Be careful of posting New Yorder cartoons, Stan. My friend Beth is currently fighting with PicRights (https://picrights.com) who have sued her for $5,000 for posting New Yorker cartoons.
Beth's blog is a personal blog. It is not the blog of a registered charity, but neither is it a revenue generator for her. It is passive and followed by a very modest number of people.
Thank you, Chris. One last question, please. When she posted the cartoons, did she cite and give credit to the source? I deleted the one I used here because it was so old I didn't have a link for the source.
HI Stan, No, I don't think she sited the source and judging from the correspondence Beth has received from a powerful Toronto law firm that is acting as an agent of PicRights, it wouldn't;take have made any difference because she has no correspondence from the New Yorker authorising her posts.. Beth lives in Toronto.
Codex@Stan They are referred to as crawlers or bots. Companies do not have enough employees to check millions of blogs. Someone like the New Yorker may have special agreements with tech companies. Sponsorship can also be silent, takes too much effort to look into it.
Codex Did a quick check. Stringent copyright laws. You can link to the image not post it unless you get their permission or pay for the image. Conde Nast owns them. (They don't want to cheapen their brand) Non commercial is irrelevant. Have a look at their rules. You're welcome.
The bots and crawlers may very well explain why my un-advertised blog gets so many hits from so many different countries. Either that, or my blog is being used as a one time pad for stealthy comms. I note increased visitors from certain countries depending on events around the world.
PicRights wrote to Beth demanding payment. Beth hired a copyright lawyer who answered PicRights and tried to scare them off. A lot of time went by, and then, in the last week of August, Beth heard from PicRIght again demanding five grand. Beth is now back in conversation with her lawyers. PicRIghts is persistent!
This is a matter of no little concern to me, because over the past 18 years I've written almost 20,000 posts, most of them citing material from other sources. I had always assumed that if I cited and linked the sources for the material, not claiming it as my own, and if I wasn't profiting from the process, that I would not be subject to accusations of theft. I would love to hear some input from Miss Cellania and John Farrier over at my old stomping ground at Neatorama as to whether they have any concerns or experience in these matters.
Aren't we all? Yes to recharging!
ReplyDeleteEnjoy!!!
ReplyDeletebobbie
Be careful of posting New Yorder cartoons, Stan. My friend Beth is currently fighting with PicRights (https://picrights.com) who have sued her for $5,000 for posting New Yorker cartoons.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Did she post them in a for-profit venue?
DeleteThanks for the link, Chris. Sounds like this blog being non-profit is irrelevant.
DeleteCodex
DeleteLaws regarding images are changing and there are many class actions. Checking whether it's nonprofit is time consuming.
I can check whether TYWKIWDBI is nonprofit in a microsecond.
DeleteBeth's blog is a personal blog. It is not the blog of a registered charity, but neither is it a revenue generator for her. It is passive and followed by a very modest number of people.
DeleteThank you, Chris. One last question, please. When she posted the cartoons, did she cite and give credit to the source? I deleted the one I used here because it was so old I didn't have a link for the source.
DeleteHI Stan, No, I don't think she sited the source and judging from the correspondence Beth has received from a powerful Toronto law firm that is acting as an agent of PicRights, it wouldn't;take have made any difference because she has no correspondence from the New Yorker authorising her posts.. Beth lives in Toronto.
DeleteI replied as anonymous by mistake, Stan, when I answered your query.
DeleteCodex
ReplyDeleteCreative commons, fair use or permission and you're fine.
Codex@Stan
ReplyDeleteThey are referred to as crawlers or bots. Companies do not have enough employees to check millions of blogs. Someone like the New Yorker may have special agreements with tech companies. Sponsorship can also be silent, takes too much effort to look into it.
Codex
ReplyDeleteDid a quick check. Stringent copyright laws. You can link to the image not post it unless you get their permission or pay for the image. Conde Nast owns them. (They don't want to cheapen their brand) Non commercial is irrelevant. Have a look at their rules.
You're welcome.
The bots and crawlers may very well explain why my un-advertised blog gets so many hits from so many different countries. Either that, or my blog is being used as a one time pad for stealthy comms. I note increased visitors from certain countries depending on events around the world.
ReplyDeleteI hope that Mr.Stan will followup about poster Chris Loranger friend Beth who is being sued and what is the outcome.
ReplyDeletePicRights wrote to Beth demanding payment. Beth hired a copyright lawyer who answered PicRights and tried to scare them off. A lot of time went by, and then, in the last week of August, Beth heard from PicRIght again demanding five grand. Beth is now back in conversation with her lawyers. PicRIghts is persistent!
DeleteThis is a matter of no little concern to me, because over the past 18 years I've written almost 20,000 posts, most of them citing material from other sources. I had always assumed that if I cited and linked the sources for the material, not claiming it as my own, and if I wasn't profiting from the process, that I would not be subject to accusations of theft. I would love to hear some input from Miss Cellania and John Farrier over at my old stomping ground at Neatorama as to whether they have any concerns or experience in these matters.
Delete