Real Estate Blog - PLEASE DON'T PUT COPYRIGHT PROTECTED CARTOONS IN COMMENTS ON MY BLOG.

Home : Blogs : Lenn Harley, Real Estate Broker, Maryland & Virginia : Lenn Harley, Broker, Homefinders.com in Maryland and Virginia

PLEASE DON'T PUT COPYRIGHT PROTECTED CARTOONS IN COMMENTS ON MY BLOG.

I GOT A NICE COMMENT ON ONE OF MY POSTS TODAY that included a large cartoon.

The cartoon was clearly a professionally produced and syndicated one.

If the cartoon has been purchased for republish, there was no notice.

If the cartoon has been purchased for any use, there was no notice.

If the cartoon was free to use, there was no notice.

There was no attribution.

I see this on ActiveRain posts regularly and I just ignore it because it's none of my business.

However, when it's on my blog in a comment, I want to be assured that it is a legal republish.

I deleted the comment with the cartoon. That's about all that I could do.

Posted by Lenn Harley, Real Estate Broker, Maryland & Virginia on 02/02/2009 05:29 PM

Comments (26)

Post is included in group: The Ninety-ninth Percentile
Post is included in group: Realtors®
Post is included in group: Club Chaos

26 Comments on PLEASE DON'T PUT COPYRIGHT PROTECTED CARTOONS IN COMMENTS ON MY BLOG.

FEB

Lenn, I am surprised that ActiveRain didn't catch it. Maybe you were pro-active and saw it right away. I'd like to think that they would remove it if they knew at ActiveRain.

If they're smart (which they appear to be, as a fan/commenter on your blog, Lenn) they'll thank you for the deletion after they've replaced the nice comment on your blog, sans cartoon.

Those letters are not pretty.

**except- thank you- the liability of the blogger for the transgression of the commenter never occurred to me.

Good for you, Lenn!

Actually,this would be fine and acceptable if the source of the website was contacted and they granted permission.

For example, when I contacted Townhall.com, to ask if I can copy their cartoons (not for commercial purpose or resale), theyresponded and said that it's all right as long as it is mentioned as a source, or if a linkback is provided. This is true of other sites.

In some of my comments to other folks, I try to remember to do this as a subscript beneath the cartoon.

If the source is not provided, then yes, you should delete, or at least ask the person who posted it to amend the post to include the source if it was inadvertently left off.

If they took the time to comment, certainly, you can take the time to caution them on this omission of a critical detail that would have made the cartoon okay to upload. Right?

Lenn many people are still getting use to this whole Internet blogging and commenting thing, hopefully the person that made the comment will take what you did positively, and understands why you did it.

I've been noticing a lot of this lately. I think George is right so many people are blogging now. I think many people think that if you just say courtesy of NY Times or Fox News you can cut and paste text and or use their photos. Hopefully these newbies will learn from you.

I was fortunate to have you as a mentor. I remember a post of yours when I first started blogging. You said IF YOU DIDN'T CREATE IT, MAKE IT, WRITE IT, OR BUY IT, YOU CAN'T USE IT. IT ISN'T YOURS TO COPY AND USE.

I've been taking my own pictures ever since.

It is easy to lift the cartoon therefore it must be OK. Sometime we do things that sound good but the result is we harm ourselves or others. Remember what the Sargent on Hill street blues said" Be Careful out there."

Lenn,

Those smiley's and other pictures often appear in comments on my blogs...by, well, most who should know better.

I rarely post pictures on my blogs unless I took them myself. I have interesting pictures that people have sent to me, however, author unknown...so I refrain.

Great info as always! Thanks.

I'll bet I know which one it was. I recently read one of your posts and specifically noted a unique image, and wondered if you had created it.

There are a lot of things on here that i can only imagine are not legal -- perhaps they will eventually catch more.

FEB

Lenn, I'm one that really appreciates your posts on the copyright laws. I value what I have learned and thank you.

Pitica.

Actually,this would be fine and acceptable if the source of the website was contacted and they granted permission.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. There are many web sites that claim to contain images that are in the public domain, i.e. Wicipedia. Anyone can take an image and "declare" it to be public domain. One Wikipedia submission "declared" that my Fairfax County Map image was "public domain". It was not.

Not for commercial use??? ActiveRain is a commercial web site.

In some of my comments to other folks, I try to remember to do this as a subscript beneath the cartoon.

ActiveRain is a commercial web site.

If the source is not provided, then yes, you should delete, or at least ask the person who posted it to amend the post to include the source if it was inadvertently left off.

Just having the source is not having permission. Anyone can steal any image from any web site and publish it and just provide the source and it's still a copyright violation.

If they took the time to comment, certainly, you can take the time to caution them on this omission of a critical detail that would have made the cartoon okay to upload. Right?

Wrong. While I appreciate comments to my posts, I have learned that it's quicker to just delete than to

contact
ask them about the image or link
try to persuade them that what they did violated the ActiveRain guidelines
listen to them defend their action
have them refuse to remove the image or link that violates the guidelines.

NO, I don't have time for that. I tried that for about 2 years and gave up. I don't like playing copyright police.

Christianne. I doubt it.

Laurie. That's just it. We don't know what the liability of the blogger would be if a particularly ambitious attorney representing a particularly ambitious owner of images decided to sue anyone and everyone connected with the illegal publication of an image, cartoon, etc. We don't know. That's why it's safer to just delete. I don't take chances with copyright.

Margaret. Thanks. I appreciate that.

George. Thanks. I can't recall the member who made the comment. I just checked on the image and saw that it is a syndicated copyright protected cartoon series. Enough for me to delete - quickly.

Mitchell. I remember it well. I remember it well. You were smart enough to take a positive look at the copyright matter.

Terry. You bet. It's easy. That doesn't make it right. I don't care what folks publish on their own blog. I gave up on reporting violations because it didn't do any good. However, I'll delete anything on my blog that even sniffs of violated content.

Karen. Thanks. Good content will stand alone. Images are nice and I have a collection of them. However, they are all mine, mine, mine.

Lisa. The one in this article was a syndicated cartoon. Most cartoonist, particularly political cartoonists not only copyright their production, they sell rights to them, they don't give them away.

Bob and Carolin. I think not.

Mark. Thanks. I appreciate the support.

Lenn

Thanks, I didn't know you had experienced this problem frequently in the last two years.

By the way, I checked my resources again, and they clarified what they meant by "commercial" --- it's when you use the image(s) in an advertisement to actively sell a product/service. Blogging or comments don't fall in that category. I'm keeping their responses in my Active Rain folder so that I can refer to it should the subject come up again.

At my end, I will be diligent to mention and backlink to the source(s) of the image(s). However, I don't think this would be necessary to other illustrations that are either free or stock photos from a paid subscription service.

Take care

Pacita. Goodness. I surely disagree that ActiveRain, the blogs, the posts and the comments are not commercial.

"commercial" --- it's when you use the image(s) in an advertisement to actively sell a product/service. Blogging or comments don't fall in that category."

There may be some members who are not in the real estate industry, as the dear Codgers. However, most of us are here to promote our real estate services or mortgage services, home inspection services, staging services, etc.

We are most definately posting for commercial purposes. Even if we write about a trip to the beach, the Localism value is commercial. The site is commercial.

Lenn it never ceases to amaze me how little people understand about this subject. The unfortunate part about this is in due time some heads are going to be rolling. AR is a copyright violation haven!

Bill. Isn't it the truth. Sooner or later, someone will be hit with a C&D and Demand for Damages and the light will go on.

Lenn:

I believe many people are unaware of what is appropriate to use and not use. I know for myself that being on AR has taught me a lot about this issue and I appreciate all your posts trying to keep us informed and out of trouble.....Kelly Willey

Lenn, some of the new agents on AR are not familiar with the rules of the game. I would have probably done the same and emailed the agent to let them know. I think Active Rain is like real estate........so many are willing to jump in and get their license and sell without knowing how to write the offer.

Hi Lenn, I still have a question... If the commenter puts something on my post that is protected by copywright , and I did not put it there, am I still responsible for the content of his/her comment?

FEB

Kelly. Thanks. It's a passion of mine, no denying that, because I've had so much of my content stolen, I'm aware of the severity of the problem. I don't like the fact that so many fellow REALTORS would so Cavalierly take intellectual property of fellow REALTORS for their own gain.

Kay. You wrote: "I would have probably done the same and emailed the agent to let them know."

I used to do that, but my mail was usually ignored or the content thief got nasty and claimed that they had every right to do what they do. I decided to just dump them in the interest of time.

Mary. Depends on whether you look to existing or proposed law. Under existing law, you may have a defense of you didn't know. Under some proposed law, you, as the carrier, may be found liable for permitting the illegal content and can lose big time.

I've started to notice copyrighted photos aka ones from county websites starting to creep back into AR blogs again. I don't know if Harlan is still out and about or not but I am fairly sure that was not given from our local county government for use of the photos.

FEB

Cindy. That's a tricky one. Most county web sites are contracted with commercial vendors and the content is, indeed, copyright protected.

I have no idea what AR is doing about copyright violators. What I do know is that I see violations every day.

I'm not sure that it is possible to police copyright violators. I believe that the AR guys believe that warnings about copyright are sufficient and they may be right. If they are sued by the owner of a copyright protected image published on someone's blog, AR has the defense of their copyright policy and that may be enough to protect them.

If the judge asks for evidence of acts taken in furtherance of that policy, they have a few examples.

FEB

IMHO, putting a picture of any kind in the comments section of somebody else's blog is cheesy and unprofessional (I suppose unless it really is necessary to make the point and adds value to the post.) If the issue is further complicated by jeopardizing the blogger because the picture is copyrighted, it's just wrong on every level. Comment away but the post's author and opinion is the feature...not the commenter!

Sorry, the above comment was mine...I was logged out...yes, I'm NEW here ;-)

Sarah. Thanks for signing in. It helps to know who's making comments.

You're right of course. Comments are fine. Images just complicate things.

This blog does not allow anonymous comments