0

Maybe I was just overreacting, but as far as I was aware of coprighted work without any mention about permissions means by default, I'm not allowed to use, republicate, edit or display it.

In this post OP asks if his edit on an image is enough to avoid copyright violations, while embedding the original image and linking to his edited version.

How much of this image do I need to modify in order to avoid copyright violation?

He also indirectly mentioned the author has not put this work under any explictly stated therms, so beeing just automatic copyrighted. What implyed (but here is probably the point where uncertainity made be beeing wrong) for me, him not having any explicitly granted permissions to publish this work.

This was enough urge for me to post this meta article, whichs reactions confused me.

This should be urgent closed!

Since I'm some one who is absolutely pendantic about copyright permissions, I'm even emailing (probably anoyed) publisher of googled example images before I'm using them here to stay conform to the CC BY-SA 3.0 license.

But that reactions now sound to me like automatic copyright means I can feel free to use the work as long not directly prohibited by the author.

Is it that way? Can I post randomly pictures of other authors publishing it under CC BY-SA 3.0 without violating copyrights as long it is not recorded in any way, that the original author prohibits this(to me)?

  • To help clarify your thinking: do you also oppose the presence of any external quotes whatsoever on Stack Exchange sites? If you think the site can or should tolerate any amount of quotation from external copyrighted sources, why? – apsillers Apr 5 '16 at 14:51
  • @apsillers: Hm I never came across this and actually would have respected it in that way I guess. and why?! Well because I thought I had to do it that way. – Zaibis Apr 5 '16 at 16:16
2

Maybe I was just overreacting, but as far as I was aware of coprighted work without any mention about permissions means by default, I'm not allowed to use, republicate, edit or display it.

[...narrative trimmed...]

But that reactions now sound to me like automatic copyright means I can feel free to use the work as long not directly prohibited by the author.

Is it that way? Can I post randomly pictures of other authors publishing it under CC BY-SA 3.0 without violating copyrights as long it is not recorded in any way, that the original author prohibits this(to me)? [sic]

Nope. It's about fair use or fair dealing. There are a lot of questions and answers already posted about it which address it in more detail.

Also, your last sentence is a bit unclear... I'm not exactly sure what you mean by it, but I trust I've answered the main thrust of your question sufficiently.

As a side note, I'm a bit unsure why you've decided to react to this in this way. You don't have any legal right to request that someone else's intellectual property be removed from any site, unless the owner is or has authorised you.

  • To your site note, I thought this is something that contradicts with the license and therefor is in the interest of the network. It wasnt my intention to request it beeing removed, I just tryed to make someone aware of it to remove it, as my assumption was it actually is a vilation of this cc license. – Zaibis Apr 5 '16 at 14:07
  • 1
    It's up to the copyright owner to pursue (alleged) violations of copyright - it's no one else's problem. – Dale M Apr 5 '16 at 20:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.