be
taking the old n'ster type stance that they are simply holding file
sharing for users and have limited responsibility for the content. I
actually don't buy that, simply that so many similar organisations were
taken down for the very same activity.
AND SO.... these companies do owe a responsibility to say me, given that
I have no control over how they circulate my images. The extreme being
that a linked picture could be being used to promote something that I
have no agreement with and so get tainted by the content. When it is a
private individual doing this I can kinda be more sympathetic, but when
its a company that also links the content to these larger social media
sites I am not sure they should be simply piggy backing on the content
of someone else's ownership without at least advising the persons
concerned of their intention to distribute that content.
I am sure if I complained I may get an apology and the content removed
but all the companies seem to play the game that they react after the
event and have very little control over content before it is published.
And even then they hide behind this file sharing aspect of control that
seems to infer they are not the official publisher. Sorry but the stuff
is hanging on your walls guys and you put the wall their to be used. So
your responsibility.
This actually has wider implications if you have been following recent
discussions about the power of social media.
The way you find out by the way if content is being reproduced is just
to search by image using Google. The point is that if Google can provide
that facility then maybe they also have a way of stopping the processes.
Dunno. I'm sure that eventually there will have to be greater control
over the ease it would appear that others are able to simply link
content for their own benefit.
I guess in the end if you don't want to see the ripples of your efforts
then don't drop the stuff into the pond. Just that pond owners don't
seem to be making anything creative themselves other than for providing
the pond. And those using the pond tend to feed off the ebb and flow of
those who probably don't even know they are being taken advantage of.
If you know what I mean. Big companies getting fat on the unrewarded
efforts of others is what I am trying to say.
Anyway... bed me thinks. Not a great issue.
scuzz
|
