As I see it there should be just one simple rule for situations like these: If the content is not yours, give credit or original link, and that's the end of the story. Users can upvote, downvote or ignore it - but they will know whether you made it or someone else did.
That's not the end of the story, though.
Say someone makes a post praising my photo work which includes my photos in it. Fine, thanks for the praise, but if your praise racks up the equivalent of a downpayment for a home and outranks any money I made on it (since I was who put the effort into creating it in the first place), how is that fair? There needs to be some sort of system in place that rewards the creators in those situations. If it wasn't for them, the creation would not be there to share to begin with.
Hmm, people are making money out of reviewing videogames on youtube, if you see people making money on your work on steemit, wouldn't this give incentive to the content creators to join Steemit themselves to reap the rewards? I like to see the best material on Steemit, just like on reddit people are posting stuff that they haven't created, but think other people would like to see. Maybe, if one were to say, post someones photograph, he should inform him about Steemit and link to that post just to see what the platform is all about.
If Yoda is posting beautiful pictures to this platform for people to see, I say let him. There are people who go to photography just to watch beautiful pictures. But there should be information about the origin of the pictures and link to creators other stuff/website. I'd also like them to be informed about Steem, if possible.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound appealing to me. That feels like someone stealing my car, then selling it, me catching them, only to end up being given a business card by the thief and being told, "Hey, if you ever want to get into selling cars..." Doesn't make sense. What if the content creator isn't interested in joining? Continue letting people on this platform reap the benefits of that creation?
Your car is a singular object that can't be duplicated - I don't think that's a fair analogy. A better analogy would be something like: someone stole my song when they downloaded an mp3, then selling it, me catching them, and forcing them to remove it.
It happens, right or wrong, and digital content rights are a huge struggle for society right now. You see the entertainment industry fighting it as hard as they can right now. The real question is what happens when steemit gets a DCMA takedown notice for a post in the blockchain? How does that get removed?
I think seeking permission should be required. I'd be curious to know how many yes answers you'd get.
You still have your photograph, you are getting exposure for your work, suddenly you find a new venue to profit from your work if you choose to do so, if not someone else will keep posting your good work, making more people aware of work. I could see big content creators eventually making accounts to steemit to battle someone else profiting from their work.
The law allows "fair use" - so when reviewing a videogame, you can use a single screenshot and it will represent 1 second of the game and is deemed fair use.
Similarly with writing, you can quote a small snippet the size of those blurbs you see in the search results, and it is deemed Fair Use. If you quote the whole thing without permission, it is THEFT under the law.
And with photos - by definition you are using 100% of the original creator's image, unless you are only posting a snippet of the picture from the top corner. Under the law, this is theft, which means that the owner has the right to pursue you and force you to pay damages.
In such cases it may depend on the copyright or other license that the original content is provided.
By default in the US, at the moment of creation, copyright belongs solely to the creator unless sold. Granted, to further strengthen this, you would want to register your copyright.
This is correct, but it does not require that the copyright owner enforce any or every instance where the work is used. It is up to that party, and that party alone, to decide whether, for example, getting exposure on the Internet via social media is a net gain or a net loss. No one can legitimately impose such a decision on the copyright owner.
Obviously though, the platform is global, and not all territories share the same laws attached to content. I think it's a good sign of "maturation" that we've started discussing ethical and legal implications of steemit posting rules. What I'm currently thinking is the extension of these legal implications: Say an author wants his copyrighted text removed from the blockchain, what then... (I'm not mentioning photographs, because these are typically hosted elsewhere). Who's gonna do it if the platform is decentralized?
Interesting times ahead....
No reply button for you. But I agree. Definitely interesting times. I feel a new kind of common sense for this type of platform will probably develop. There will be some kind of overall rule for copyrighted content. Obviously, as we can see in our discussion, varying opinions abound. There should be some kind of reconciliation.
We don't need to be told that, even! It's general courtesy to leave a credit at the end. I credit even when the source is a public domain gallery or something.
Seems pretty easy to me.
Here is a new type of post about my first salvia trip man please check it out and let me know what ya think :D
https://steemit.com/new/@stealthtrader/my-first-salvia-trip
