RE: I Made Another Bot
I have a feeling where I doubt you will get comments form this bot, anyways lets jump into this.
If the Figure from the paper or the photo from the microscope is my, original work, and it's published (*in more or less that form) does it count as the violation? Because it's "original", "parent" photo, but it could be interpreted as the "modification of the published"
If you are taking a picture of something that is your work then I believe that you hold the copyright to it, even if you are following the directions of someone else. So if you hold the copyright then you would have to state somewhere that you are the copyright holder.
In case of the paper like this, licenced as Open Access and with the clear statement that it can be used, can we do screenshots?
If a study is open source then I believe that you may quote or use screenshots from the paper in question though in many (to all) cases a proper attribution is required, which is more than just a link sending you to the original source.
I hope that makes sense
I'm mostly concerned with the Q1, because once I get something published - it's locked even from myself. There are some papers I wrote, but I only have "Proof Version", and I have never seen the final version. In other words, it looks like I gave them all the rights.
Concerning the Open Access, warning for the authors, although it an Open access, there are still several sub-types:
And the combinations of all 4 previously mentioned cases
So, those symbols are ok:
and I suppose this one, but it's little grey (SA - share-alike):
This is very grey as SteemIt is sort of commercial:
I have no idea if it's ND (is direct screenshot a derivative or "original")
So, what's the final agreement after the post by @mobbs ?
I, personally, stay away from NC because I see steemit as a form of profit. SA is okay as long as proper attribution is given (many do not do this which is the main reason why this bot is created as many do not do the proper attribution.
I do not know the proper answer to say for question 1 (mobbs did go through the difference between SA, NC, CC0, etc)
Noncommercial is specifically related to making money from something, so in our case unless we choose to deny upvotes from our post, we shouldn't use them. UNLESS we ask permission. Email would count as evidence if they for whatever reason changed their minds.
I've emailed many scientists saying how I expect to make a certain amount of money from it and they've always welcomed it and expressed interest in seeing the final post. This is the best way to bypass the restrictions of law.
Regarding giving the rights to others, yes it would be like selling your rights to others but unless it's written in contract form with your signature it has little meaning and thus you basically still hold the original form - which is yours.
There's a lot of in depth answers you can explore in the USA FAQ which should clarify most things