View Single Post
Old March 12, 2018, 12:56 PM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,048
Rule clairifications and proposed improvment.

Hello I hope this is the right section I'd like to get some clarification on copy right policy as well as propose a change to the drive-by rule.

Copyright Policy

"Anything ‘published’ on the web is viewed as intellectual property and, regardless of whether it displays a copyright symbol or not, is therefore copyrighted by the originator. The only exception to this is if there is a “free and unrestricted reuse” statement associated with the work."
"5. Photographs and other images are also copyrighted. "Hotlinking" of images (so that it appears in your message) from other sites is also prohibited unless you own rights to the image. If you wish to share an image, provide a clickable link to it."

A: If all works are considered copyrighted without unrestricted free use statement how does this apply to inpost loaded images ex: [*img*][*/img*]
Which has no accompanying text to include such statement.

B: How would such statements be verifiable, Example lets say I post a picture I've taken, How can I prove it's actually my picture and I own the rights to it?

C: Since the only exception is works that are free and unrestricted use, Does this mean the posting of a image I own constitutes a declaration that the image is free to be copied and used.. essentially giving up my rights to control the images redistribution from that point forward?

Drive-BY Posts

"One that contains a link and no meaningful commentary on the link."
"When making a post in an ongoing thread, please explain how your link/article is relevant to the thread. What may be self evident to you, does not mean others will find it so. Failure to do this will get your post deleted."

What would quality as a summery? At what point is that threshold met?
It's difficult to quantify how long or detailed an explanation of a link is to meet this rule.

Would a single sentence be acceptable? Is there a certain amount of of detail need to be met? EX:

Say im posting a link to a article about choke tubes, would "here's an article about choke tubes" be enough?

This would seem to be especially difficult when the subject of the link is a image.

If I posted a link to a picture of an choke tube.. what would be a good summery?
Would "here's an example of a choke tube" be enough? or must I be more descriptive such as: "here's a picture of a full choke, choke tube"?
Or further still "here's a picture of a full choke tube for a Remington 870"?
Or further still "here's a picture of a full choke tube for a Remington 870, I believe this is relevant because we are discussing deer hunting with shotguns."

which would be adequate?

Proposed rule change: Perhaps we could go on a word or character count basis, Say each link must accompany a 200+ character summery.

That would take some of the guess work as to whether we're complying with the rule.
NRA sold us out
This is America!, You have the right to be stupid.
JoeSixpack is offline  
Page generated in 0.03254 seconds with 8 queries