This is really good information. I do have a question: the picture you used says "no attribution required", does this mean that we don't have to credit the author of the picture?

Hi @mrcoolizade, thanks for tuning in. When you see an image that says "No Attribution Required" you need to check if this image has been licensed under the CC0 1.0 Creative Common International License (Even if stated otherwise, you want to be sure and not rely on other peoples findings). If this is the case, you can do whatever you want with it. Even though this is not required, I do highly suggest to properly source it and credit the creator. Curators and people can see where you have found the image easier and are more likely to up-vote your content.

Thank you for that prompt response! I gave credit in my first couple blog posts but saw people were not crediting pictures that had "no attribution required" so I followed along with the crowd. After reading this however, and given that the effort is really minimal, I will start to credit every source that isn't myself. Thanks again!

You're more than welcome. Always investigate yourself if the work you are using is licensed for Commercial Use. For example: Users may have purchased a license directly from the creator.

Yeah a CC0 license does give you permission to use without attribution, but as @xposed here mentions it is still nice to give attribution if you can even in that case - it is an easy way to support a content creator that is putting free use content out there.

Thanks for the swift response! With your help and the help of @xposed I will take the time to make sure the proper people get credit for their work.

Also, buy crediting the work properly, you make it a lot easier for curators that consider to curate your post. Sourcing and using work that can be used for commercial use can be motivating for a curator to up-vote your post. In this case, it is beneficial in three ways :-)

I will help you if you vote for me. In this way everyone can help by voting for all. Waiting for you

How about protecting your own creations on steemit? Is there a method too? Kind regards and muchos Gracias for your post. I learned a lot in like only 10 minutes. ♡

Hi, @life-on-earth, all work published by the original creator on Steemit is automatically protected by copyright. It might be strange, but crediting yourself directly under your own work should be making it clear that it is your work and states that it is protected by copyright. Unfortunately, people who want to steal, will steal. Reporting plagiarism to @steemcleaners is the best way at the moment to 'punish' people who are plagiarizing. 'Protecting', however, is not necessarily needed, since your work is already protected by law. Hopefully this helps.

This was very usefull! Makes me fall a sleep at night, thanks alot @xposed!

Don't let the bedbugs bite ;-). You're more than welcome!

That statement is misleading, you have to apply for a copyright/trademark license and pay the applicable fees. You are not protected just by printing your name on or below something.

The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works - which is ratified by most countries, including the USA - declares copyright to be granted when an artwork is created. Registration is not required for the author get the copyright.

In the USA registration with the Copyright Office is useful for e.g. legal reasons (lawsuits) but that does not mean that non-registered is not protected. Copyright still applies.

In other countries there is no registration at all, and also there copyright violations are settled in court when necessary.

In the USA only materials registered can be granted monetary and attorney fees relief from lawsuits brought forth. The US was part of the Berne Convention but opted to keep intact that provision. There is also the fair use doctrine in the US that allows use of copyright material as long as that use does not supersede the value to the author, such uses would be educational, or like here on Steemit published for debate or criticism. Also copyrights do expire in almost every country, with each country having a different set number of years that those right expired, with most generally around fifty years.

Here on Steemit, every work that you do not own and publish requires a commercial license. Whether you make a penny or not. the purpose of publishing your work on Steemit is to receive currency -or you can decline payout, and even then it requires a commercial license(!) since your account is attached to a wallet and dependable on -pending- pay-outs. Period. Do not spread misleading information like this, this will only lead to confusion.

Yes, you are right that there are works that require an application to be indexed as copyrighted material. But this is only applicable and interesting to and for bigger companies and not for freelance content creators who work on their own. Whenever they work for bigger companies that require that kind of license, the requirement to deposit a license to be indexed is utter nonsense since -all created work is protected by copyright the moment it has been created, by law, and by any law. The company, however, can insist that the work needs to be applied for those kinds of licenses that require a fee to be paid, which that same company will pay. Other than that, what you are saying does not apply at all to the above comment and question in mind.

I hope you are aware that I did go look it up, and yes it is copyrighted but in the US unless you file and pay fees to your copyright, trade mark, patents you cannot sue in a court of law for monetary damages. Sorry to burst your bubble but that's just the way it goes down, I could sit here all day and post news articles off media sites for debates/discussions under the fair use law and as long as I am not altering that content, claiming it as mine or making a considerable amount of money to my benefit there's absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. I am sure Fox News doesn't care I made two cents posting some article. Actually on the other site I blog on I do that all night long, and to probably your horror so do hundreds of other people blogging on that site. Don't believe me go check it out, it's call Disqus.

Not true my friend. In the US you do not need to file anything to have ownership. If you create it then you own it and someone has to show they owned it before you did in order to dispute that claim.

If you file and get a document from the federal govt. like a i.e. a copyright showing that you had possession and ownership of the created piece of IP on that particular date when it was filed, it can certainly help in a court of law, but you can do that at the time you sue if you do not have it. So once you discover there is financial gain from your work being made by someone else, if you have not done so already, you simply register and then you are set.

How is everyone using everyone else's content right now? What you see going on right now online is content creators being in a transition phase. No one knows how to react because it has all come on so fast. But that will change. But understand that technically anytime someone publishes someone else's original work without permission, or a license it is illegal. Whether it is in a book or a magazine or a website. It is just that the laws never accounted for something like the Internet. What you will see over the next 5 to 7 years are new laws and no one will be able to to just post someone else's content without permission, or license without a legal repercussion. I actually hear that a company is working on a blockchain solution to prevent this from happening.

It is coming and this is why you see companies like Facebook now trying to get right with content creators. I have been involved in this issue and have been a publisher for 30 years. Thanks.

Like I said you do own it, without being registered the most you can do is go to court for a cease and desist order. If you are filed you can sue for monetary damages. You can not sue for monetary damages that would have existed before you filed, like if someone was using your work and making money before you filed, you could only sue for damages that occurred after you filed. Plus there is still the fair use doctrine, which gives you a right to use another's work as long as you accredit them and there is no significant monetary return.

Hey @sunlit7 I think you have patent, trademark and copyright mixed up together. Although there are different laws for copyright world-wide, I'd like to point out that whenever a work has been created, it is instantly protected by copyright -by law.

Yes I said that. You are absolutely correct. But here in the US if you do not file and pay fees to protect your work you cannot file for monetary damages in a court of law.

Hey @sunlit7, you said that the statement we made to @life-on-earth's question is misleading, which is untrue. Instead, your statement is confusing and misleading since all work created is copyright protected by law. Filing for compensation on monetary damages is a different topic and needs to be approached differently depending on the country where you live in. Keep in mind that Steemit is a global platform where users join across the globe, and not just USA.

We wish to keep the matter on topic and as clear as possible to as many Steemians without going in too much depth. If we would, we would have to be explaining the entire database on Copyright law worldwide which is a task that can't be covered in a blog post this size.

I know, that's why I repeatedly said within the US. I did make note in one of my comments that every country was different. We patented an item a few years back so I knew that "total" protection came from filing. If you want to protect your work best thing is to check with your countries laws and follow the steps for the best protection.

This should read by every newcomer to Steemit! Thanks for the info :-)

Thank you very much @simonhamelin, we have tried our best to cover Copyright for all members on Steemit. Please considering resteeming this post to spread the word.

I didn't even know resteeming was a thing, I'll do it now :-)

I will help you if you vote for me. In this way everyone can help by voting for all. Waiting for you

This one get's you a spam flag, enjoy.

Lol! Thnx erodedthoughts!

Fantastic article. I have been in these discussions quite a bit lately about content. I also wrote an article a while back about where and how to find CC0 pics. I can link it is f you like. Thanks

Hi @davidallenjones, thank you. Copyright is a heated discussion, and a gray area for a lot of people who do not know or understand what copyright is. If you have any suggestions on adding links where only work is published that can be used for commercial purposes we are happy to add those links to our blogpost.

@xposed thanks for this post and to bring up the topic. This entire area is one that is hotly debated as you say and will continue to be for quite some time. In terms of sites, I am sure you are aware of places like Pixbay and Pexels where you can get photos with CC0 licenses. There are several other good ones like PxHere too. The reasons that photos and video sites like these are available is because the advent on low cost high quality cameras and so many sites selling them to traditional places that it wrecked the photography industry. When you add in that people are also using GiFs and memes from content with no credit paid, you can see that things are in a bad way for those who take pictures.

So most photogs have thrown in the towel and are looking to see if the new model of volume or giving away pictures as marketing for their services, or setting up on sites like Patreon actually pans out. I can tell you it has for only a very few photographers and most of the great ones I know struggle.

Longer form content is a more complicated issue. As you probably know newspaper and other periodical companies are under real pressure to make money but they are scrutinized. Today, they are under onslaught by regulators demanding high quality content and accountability. They need to be both profitable and responsible. So if they create content and set up licenses and that content ends up on sites that are focusing on terrorism, racism or other bad things, it can come back to haunt them. Also they do not have a revenue model for all of this. The tech has been way ahead of the laws and no one has wanted to slow things down for fear of stopping the tech money trains, so it is a mess right now.

On top of this, you have cheap online sites providing low quality content much of which is merely the traditional publishers content either rewritten or simply copied.

So finding good content that is not copyrighted and valued is really difficult. there are a few sites like http://www.copyrightfreecontent.com/ and there is this site that has links to public domain online resources http://publicdomainreview.org/guide-to-finding-interesting-public-domain-works-online/ but there is not a whole lot. Smart publishers are simply wating for laws to be rewritten to cover them for what is happening now. Many believe that the big guys like Facebook and Google will have to pay billions retroactively to content owners (Steemit would also be on the hook). Where and how this will end is anyone's guess but the direction is toward more regulation and more policing not less.

So you are left with two choices. 1. Take other people's content and hope that it does not come down on individuals. ( I personally think that there is a good possibility that this is the case).
2. Only write your own content and get content from sources like the ones I mentioned. Of course people can always use quotes and references, but you have to be careful that neither of these are the focus of your article or you are flirting with a problem.

Just my thoughts. and one more on a personal side. I am a firm believer in protecting creator rights. It takes time, sweat and resources to create content. Guys like Mark Zuckerburg have exploited the content of others (yes posts on Facebook is content too) to become one of the richest people in the world While many of the musicians, writer and other creative people cannot make any money. Same with Google's Youtube in many cases. Creators make these platforms run. So they should be paid.

I am in a fight right now with Spotify for the same reasons. They are about to go public at a $26B USD valuation meanwhile their writers and small publishers make very little. This is not sour grapes nor is it not recognizing changes in business models. I get and understand that times have changed, but if people still love the product (they do), then why are the people that create it getting paid any more and those who market or co-opt it making so much money. Without our creative people life becomes less interesting so we need to protect them. With this said, some common sense changes have to be made and I am hopeful with things like blockchain we can both create new models and break the content monopolies that are very outdated. Let's all stay focused on these issues. A place like Steemit has to because its future depends on it. Hopefully I answered your questions and thanks.

Steem Isn't Copyrighted, the whole idea of blockchains is to be open source, open source is fundamentally against IP. Creativity has happened despite Copyrights, in fact, the very first law regarding copyright was to censor and not to protect.

People didn't suddenly become more creative simply because a publisher could pimp them out. People have created art and music and been compensated in less freedom encroaching ways and logic assaulting basis than through copyrights.

Copyright advocates forever hold onto the myth that it spawns creativity, but this has never been demonstrated, what has been demonstrated is that both technological advancement and the age of enlightenment were stalled for a long time, the effect of which the petty compensation by this method could never offset, and it accrues still, people having to be dragged in court over downloading music because copying is stealing, what an abuse of logic.

Being compensated for something that is INFINITE and can be exchanged with the most effortless grace to countless people, with something finite, which comes through the sweat and brow of people usually. Compensation so as to keep art or idea in artificial scarcity, so as to monopolize on being the first to think or create it and to be enforced by and large for the detriment of consumers and for the appetite of the producers even though there are plenty of other means to be compensated besides hoarding over ideas.

Even though it says it promotes creativity, it can be demonstrated that it only stops people from pursuing something further and forces them to either pay or think of something better, like the fidged spinner which was stalled by 25 years sitting behind patent protections only to be capitulated once the ideas were free from the clutches of these poor sods that believe someone is going to protect them, all the while they exploit them, and hoping that the act of hoarding ideas will provide them with a big fish on the hook.

Copyright it's the antithesis of freedom in the aspect of freedom of thought and in the finality of freedom of expression for it's quite inconsequential who thoguht of it first and completely selfish, and nobody stops anyone from capitalizing on the first movers advantage, but alas the Fear Of Missing Out is one among the many fear-based emotions that rule people, instead of using their mind to think on how to capitulate on any idea, that is if they're not too enthraled with becoming a gazillionaire off their fidged spinner, only to not be able to afford to keep the patent after t hadn't been used for 25 years and watch them make money while they get nothing.

IP as @Ned and @Dan have demonstrated in their posts, in their support is not something that can be made better, the concept is flawed inherently.

https://steemit.com/steemit/@ned/my-announcement-march-15-2017

https://steemit.com/musing/@modprobe/a-brief-musing-on-intellectual-property

and most importantly

https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/making-steem-really-open-source

and

https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/against-intellectual-monopoly-chapter-1

Creators do make these platform run, but not Copyright. It's actually something other than copyright that DOES pay them much more than copyright can.

Understanding the way how Copyright works at this very moment by law is one thing. Denying it, is another. Learn, adapt and move on.

You're accusing me of what exactly? Not understanding or Denying it, or both?

How do you learn, adapt and move on from the banality of copying is simply stealing?

abuseoflogic

Thanks for sharing @xposed

Lets spread the word about Copyright!

Awesome stuff there. Everyone needs to read this and get on with this initiative. Glad to resteem.

Thank you @misterakpan, I totally agree and thank you so much for Resteeming this blog post about Copyright.

Copyright is illegitimate and not property rights. We just want more good content from the people who create it. Support the originals and downvote the copycats. With timestamping we don't need anything but reputation - plagiarism destroys reputation. They should just get on Steem if they want the money.

Are you implying that Copyright should not be seen as intellectual property?

There is no such thing as intellectual property. It's a state granted monopoly over an intellectual domain. It's property in the same way people used to be property in that it doesn't make any philosophical or logical sense for society. If people want to make money from what they make, they should find a way to do it without shutting down speech. Why limit the spread of your meme? It only attracts more people to you when you come out with more awesome stuff. Reputation works. People sharing only increases your popularity. Copyright ruins everything - just look at the Pepe lawsuits. Fuck that guy, he just ruined his reputation by bullying people who used his meme. So that's sort of where I'm coming from. It's counterproductive.

Luckily we have Creative Commons 0 1. International Licenses for your concern about Intellectual Property where the creator waives all their rights and make it available to the public.

So, basically, you're saying that whenever you make a sandwich, and it is so amazing that I see it as art, I can just take it and bring my friends? It would make you popular, for a brief moment, but it will not feed you at the end of the day if all your bread has been taken. I am trying to speak to you in a way you might understand. Because, this is not sustainable.

The consumption of content is at a rapid pace we barely can keep up with. Addicted Facebookers consume 100's of images by just staring at a screen and scrolling through their timeline.

I agree, the pricing of a license needs to be adjusted to nowadays standards. In my opinion, with such rapid consumption this is too high. But entirely denying the amount of time someone has put in their work, whether it is a sandwich or a photograph, is ignorant and is simply not sustainable. We should not judge things, for any matter, with our own value, that's selfishness and arrogant. Unfortunate we live in a dualistic world where something has value or not and where bills have to be paid. While you value Intellectual Property as nothing, the majority does.

>So, basically, you're saying that whenever you make a sandwich, and it is so amazing that I see it as art, I can just take it and bring my friends? It would make you popular, for a brief moment, but it will not feed you at the end of the day if all your bread has been taken. I am trying to speak to you in a way you might understand. Because, this is not sustainable.

Nobody basically equated a tangible thing to an intangible construct. If you take that sandwich and want to show it to your friends you need her permision because it's HER sandwich. If you think of an idea and make it know, you cannot compel anyone to not act on that idea. Two different scenarios that even if they seem similar they could never connect the logical inconsistency of monopolizing ideas for advancing art. The name for that is a false analogy. The point that it's not sustainable needs to be established through simple common sense logic, consistent reason. There's is nothing to discuss otherwise, until you establish some things that actually represent the abstract and can be verifiably true and aren't merely assertions then maybe we can talk about copyright.

>The consumption of content is at a rapid pace we barely can keep up with. Addicted Facebookers consume 100's of images by just staring at a screen and scrolling through their timeline.

>But entirely denying the amount of time someone has put in their work, whether it is a sandwich or a photograph, is ignorant and is simply not sustainable.

The only unsustainable thing is copyright.

>DOES COPYRIGHT LAW MATTER?
AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF CREATORS’ EARNINGS
[version May 2012]
Martin Kretschmer

I posted the link above. Nobody is denying anything and better fees won't make the underlying premise any better. The foundation is built on magical thinking and absurdity, it's got no place in an enlightened society, only in a petty one. People are not denying people being compensated, and people can be compensated and we don't need copyrights, as evident by the study above.

>While you value Intellectual Property as nothing, the majority does.

The majority who? The courts?

>Supreme Court clarifies the basis for why copyright suits over unregistered works should be dismissed

http://blog.internetcases.com/2010/03/03/supreme-court-clarifies-basis-for-why-copyright-suits-over-unregistered-works-should-be-dismissed/

Intellectual property is saying "I made this sandwich, no one can make a sandwich like this except for me now, and if you make a sandwich like it, I'm going to come to your house and smack it to the ground", even though you bought all the ingredients.

@xposed a very important and interesting
Post thank i for sharing

You're welcome. Please Resteem and share it with your friends.

It’s done i resteemed it 👍🏼

I will help you if you vote for me. In this way everyone can help by voting for all. Waiting for you

Excelente información @xposed , sobre todo para los que estamos iniciando el camino en steemit. Gracia!! SALUDos

I will help you if you vote for me. In this way everyone can help by voting for all. Waiting for you

People think that the internet is big enough that no one will notice plagiarism. But unfortunately for them internet has too many amateur investigators who capture such details. :D

Thank Google for reverse-image tracing @voraz! Thanks for tuning in.

I will help you if you vote for me. In this way everyone can help by voting for all. Waiting for you

Leaving comments asking for votes, follows, or other self promotional messages could be seen as spam.

Your Reputation Could be a Tasty Snack with the Wrong Comment!

Thank You! ⚜

Thanks a lot for doing this. I too believe lots of copyright issues happen because people either don't know better or they believe it's no big deal.
I think it is important to have that in mind when trying to educate (and convince) people and I think such an initiative is the right approach :)

Thank you for your support @christianunger and thank you for your resteem. Educating people properly about Copyright seems to be an issue as well, so we tried our best to cover it all in a nutshell.

I think it's important to point out that simply crediting a photographer is NOT OK for just any photo you find. It has to be Creative Commons. As a photographer I've spent a lot of time chasing down people making money off my photos and they think it's OK because they've credited me.

Hey @kieranstone, from a photographers perspective I can def. agree with this. However, there are people who simply do not know how copyright works. The most beneficial way for both parties is to educate and propose the plagiarist to purchase a license for the normal fee, before adding extra fees. This will make your lawsuit, if it ever turns out to become one, more realistic. In the defense of a plagiarist they could simply tell that they 'honestly' did not know and that they would like to have an opportunity to pay the normal price whatever you would charge. I have a list of different types of licenses plus prices on my business website, that are usually very well received by the judge or lawyer whenever I have to point this out that it is clearly visible and stated on my website. Even after purchasing a license I 'demand' credit under my work, unless agreed differently. I know this is frustrating, but try to keep your cool and see it as an opportunity to get paid for your work without spending too much time into court. Focusing on creating more awesome photographs is so much more rewarding ;-). Wish you all the best of luck.

The few people that I have got in touch with have paid me what I asked for, which was no different from a standard licence few for what they used the image for. They like to argue about the price and I say "I'm not going to negotiate the price after you've already stolen my image". Another thing is "ignorance is not innocence". I am a strong advocate for Photographers rights and provide information in my podcast too.
Thank you for writing your post too as the more people are aware of these things the better off the industry will be. I have resteemed :)

So the cost of registering your work

https://www.copyright.gov/docs/fees.html looks awfully expensive, usually much more than people do commisions for, and how much of the fees and effort, time included did you recoup from those people you spent your invaluable time to chase down?

Sounds like Watts and his steam engine patent, until he held the patent he didn't innovate or do anything else besides fighting to uphold his monopoly.

Copyright automatically applies to any photo I take. I don't need to register it. Licencing of images can be 1000's of dollars per image depending on the use so it's worth chasing people if they've taken it without consent. It doesn't happen often but even once is too much.

And how much are you going to recover in damages exactly, lolo.

I wonder why licensing is even there lololol if it's automatic/ #abuseoflogic.

same here! and we put so much effort into this kind of work... what do you think: how much is video like this worth? https://d.tube/#!/v/muktivat/rnp4mfsd

Contact me @ discord, delete your clip for now(!). Ill explain.

That sounds like a productive way to spend your time "Hey stop copying my work!".

If people stopped stealing images we wouldn't have to waste our time. But some people are too lazy themselves and think they can grab anything they find on the internet. It's like taking someones car just because it's parked in a public area. People know that is wrong but they'll happily take intellectual property from someone

I seee, so it wasn't a productive waste of time, errm, they made you do it. If only you had spent your time doing something unproductive, erm, you catch my drift.

It's not like taking a tangible thing, but nice try.

I try to do a good job and get images from pexel or pixabay, I could have still sourced better. Thank you for pointing that out. I will try to do better at this. Upvote for useful info

Hi @drpuffnstuff, please understand that you do not have to credit work that fall licensed under a CC0 1.0 Creative Commmons International License. On Steemit, it can also be more rewarding for you since you will make it easier for Curators to find the source and CC0 license. Despite that, you also show respect and appreciation to the creator who has created the work.

This is an amazing article btw, stunningly well put together explanation of how to avoid copyright issues whilst using this platform, but also helping the original creators get the credit they deserve. However I must be a dingus, I am a video art creator, and also make music; so heres my example.

I created the music entirely by myself HOWEVER the music video I cut up and re edited to fit the narrative of my song would this be considered copyright issues? I uploaded the video to youtube and did not get a copyright strike (even after months of being there) and for additional information, I am currently at an Art Foundation course at the UK that is covered by an educational clause in copyright law that allows me certain leeway when its comes to using other artists work if it is for educational purposes and a factor of my FMP (which it was)

TLDR; your input would be massively helpful as I want to promote and get a following on this platform but want to do it strictly by the book

MANY MANY THANKS BIG LOVE FROM THE UK <3

Hey @blockchainyouth, thank you! Glad that this blog post was educational for you! About your question: If the work of the video is free to use, for commercial purposes you're good to go. If you have purchased a license to use this work for commercial use, you're good to go. If you have ripped the video from the creator (or any other uploader), modified it, and have placed your own (copyrighted) audio channel underneath it, you're plagiarizing -if- you publish the work for commercial use. You're stating that the contents of the video can/may be used only for educational purposes, therefor it should not be published on Steemit, since anything we publish here is automatically seen as commercial use. Your best bet to publish this on Steemit would be using work that can be used for commercial use.

CC0 licensed videos on Pexels
CC0 licensed videos on Pixabay

AGHHH YES VERY TRUE I FORGOT THATS WHAT FORM TUTOR SAID, that I could have even have it on a giant projector in St.Pancreas but if it is used to generate revenue as you said......Okay so my best bet, is to publish song, with accompanying visuals that I have created and not use the original playboi carti video; and see thats the thing, its not hard to create these visuals yourself and enjoy the knowledge it is 100% I think that human laziness and a lack of motivation come into play here so no thank you for your insight I am determined to do this properly.

Yes, exactly! If you need some tips on how to create motion graphics I think VideoCopilot did some cool tutorials. But I believe you know how to create that already.

I replied to @blockchainyouth in regards to same but want to point out to you that there is a "decline payout" option you can use while posting to Steem blockchain - this would be appropriate for non-commercial/educational usage rights

Hey just want to build on @xposed's comment - you can actually publish a post here on Steem blockchain using the "decline payout" option - this would cover you as far as the commercial intent, so if you want to publish your educational posting here you can do that with decline payout if there is a question of usage rights being allowed for non-commercial/educational use.

good post greetings from Venezuela

Say hi to Venuzela from us with a big resteem!

Sure! follow please

This is one of the easiest mistake most new people in Steemit incur myself included.

I remember my first blog posts and I got my images from Google and Wikipedia and under the image I would say Image gotten from Google.

I thank the person who commented on one of my post and told me how to properly cite a source and even gave my first primer on using Pixabay and Unsplash.

It is our responsibility since we are writing a blog post that we properly credit images, research and information from other websites and quotations to the right people.

Thank you for this one.

Hey @maverickinvictus! Good to see you here, we all have made that mistake. And we are human, so no worries. Talk to you soon.

Este contenido es muy importante, muchas personas no saben a que atenerse cuando copian una publicación, incluso yo desconocía, cierta información sobre las licencias me fue de mucha utilidad y pondré en practica sus sabias sugerencias. compartiré y recomendare su contenido.

Muchas gracias @lefiram, lo siento, mi español no es tan bueno. Me complace que encuentres esta publicación de blog de uso para ti.

Очень полезная информация!! К сожалению не все знают что такое плагиат. Я когда-то тоже была новым пользователем. Теперь знаю немного больше. )))

Эй, @olesia, мне приятно узнать, что вы узнали что-то большее о плагиате! )))

Я американский автор. Я родился здесь и всю свою карьеру. Американцы, как вы, наверное, знаете, как судебные разбирательства. Существуют крупные компании, которые имеют адвокатов в Нью-Йорке, которые очень, очень ревностно относятся к своим авторским правам. Однажды меня привлекли к суду, потому что мой редактор скопировал 72 слова из 300 000 с разрешения и забыл кавычки («»). Пожалуйста, будь осторожен.

Thanks for useful information

You're welcome :-)

Thanks for the information... you've been very helpful...

Welcome to Steemit.

Thank @xposed, particularly for exposing us to this powerful content on a very crucial; COPYWRITING. Honestly, I got a great percent of the message of your content.

However, I'll like to ask you a question, still on the issue of Copywriting; but with specific attention to google (and it's images suggestion).

My question is, Is there any offence using an images which google, label for use or remodification?

Please, @xposed I'm humbly expecting your response to my query.

hey @degreatmyke, unfortunately you can not use images that you have found on Google. Google only provides you search results of these images and also states that images can be copyrighted. For copyright images you can visit Pexels.com or Pixabay.com. I hope you have understood most of my blog post and how to credit/source the original work from a creator. Thank you for trying to understand this matter as best as you can and reaching out to us.

Hmm! Thanks for this eye-opener. Though, I've been using the ones under the category of labelled for reuse or labelled for reuse but modification... And of images have sources traced to pixabay.com... (Just like you've mentioned)

Thanks. Sometimes it is a bit hard to know what copyright is - I think if you arent sure then you shouldnt use it until you know you are aloud and even then reference the author so they get some credit

Yes, always do your own research, and if you can't find it, do not use it. Thanks for tuning in @conradt.

Keep up the good work

Excellent! Definitely deserving of a resteem. This needs to spread. As people grow and start earning money, copyright infringement WILL become an issue! It's just a matter of time.

hi my name is @brampu my newcomer in steemit, i hope the seni steemit can teach me and give the best solution

Appreciate it @coincussion!

I will help you if you vote for me. In this way everyone can help by voting for all. Waiting for you

Keep waiting, lol

Thank you for this. Having spent time in both academia and as a musician, I am a strong believer in avoiding plagiarism and giving credit to content creators. It's not right in academia, and I think it's just as bad to profit off of someone's intellectual property.

Anyone who's had a blog post outright stolen, and had the content thief get hundreds more comments than you, should also understand why we can't tolerate this, especially on a platform that pays out for creating original content.

Right on!

this is a great article with great information, I've touched on this myself, but nowhere near as thourough as this is.

Hey @skiponline, thank you so much! I saw your post about your findings that your work has been published by someone else without your permission, is that the post you're talking about?

yes, that is the one! :)

Excellent post!!

Thanks for sharing the awareness for us new comers, I'll be definitely make sure any pictures, videos, and/or music on my posts won't violate the rights of the creator. Well, I'll try :)

Hi @tsteemit, we are looking forward to see some proper sourcing in your future posts. Hopefully it will add quality to your post and make it easier for curators to curate it.

Very helpful, indeed. Thanks for sharing.

I saw you talking about this on discord today and let me tell ya what you already know, this thing is really extensive. I didn't even read it all 'cuz I use public domain stuff if any at all but I resteemed 'cuz I want it in my feed just in case I have a question in the future I'll be coming back to this as a reference. Quality information.

Hey @gibber, thanks for tuning in and supporting this post. Feel free to drop in any question you have, we will try to answer if we can!

thank you for share

I'm bookmarking this for future reference. Thanks!

You're more than welcome @zingali!

Thanks for this info. A very good content specially for photographer and copyright issues. Really helps. Definitely will follow :-)

Hey @cookntell, thank you and welcome to XPOSED.

This is such an informative post that can help so many people not just on Steemit, but with life in general because we have to deal with copyright issues on a daily basis. I appreciate the time you have taken to make such an in-depth article on the subject to lay everything out so clearly for people. I have already learned so much just talking to you, but this is beyond my expectations. Great work. I hope that this gets the exposure that it deserves.

Hey @derangedvisions, good to see you here! Thank you very much for your kind words and your support. Talk soon! Your resteem will help spreading this to the right people, so thanks again.

I will help you if you vote for me. In this way everyone can help by voting for all. Waiting for you

Keep waiting for my vote, but @abusereports will be visiting you soon with some votes you may not like too much. You will learn quickly that comment spamming isn't the best way to get noticed here.

I thought I knew everything about copyright--but as I get older, I realize you never know everything. I've been blogging and writing books for a while. I'm usually fastidious about copyright, to the point of tedium. But blogging for nonprofit or writing educational books (my sort) operates under a different set of rules. It's good to keep in mind the commercial aspect of Steemit when crediting work. I usually use Wikimedia Commons for images, because there the license status is clearly laid out. And, as an author, I like to respect the work of others who create. However... you made a few fine points, about landmarks, for example, that were enlightening. There's so much material we can use legitimately. I'm sure I can liven my posts without crossing lines. Knowing where those lines are, though, makes it easier to stay within them. I've resteemed. Good info.

Hi @agmoore, if we would know everything already, life would be a boring place. I earlier got the question from @erodedthoughts on how to cite a book cover and found it interesting that it could be rather difficult to obtain the name of the creator of the artwork that is usually shown on the cover.

How do you state the publication of citing your books? Or how would you rather get your citation/credit on your book?

I'm quite generous with allowing use. Since my books are mostly educational, if people credit me, I allow them to use information as long as they note the name of the book and that I am the author. I would be upset to find information had been lifted from my books without permission or acknowledgment, though. I self-publish so have complete control of the process. Also design my own covers, except for one book. I gladly give credit to the artist who designed that cover, Brian Burak. He was an art student at the time and charged me $20. I hope he gets better rates today :).

excellent article

Very informative.Tha you for sharing your knowledge.Im a new beginner .Work from the heart.Much better if we create a blog with our originality and it making sense.I lerned a lot about you shared.More power steemit.

Hi @mazelife, you're more than welcome and thank you.

QUE BUENO, ESPERO INFORMARME BIEN SOBRE ESTE POST.

Very good information. Thank you

Great information!!!

Is meme stealing a crime?

Very informative and good refresher, thank you.

Nice Post! 👌👌👌

I would make a "fair use" exception for reviews. Movie reviews need shots from the movie, especially when trying to critique each scene. In such a case, it's obviously not original photos.

Also, how does fair use work with writing about current events and public figures? One can't be expected to get their own photos of political figures when trying to write about politics.

I 100% agree that most people should be taking their own photos rather than stealing photos from all over the internet. I work as a content creator and this is a constant problem with company employees. I just think there are instances where it is difficult to create content about our culture without borrowing source material.

How would any historian be able to have any pictures without using others' work, oftentimes of those who are long dead and cannot give consent?

Hey @robmolecule, this can be an interesting and good topic to discuss. All tough I think that the "fair use" policy is a wide topic. I would ask myself if it would be still considered "Fair Use" if I would earn money on using copyrighted work.

There are four factors that you need to keep in mind when you would write about political figures.
1. What is the purpose of the use (commercial nature or nonprofit/educational purposes) of the copyrighted work?
2. What is the nature of the copyrighted work?
3. What is the amount/substantial portion (copy for example) related to the copyrighted work as a whole?
4. What is the effect by using the the copyrighted work upon the potential market?

Since most content published on Steemit is for commercial use, you cannot publish copyrighted work that is not licensed under the four different Creative Commons licenses mentioned in the blog post above. While I am not sure if declining pay-out is seen as the right way to point out that the post is not published for commercial intend, I find it riskily to use copyrighted work on the Steemit Platform.

Hopefully this would cover your question regarding the copyright fair use policy and Steemit.

It's great to see this. This means there is still risk of violating copyright laws even if we credit the source. I have also seen news sites where the picture was taken and credited from another. Sometimes, it makes a long chain and if there's violation or improper use along the way, it would be quite a process for the creator to trace it.

That's because the laws were never intended to protect the Creator or benefit the creator.

Happy to see you find it useful @hiroyamagishi, we tried to keep the post as compact and as understandable as possible. Copyright is a grey area and doesn't seem to have fully exploited the depths of context and discussion yet.

Newspapers often steal other peoples work and would love to pay with "exposure", which is the mandatory credit towards the creator of the work. This reason for this, in my belief, because of the rise of talented amateur photographers who did not receive proper education about Copyright law, who were happy to get their name exposed, and occurred during the global financial crisis.

There are often people who think content should be used freely, at any time. These people do not value the time spent by others and cannot see the bigger picture what it takes to create an image that is not just simply appealing to the eye. Luckily the law has given creators protection, that whenever the creator has created a work, it automatically is protected by copyright law. This would let creators decide on their own if this work can be freely used by the public or not.

Google and Tiny-pic has developed their reverse-image search techniques which makes it easy for the creator to trace their work published online. Also good implementation of EXIF-data can help in tracing their work.

>These people do not value the time spent by others and cannot see the bigger picture what it takes to create an image that is not just simply appealing to the eye.

Actually, people do this freely, not only for commission and numerous other sources that pay definitively for the work and doesn't milk the people for their benefit of sharing the idea, which is no more benefit anymore. Copyrights are not about protecting the author, they are about monopolizing on a work and by and large, this is done by producers who have acquired a serendipitously clever name. The only protections copyright offer is mafia style RICO worthy Monopoly protections which equate copying to stealing.

People cannot see the bigger picture of the logical fail of hoarding over ideas and the detriment that has been beaten to death ever since the first copyright laws to censor authors came about.

Hi @baah, please Google "Statute of Anne". Now, unless you still would like to think that paying the bills with salt is still possible, please re-consider the era you currently live in and come back to earth, with us, preferable by plane and not on a horse.

The creators of their own work now have the choice to waive their rights, to make it available to the public, for free, to make sure that that work doesn't milk the people for their benefit of sharing the idea/concept.

I would like to point out to you that this blog post is about explaining the current state of Copyright, not about the history of it. So I ask you to stay on topic as you are spreading personal confusion about the current laws on Copyright and how we are supposed to work with- and understand that law.

Looking forward to more history tutoring in a blog post that you have created. I would gladly join you there.

So my argument is invalid because of bringing up the true history of copyrights even though that was nothing more than a remark to how long the detriment of copyright has been happening? If coming back to your plane means idiotically mumbling copying is stealing I take a pass. And again :
Copyrights are not about protecting the author, they are about monopolizing on a work and by and large, this is done by producers who have acquired a serendipitously clever name. The only protections copyright offer is mafia style RICO worthy Monopoly protections which equate copying to stealing.

People cannot see the bigger picture of the logical fail of hoarding over ideas and the detriment that has been beaten to death ever since the first copyright laws to censor authors came about.

Furthermore if you follow the conversation sunlit7 was having below you'd realize that the post needs a major rework to pontificate that you cannot purse for damages unless you register, poking a giant gaping hole in the whole post and making the protection racket evident, the excuses for not mentioning that without registering you won't get protection is hilarious considering that it details so much, even that people putting out work for free means they do so without compensation, and it's nice to credit them, but how many times was it implicit that the work is protected? your work isn't protected by copyrights on creation, but you can wrestle out of that whichever way you want because the point cannot be evaded: copyrights are effective in protecting only if you register.

The final point to drive the meaningless of it is that your pedantic comment keeps up the myth that artists are protected, or that laws will recompense them for damages, they do, it's producers and publishers that pimp out artists more than anything who make the money off people Stealing the intangible.

What, no argument, only gestural disagreement, feel free to mistify this comment as well because do you think that flagging me is going to benefit and shut me up? Figures, you came off as a jerk with your "come down to earth where copying is stealing". You do realize this platform is open source, the community, by and large, is anarchist and free thinking and this little cesspool of fanboys monopolizing on art and ideas as a means to get compensated are like a walled off section that never reaches the mass with their art, but a post like this gets piled on by all the hoarders, who despite being conpensated with a place to share their art, and possibly even with a reward attached, they seek to affirm the nonsense that your WORK is protected without registering, which is repugnant to what I know from my musician friends: if you don't register it you might as well give it out for free.

Stop selling people false promises of protection while omitting the crucial and if you cannot form a coherent, logically consistent and on topic argument or specific objection to my argument then don't you think that you ought to consider what I said instead of trying to make it seems as if I was arguing that today's laws are the same as 250 years ago, when I used that only to specify for how long the laws, however much they have morphed and sprouted anew they still rely on a very very very very poor way to get compensated, and considering the detriment that locking ideas and art behind monopolized control one would understand that for every person that makes a buck from their registered work, there's 10 more that pay gravely for copying, and the people that benefit all the times are the courts and the publishers, the artist always second, it's immoral and illogical to constitute copying as theft simply because you claim a "License" which is another word for being allowed to do what you Shouldn't do, by definition and by LAW (as law concerns directly with definition AND the meaning of words).

This conversation has barely begun, bring some real critique if you can because what you have done is borderline trollish.

Nobody is trying to monopolize art. The typical wish is at least that the art created by them is not used for commercial use without a permission.

Art isn't being monopolized. Anyone can create art if they want without being attacked by artists.

You've said that nobody wants to monopolize art and then expressed exactly what monopolizing art is, you do understand that and then went to deny that there is any monopolization happening right after and asauge my "worry" that art is monopolized.

Art is monopolized, the act of Permitting only some people or only some uses of ideas is monopolization itself, it's the very act itself that you deny is not happening.

Oh, so you're talking about monopolizing single pieces of art, and not art in general?

Well that's just dumb in a different way.

And what the hell, use of ideas? Are you just ranting random stuff with no point?

I have no say about ideas and "permitting the uses of ideas". If you are talking about the ideas in art, if you see a painting of an eagle with face of an elephant, that's an idea. It's not monopolized as an idea.

You can use the same idea and create art based on the same idea.

If I would create a piece of art and you'd just use my art in attempt to make money for yourself, I would try to stop you with the tools I have. And you of course could go crying "BOO HOO YOU ARE TRYING TO MONOPOLIZE ART".

Do you understand what Monopolizing ideas means? It's the definition of copyright, it's how copyright functions more precisely. So when you judge something dumb without even understanding the basic function of copyrights in clear terms:

>Art is monopolized, the act of Permitting only some people or only some uses of ideas is monopolization itself, it's the very act itself that you deny is not happening.

It's as valid as any other errenous opinion or belief.

If you create art that depicts an eagle with the head of an elephant, copyrighting means that anyone who make something that can be considered COPYING the idea, be it in the same medium or an entirely different one all together, you can attempt to subjugate their real property rights.

A rant btw is your logical inconsistent judgmeent of what you think I am doing, which is not "crying" anymore than it is "ranting", but making Salient points and speaking in a logical consistency with clarity and specificity and to avail understanding, there was nothing that could be construed as emotional response or incitement in my arguments.

Sir, are you on drugs or are you this when sober? You are ranting nothing related to the point. You are making no point.

This might seem like I'm "logically inconsistent" but it's difficult to seem logically consistent when you are logically inconsistent. You might think there is a logic, but it sure is special. If it's there.

If you can demonstrate that I am logically inconsistent I will give you my account.

You are. I have not been talking about monopolizing ideas, but you are claiming I have done.

We can discuss how you will hand over your password to me later on.

>If I would create a piece of art and you'd just use my art in attempt to make money for yourself, I would try to stop you with the tools I have. And you of course could go crying "BOO HOO YOU ARE TRYING TO MONOPOLIZE ART".

It's actually the very essence of saying that only you can make money from an idea. That's why it's called a Government-Granted-Monopoly. We have been talking about the same exact thing from the beginning, you only sought to deny it without substance, then re-asserted it in the same comment, as the quote above demonstrates. Logic you idiot.

Maybe if you could have explained How and Why we were talking about two different things and how and why it makes my arguments logically inconsistent as if my arguments somehow are predicated on your misunderstanding, confusion: ie demonstrate, instead of assert nonsense or plain lies, as if the conversation EVER changed from talking about monopolizing ideas, as if denying monopolizing of ideas in the begining of your comment without any logic, reason, or substance, while asserting it in the concluding thought without any logic, reason(pettiness?) or substance, is not talking about monopolizing on ideas.

Eat my shit you Idiot.

>Tell me again how copyrighting isn't monopolizing on an idea.

Because you can explain that or even begin to make sense trying to explain that. Absurdity awatis. Hey Don't Believe me, try it!

>Oh, so you're talking about monopolizing single pieces of art, and not art in general?

No, I am talking about monopolizing in the sense of copyrights as the inherent function that copyrights have. You understand that monopolizing ideas is at the heart of copyright then you understand it makes no difference if the idea is practical or artistic a million or one, because abstractions being monopolized by individuals is a clear determent to society and has not demonstrated that it indeed helps the artist, inventor or creator, in fact it has demonstrated the opposite while where people don't have copyright competition happens naturally, and artist in turn are compensated better, as there are better ways to get compensated than by telling people what they can and cannot express, which infringes upon freedom of expression.

Hoarding ideas has slowed down the industrial revolution by decades, it has slowed down the age of enlightenment at the same time and because it's repugnant to reason to consider what can be shared without any effort to multitudes of people, as a tangible thing which is bound to scarcity and not the world of abstractions, it's always been built on fantastic constructions that equate Copying to Stealing.

If you try to stop me with all the tools you have, you have better register your work because you won't stop me, and even then I will simply send them a Special and Restricted Appearance when summoned telling them that they have no juristiction and to send me the performance bid bond that has been placed to my address and if there was none to investigate the prosecuting attorney and fine him if it's found that he filed the claim/complaint without posting a bond. I'll be sitting pretty on Land while you are in the Water wasting your time trying to get me to join you in your petty complaint, instead of making more art and being careful about sharing it before you monetize it, because it won't matter if I copy non stop, you won't find a jury of 12 to try me and there won't be a trial because you cannot demonstrate an injury that Man can be prosecuted for. Due process is a motherfucker.

How many replies are you writing? Going around the same things over and over and over again, still making very little point and not basing the rants in real world and facts.

Your comments seem to be showing off your thoughts unrelated to what I say, assuming I'm thinking different things and trying to battle against those thoughts you think I'm having.

You should really focus better.

If you can demonstrate what you are saying in a verifiable and logically cogent clear way I will give you my account.

Echo echo echo echo:

>Tell me again how copyrighting isn't monopolizing on an idea.

>if you see a painting of an eagle with face of an elephant, that's an idea. It's not monopolized as an idea.

If it's copyrighted then someone does indeed CLAIM legal monopoly on the idea, if you understand what that means.

Haha.

Are you here just to spew all kinds of gibberish without any contact to the reality?

If you can demonstrate why and how that is gibberish without any contact to reality I will give you my account, this is the third time I challenged you. Tell me again how copyrighting isn't monopolizing on an idea.

Are you talking about copyright law of a single, specific country?

Actually, I am talking about the idea of exclusivity over reproducing an idea or copying it, or Monopolizing the copying of an idea you idiot. It's the same in every country where those Exclusive Rights are granted- State Granted Monopoly BY definition, as exclusive rights is exactly what Monopoly Means.

>Tell me again how copyrighting isn't monopolizing on an idea.

Idiot. Lmao.

There's no monopolizing on an Idea: it's only that I can hunt you down legally for infringing on my exclusive right to make money off MY idea. (claiming to own ideas. good one, lots of thought and reasons :I made it, it's mine, you cannot use it! .. why? loololoolol)

Without any contact to the reality?

GO look up wikipedia Monopoly. It says this:
>A government-granted monopoly or legal monopoly, by contrast, is sanctioned by the state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic interest group. Patents, copyrights, and trademarks are sometimes used as examples of government-granted monopolies. The government may also reserve the venture for itself, thus forming a government monopoly.[citation needed]

If you follow through and aren't a complete idiot, to Government-Granted monopoly (the hyperlink is built into the article, idiot)

>In economics, a government-granted monopoly (also called a "de jure monopoly") is a form of coercive monopoly by which a government grants exclusive privilege to a private individual or firm to be the sole provider of a good or service; potential competitors are excluded from the market by law, regulation, or other mechanisms of government enforcement. As a form of coercive monopoly, government-granted monopoly is contrasted with a non-coercive monopoly or an efficiency monopoly, where there is no competition but it is not forcibly excluded. Amongst forms of coercive monopoly it is distinguished from government monopoly or state monopoly (in which government agencies hold the legally enforced monopoly rather than private individuals or firms) and from government-sponsored cartels (in which the government forces several independent producers to partially coordinate their decisions through a centralized organization). Advocates for government-granted monopolies often claim that they ensure a degree of public control over essential industries, without having those industries actually run by the state. Opponents often criticize them as political favors to corporations. Government-granted monopolies may be opposed by those who would prefer free markets as well as by those who would prefer to replace private corporations with public ownership.

Contact to "the" reality? You're here denying that there's no monopolizing on ideas when that is exactly what it is described as and that is not some exaggeration however mild because by function, or in other words HOW IT WORKS (idiot) is by exclusive right, which in the sense of exclusive right over making money from an idea is EXACTLY (idiot, there is no argument or interpretation or misunderstanding, it's an interchangeable context) what MONOPOLIZING (the FUNCTION) MEANS (DEFINITION, MEANING).

Hahaha @Xposed the sham of "Let's talk about copyrighs" where it's really by their own admission "Let me tell you about copyrights"/ FAIL

Join in the

Idiot that thinks monopolizing on an idea is not exclusive rights to profit from it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

>In many jurisdictions, competition laws restrict monopolies. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly in a market is often not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behavior can be considered abusive and therefore incur legal sanctions when business is dominant. A government-granted monopoly or legal monopoly, by contrast, is sanctioned by the state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic interest group.
># Patents, copyrights, and trademarks are sometimes used as examples of government-granted monopolies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

>The original length of copyright in the United States was 14 years, and it had to be explicitly applied for. If the author wished, they could apply for a second 14‑year monopoly grant, but after that the work entered the public domain, so it could be used and built upon by others.

You're an idiot:

>Nobody is trying to monopolize art. The typical wish is at least that the art created by them is not used for commercial use without a permission.

>Art isn't being monopolized. Anyone can create art if they want without being attacked by artists.

You obviously do not understand that you're denying the very exclusivity while affirming that it exists while denying it again. Exclusive rights. Exclusive right you idiot means the same thing as monopolizing ideas, concepts, art, functions, abstractions of all names.

Still no. You're still talking just dumb shit and as I can see you're upvoting your posts, I'm using my power to flag it because this was special level of stupid.

If you can prove it was a "special level of stupid" I will give you my account, no if you cannot even.

Thank you for explaining anything btw Idiot.

[IMAGE: https://steemitimages.com/DQmU21ytQXKBo4x3L3iUZYKrkuzDgFm9Kf2cgFbWmUiGwDL/image.png]

Exclusive Control is Monopolizing, Idiot.

Wow, so you are actually just stupid. I wasn't talking about complete power.

So you're just talking BS, claiming I'm talking about stuff I'm not talking about and calling me an idiot.

Congratulations on upvoting your own comments while doing so.

You are very special person and I can see that.

Extremely special.

You must feel proud of yourself.

Why would I feel proud of myself if what you say is true?

But the important question is When, why and how did you think that you weren't talking about "complete power" or whatever that means? It's not complete power to make money from an idea is it? LOLOL!

IDIOT, we never stopped talking about complete power, excusive control over monetizing an idea. You might consider your unsubstantiated claims as actually steering the conversation outside what you responded to and what you "thought" you responded to, but the fact remains, you responded to me, not I to you, and you entered into the conversation on the assumption that you understood the most basic definition of what you were arguing, which you did not: STATE GRANTED MONOPOLY.

[IMAGE: https://steemitimages.com/DQmUAwksKLpDmUEj85Khyts9Afa7C8JQMfcxo61HrgfKhRx/image.png]

Aka Exclusive Control over an Idea.

idiot.

Yes, yes you are.

Yeah somehow we stopped talking about Monopolizing, as in to have exclusive control over making money from an idea. Nobody is doing that though Right? Fail you

IDIOT

I never even started to talk about that. You did and you keep on claiming I did.

You're sad. Claiming I'm an idiot won't make me one.

>Nobody is trying to monopolize art. The typical wish is at least that the art created by them is not used for commercial use without a permission.

AKA Monopolizing ideas. Idiot.

No it's not.

Actually using a State Granted Monopoly to have exclusive control over ideas and monetizing them is what I mean when I say monopolizing, and what the definition of monopolizing means in the context of exclusive control over profiting from ideas. Denying that exclusive control isn't monopolizing on ideas is denying the very definition of the word monopolizing and the very function by which copyright works.

>If I would create a piece of art and you'd just use my art in attempt to make money for yourself, I would try to stop you with the tools I have. And you of course could go crying "BOO HOO YOU ARE TRYING TO MONOPOLIZE ART"

Trying to use the State Granted Monopoly to Monopolize on people making money off ideas that you claim as exclusive to yourself is immoral and it has no semblance of a basis in logic. To deny that you were talking about State Granted Monopoly to Monopolize on making money off art is counter to any sense attached to the words above. That quote above is definitive proof that you were talking about what I was talking about: monopolizing on ideas, I don't need to Claim anything, it's Evident to all who have the slightest sense. How was that challange again? Idiot.

No it's not.

Actually using a State Granted Monopoly to have exclusive control over ideas and monetizing them is what I mean when I say monopolizing, and what the definition of monopolizing means in the context of exclusive control over profiting from ideas. Denying that exclusive control isn't monopolizing on ideas is denying the very definition of the word monopolizing and the very function by which copyright works.

>Nobody is talking about monopolizing art

@tamwin33
>There is no such thing as intellectual property. It's a state granted monopoly over an intellectual domain. It's property in the same way people used to be property in that it doesn't make any philosophical or logical sense for society.

So that person is another Nobody?

>Yeah somehow we stopped talking about Monopolizing, as in to have exclusive control over making money from an idea. Nobody is doing that though Right? Fail you
>
># IDIOT

I never even started to talk about that. You did and you keep on claiming I did.

• >Nobody is trying to monopolize art. The typical wish is at least that the art created by them is not used for commercial use without a permission.
• >If I would create a piece of art and you'd just use my art in attempt to make money for yourself, I would try to stop you with the tools I have. And you of course could go crying "BOO HOO YOU ARE TRYING TO MONOPOLIZE ART"

You're sad. Claiming I'm an idiot won't make me one.

You're a liar and an idiot, or maybe only an idiot, THE idiot but I give you more intellignce than that and raise you a Liar as well.

Wow, this is just plain sad.

Nope and nope.

Nope what Idiot, cannot form a proper sentence and explain what you're denying and why? "I'm not an idiot simply because you say so" No need, you are as you act.

Nope and nope, "Plain sad", Ok.

>Yeah somehow we stopped talking about Monopolizing, as in to have exclusive control over making money from an idea. Nobody is doing that though Right? Fail you
>
># IDIOT

I never even started to talk about that. You did and you keep on claiming I did.

• >Nobody is trying to monopolize art. The typical wish is at least that the art created by them is not used for commercial use without a permission.
• >If I would create a piece of art and you'd just use my art in attempt to make money for yourself, I would try to stop you with the tools I have. And you of course could go crying "BOO HOO YOU ARE TRYING TO MONOPOLIZE ART"

You're sad. Claiming I'm an idiot won't make me one.

You're a liar and an idiot, or maybe only an idiot, THE idiot but I give you more intellignce than that and raise you a Liar as well.

Idiot, when you claim exclusive Control over an idea, as not allowing people to monetize it, you are monopolizing the idea idiot. That's a fact of life. Read "Government-Granted-Monopolies". How hard is that to get through your thicknelson.

I haven't been even talking about claiming exclusive control about ideas. It's been you all along.

Are your parents closely related or why you have so special way to think?

>If I would create a piece of art and you'd just use my art in attempt to make money for yourself, I would try to stop you with the tools I have. And you of course could go crying "BOO HOO YOU ARE TRYING TO MONOPOLIZE ART".

As Counter to:

>Art isn't being monopolized. Anyone can create art if they want without being attacked by artists.

Except that you didn't say nobody can copy "art" without being attacked by the artists. Ie Monopolizing over the idea, when did you think we stopped talking about Monopolizing ideas? The moment you responded and denied that monopolizing over ideas happens? The conversation doesn't change simply because you entered into it without any substance what so ever besides a denial that monopolizing over ideas happens.

You know what's an interesting event, the osmosis that happens is unidirectional because I have yet to hear someone who had recognized the abundance of absurdity with copyrights and has become a copyright advocate, it's always the same story: almost everyone who understands that nonsense inherently built in hoarding ideas has reached that point after believing that copyrights are beneficial, has nobody changed their mind the other way? I'd love to have a discussion with someone who has, or claims they have, it's quite stale in here with all the parroting of the copyright manifesto, aren't you interested in debating Intelectual Theft(oxymoron)?

Start a blog post about it.

You don't want to debate Intellectual Theft even though it relates with the post as the underlying logical premise? Odd.

We would be happy to debate this matter in a dedicated blog post about that topic, preferable written by yourself based on your own experiences.

This blog post is purely about educating the current nature of Copyright, not to discuss personal opinions/loopholes/specific country based laws or whatsoever. We think understanding copyright is more important than to deny it and trying to counter it, as we simply cannot change this overnight. If you wish to contribute to this blog post, rephrase your opinion in a question and we are happy to try to give you an answer that fits.

Currently, the contribution you have made so far, seem to be cries where you demand a different approach on Copyright from your point of view. You simply cannot change law, nor influence the current understanding of Copyright with pushing your thoughts about this matter and expect that the law bends to you whenever you would like to. It is as it is. It was as it was. If you want change, file it to the right people, we are certainly not.

At this current state, creators that are not on this platform, seek federal guidance to start the procedure to send Cease and Desist letters regarding their Copyrighted work, which is damaging the name of Steemit and would slow down its potential grow as this issue grows.

And again, all created work is protected by copyright by law upon creation. This does not mean it is protected for financial compensation for these 'damages' by default. You need to be a registered business in some countries, you need to register a license in other countries and sometimes proof of creation is enough to be illegible for financial compensation.

If you want to talk about logical underlying thoughts about copyright, simply start a blog post and invite people that you deem interesting to reply to.

The law matters? In what case?
Here's one that it doesn't matter, in a very visceral way:

>https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2063735

>Thus the main proposition of the article is a negative one, although with profound consequences. If copyright law does not matter for the “independence and dignity of artistic creators and performers” what is it really for?

And this was mentioned before that:

>New historical data from Germany appears to indicate that in a non-copyright environment, stronger competition for authors as suppliers and lower consumer prices did increase the earnings power of creators.

The point I've made a few times:

>Although, under copyright law, the first owner of a work is usually the author, in practice most works are owned by a third party specialising in commercial exploitation, such as a publisher or producer. Under the orthodox economic analysis, this distinction does not matter. According to Landes and Posner, any legal or institutional devices that limit the assignability of copyright “reduce the incentive to create by preventing the author or artist from shifting risk to the publisher or dealer”; if “future speculative gains” must be shared, the author will be paid less.

Also when you say "let's talk about copyright" in the very premise of that is threaded discussing the logical (or lack of it) premise underlying the concept of copyrights. I decline your invitation to discuss the matter at hand anywhere else, I'd rather keep it here, with all the uninteresting, who ought to feel free to come and go as they wish, as in any public forum, even the dullingotns that yapper on "amen, copying is stealing in lalaland".

>And again, all created work is protected by copyright by law upon creation. This does not mean it is protected for financial compensation for these 'damages' by default. You need to be a registered business in some countries, you need to register a license in other countries and sometimes proof of creation is enough to be illegible for financial compensation.

You have to include that in your article because theres plenty of talk of how great copyrights are but no specific on this important detail? Why did you have to explain to people that people making art for free do it without compensation? But you couldn't spare a line to "Copyrights doesn't mean that the work if protected upon creation for financial compensation for unfair use, you have to register and "sometimes" proof of creation is enough to be eligible for compensation." But you really don't have to do anything because the bullshit "Let's talk about copyrights" was only meant to express "Let me tell you about copyrights". Cary on

I will help you if you vote for me. In this way everyone can help by voting for all. Waiting for you

How is that going to help him?

Solving problems on Copyright is increasing these days. Your post definitely helps people understand how important it is. Thanks @xposed !

Hey @chaelinjane, thank you for finding this useful for you and tuning in.

> Hate to break it to you but you're simply stealing. It is damaging the creator in many ways, especially when you do not give credit, and even then it is wrong to use it without permission. You could even get sued for using their work without permission.

So you reason that because you found a wallet, you stole the money? Even though clearly copying and Stealing are two different things, but for this there is no Copying, only stealing, because well, why use reason, logic or a semblance of sensibiity, after all what could be wrong with the analogy of the wallet, except that it's Tangible and you're using it to describe something Intangible, you're using the scarce and unique to describe the unlimited and uniform.

How about this; if you wrote a book, and shared it on your blog. It doesn't have to be a long book, maybe it took you a few days to write. Then someone came along to your website and copy + pasted it, then took it to a publisher and got it printed and made money from selling it. Would you be upset? They didn't take it away from you they just copied it.

It comes down to this: Why did I share the book?

Did I share the book to make money? Did I share the book to help people?

You shared the book because you make money through advertising on your website. It was a fictional story. You were planning to sell it as a book but hadn't found the right publisher. You frequently share your work online and make a good amount of income from it. Not enough to live off but nothing negligible.

Well that's an interesting premise, then I have to know, Why did I want to get published?

I'm back here and thought I'd pick it up to conclude that if I wanted to get published to make bank, I would be in an internal conflict because I cannot want two things exactly the same, either I want to be a writer more or I want to make money more, and if my aim is to make money I would NOT write, create or copyright anything because I might as well play the lottery instead of trying to make it to superstar artiste.

Yet,
If I were to do it to share my story, to entertain and intrigue, to get people to think and consider, to do any numerous things that ideas are so wonderful at achieving, I would then chose to write and support myself through whatever I can, because my dedication is writing so compensation for the work itself would be nice but not important, or not something factored into my writing. If I compromise my purpose by chasing fame, money or accolades instead of writing it would be the measure of how much I lost, not how much I made. Equally, if my purpose was to make bank, choosing to create for the sake of making bank would compromise the purpose of making bank by making a poor choice regarding making bank. Either way copyrights are out of the equation for a viable or ethical means to compensation, there are many better ways to make sure that you have enough money to create art, if you indeed are creating art and not making money from selling art, and I wouldn't need a publisher, I would obviously publish myself because what do I lose if people enjoy my work, they are challenged to consider different perspectives or whisked off to other worlds. In other words, why do I write fiction, so I do it for others, for my own self or for making money pandering to advertisers, or simply to "make it big" off copyright? If it's later I would caution to find a better means to get compensation, as registering your work will cost a bit, and ultimately it comes down to what the purpose of wanting to write is because that determines if I would indeed be upset because someone copied the work, or surprised that someone even knew about it.

You own a house, but if you don't pay for the license your house.. wait, it doesn't work like that.

I copy your house, you basically have the right to extort me now or to have me tear down my house.

That may come down to if you're an architect and you got a copyright on the design. There are many buildings like this.

How about music. Music can be copied easily. Musicians are constantly fighting this issue.

Another hypothetical.
You are a musician that has a hit song and have made money selling albums. Then someone uses your song in an advertisement to help them sell hemorrhoid cream. Or imagine they are selling an idea or organisation that you strongly oppose. Would you allow them to get away with it?

My real property cannot expire like intellectual "property", but your intellectual property can infringe upon my real property.

>How about music. Music can be copied easily. Musicians are constantly fighting this issue.

There seem to be much better endeavours than to fight people making music that you created. If you created music for people to enjoy I am sure that you can scrounge together a living to keep creating, like all the musicians out there, if you got into music to get rich, then you are probably fighting people for what you created instead of creating more and take the compliment, especially if they only download the song.

>You are a musician that has a hit song and have made money selling albums. Then someone uses your song in an advertisement to help them sell hemorrhoid cream. Or imagine they are selling an idea or organisation that you strongly oppose. Would you allow them to get away with it?

Yes indeed, why would I stop someone from expressing themselves? If I made the song intending to get rich then I would waste my time trying to stop the thieves. If I made the song to share with the world, then I would take that display from my opponents as a middle ground upon which to build.

Thanks for sharing, this is very important.

Thank you for sharing this information.

Hey @wwevideos, you're welcome! Thanks for tuning in.

Thank you for taking the time to make this post. Plagiarism is a real issue especially in the age of the Internet when anything can be shared in an instance!

[IMAGE: https://steemitimages.com/DQmSewN79yujWWXgJjFTbVYmeio8uhqbhCCJLdp1YufhE7E/tenor.gif]

This is, without a doubt, one of the best-written pieces I have ever read on Copyright infringement.
Congratulations and keep the great work. I just made sure to follow you, in search of content as good as this one.

Hey @andredalbuq, thank you for your compliment! We did work on this post for several days and had a lot of eyes looking at the to make sure everything was covered. Feel free to resteem this post as it should be seen by as many Steemians as possible.

Thanks for this fantastic collection of Informations.

I try to quote correct but as u said it is not always easy to find the owner of a picture. In most times i use own works, thats the easiest.

And thank u for linking the websites with usable pictures.

Hello @kanrat, glad you find it educating, thank you! When you are uncertain about using a work, don't use it. And of course, it is always best to use your own work, especially if it is exclusively published on Steemit.

I have a little question.
What about pictures of pictures with copyrights? Is this kind of illegal copy? Or is there no problem because iam the owner of the new picture?

I think you have a deep study on copyright. Could you send me the list of scientific copyright issues through a post? Thanks for this post.

Hi @blackybabies, I am not sure if I got your question right, sorry, could you be more clear?

I want to know that what are the issues for copyright in case of a scientific topic like an invention or medicine etc.

This definitely deserves a resteem. In college we used a plagiarism checker for assignments. It would be great to see Steemit integrate a checker into their platform.

Hey @whytheory, thank you for resteeming! Integrating a checker would be great, but hard to keep up with and there are different factors that we need to keep in mind as authors/creators sell their work on Shutterstock for example. Love the idea.

the plagiarism is a stole

thanx for the info, i knew that there were rules just not which.

Hey @brittandjosie, thank you for tuning in and hopefully our blog post has brought you the information you needed.

It certainly did

Oh this is such an insightful post.

I never knew I could get in trouble even with copying my own work from my blog till i was informed yesterday.

I usually just write where i got the pictures from and now I'm realizing that it's not good enough.

This is a lot of work but totally worth the stress.
We need to be given credit for our hardwork

Hi @funkeolotu, what do you mean with 'getting in trouble with copying your own work from your own blog"? Totally worth it, and also keeps you away from plagiarism allegations, which would be effecting your Reputation points on Steemit as well.

I heard copying from my blog can attract a plagiarism bot, I've forgotten the name of the bot.

Now I'm confused .. Are you saying I won't get into trouble or I will if I don't paraphrase

Great post, as a content creator myself i was aware about the musical and video rights, but not about text, landscapes etc. With that being said, i noticed that the average steemer earns just a couple of cents to dollars on a post, so, licensing pictures etc is not really giving you any return on investment with articles created on steemit.

Hey @elektropunkz, good point. To 90% of the publishers on Steemit it may not be worthwhile to purchase actual licenses from creators directly, however, there are a few Steemians who could purchase licenses to improve the quality of their work. If they would actually need it would be another question though. Thank you for tuning in.

Great!!

Very detailed explaination of issues all content creators must deal with when sharing original material on social media.

As a photograher and a collector of old images, I would like to ask your opinion on images that are author-less or anonymous.

As an example, some years ago I purchased at auction a collection of Kodachrome slides, some of which contain historical images. I plan to release some of them on Steemit, (with a photographer unknown credit) only because they should see the light of day having being buried from the light of day fifty years.

What is your opinion on this type of usage as I possess the original slide?

Conversely, I also have in my possession a folio of prints from a long-defunct Russian photo agency containing a cross section of Russian culture, political and lifestyle images. I am less certain about the usage of these images. They are so interesting.

Could you please comment?

Regards, RT Simon

As a photographer, I wanted to thank you for this post, that's very important and I really hope that nobody will try to use the pictures I'm going to post on this network...

Congratulations @xposed!
Your post was mentioned in the Steemit Hit Parade in the following category:

• Pending payout - Ranked 10 with $ 249,12

Hi @arcange, now that's some insight. Appreciate it!

Thank you for this wonderful article. I learned about it just from a comment left in my fresh post. There I gave only links to photo resources. Now I understand my mistake and will not repeat it again. I will use your guidance. Thanks again.

Hi @bammbuss, thank you for reading the post after it has been suggested to you. Good luck, and stay clean ;-) !

Informative facts!really very crucial elements regarding copyright.I also try my best not to have these copyright in my work on steemit and strive for creating my own creations.

Hi @angli, you're welcome and we are happy to see you on our XPOSED channel, we will try to inspire and motivate Steemians to create and publish original/unique work.

I also try my best to bring something new and unique....and thanks for motivation...

Great article.
I liked most your believing YT is fighting plagiarism.
They are based on it.
Many thanks for sharing the valuable information.

Question that's been in my head...if copyrighted content is published, and it's text based copyright violation, any thoughts on how this might implicate Steem Inc? Or implicate the blockchain itself, as it is storing said work? To whom would a takedown notice be posted? If the creator of said content is "unknown", an anonymous account, then would it be necessary to perform a hard fork to remove the content?

Hey @gyrosean, this was one of the first things that we have found troublesome as well. We find it a problematic topic and quite difficult one to answer. There are several factors that makes this difficult. Steemit is a platform where it allows its users to publish any kind of content. While this might be seen as a service provided by Steemit, it's not. Steemit only translates transactions where users/visitors can see what transactions 'we' have stored in the blockchain. Since most users do not go by their own name and are hard to trace, it is hard to hold that user accountable for plagiarism, while they should be held accountable. However, the work is stored on 3rd party hosting servers that make a 'transaction' as well, translated into our blog posts. Those parties can take down the plagiarized content since they store plagiarized content without permission.

This is really helpful. As a blogger/steemer, people can understand about copyright because this article. Thanks for making us more knowledgeable.

Hi @e-bon, great that you find it useful.

Thanks for this! It was incredibly informative and I will use that to my advantage going forward on steemit!

Hey @lipshits, you're welcome!

good info

Great post man ;)

very good inf follow now interesting blogs

Appreciate your time and effort to put this together! very informative and give me the comfort of knowing my limitations.

Definitaly a follower!

I'm assuming your research was motivated by this?

[IMAGE: https://steemitimages.com/DQmbyZDW73ZYMVC8Di4idgAzWudgDbwakMbrs4KkK4H7ny1/image.png]

hehe

We are first going to touchdown the basics of content topics, before we get to the real deal. That post is for future references. I do drink a lot of coffee though.

Thanks for the very helpful article. This is a difficult subject and will make me think more about how and what I post. I have found many of my articles on sites all over the web which I have not given permission to. I just shrug it off. Such is life. However, not everybody is so relaxed about this important issue.

Very nice post, I think is important that everyone knows this topic that we live surrounded every day

A thorough and well-documented post on the subject which will be roundly ignored by all the parasites currently engaged in sucking the reward-pool dry.

I wish it wasn't so, but honestly the tools to prevent this kind of thing happening are either deficient, overloaded or totally absent. Its a harsh truth, I know, but unfortunately it has to be said.

This ship is sinking unless there's some real change around here.

copyright is bad thing

Although your article is well written and contains many useful facts, you have overlooked one thing:

Just to read your article my computer had to make a copy of it.

In the Age of the Internet copyright is antiquated.

To reinforce this thought, remember that a rule is useless unless it can be enforced.

Thanks again for the info.

Copyright was never "in style", and the mental gymnastics of "you found a wallet and keeping the money is the same as copying: stealing." is about all that it ever had to substantiate its establishment. A rule is useless if it subverts reason and avails itself of magical thinking, you can enforce all kinds of useless rules and many are done without any due process, such as copyrights.

Thanks for sharing! All my work is 100% my own, I like it to be genuine. Thanks for the detail analysis though 💯🐒

Great education and training ;)

Thanks for sharing! A link to your post was included in the Steem.center wiki page about Copyright. Thanks and good luck again!

Mehn.....
You all needed to see how i paid attention to read this post. I even brought out my jotter to jot points down. Many, including me is guilty after reading this post. Let's respect people's brain work and do the right thing. The change needs to start with me.... Thanks @xposed for this wonderful unveiling

This is incredibly useful and informative, thank you so much! I was wondering what you think the parameters for cover songs are? I am a musician and i write and record my own material but I love to do a cover song too! How do you think copyright affect the covers I do? do i need to contact the label and ask?

So if I am an artist publishing my original work that has been inspired by a real picture and then painted by myself, is this in copyright violation if the subject I am painting is unaware I did a portrait of them? Does that make sense?

For that matter, you would need a permission from the creator (unless the photograph can be built upon) and the portraited.

Your article is very interesting and gives us many ideas on how to avoid plagiarism and respect the intellectual prooiety of others

knowledge is power

Thank you for the useful infos. I learned some new things from this. For example I didn't know anything about purchasing licenses before. Since I usually use my own pictures and videos I didn't get to that yet. But I have a question: if I write a post referring to for example a YouTube video can i post the link with source and creator or is this harming the copyright too?

Yep, you cannot use other peoples work without permission unless it is CC0 Licensed. Keep in mind that you're on a platform that requires a commercial use license, whether you get paid or not. Hope this helps.

This is clearly explained! good work, many people does not understand very well what is the copyright, but this words help to get the information

Can anyone answer? I have written my own songs. Can I just post them straight to my steemit or Dtube channel? Or do I have to secure a copyright first for my songs before I should post? Also can I post my written songs to both Dtube and Youtube?

Thanks for the information this is a very big help for me, not only in me but also for everyone to know.

It's really nice of you to write about plagiarism. About a week ago, I was online and somewhat found an online platform who copy and paste my articles. I have tried to track them down, but there were no back links, contact details on their page. It really hurts, and I am still finding a way of getting in touch with them.

I wish I had found this post earlier! I’m very heartened to see someone else standing up for copyright work and also for PROPER accreditation to the artists! I have written quite a bit about this in the past, but you have managed to gain a much bigger audience than I ever did! Well done!! I will continue to write about it now and again, because it is my dream to see copyright infringement dealt with by the Steemit community!

If I’m to go along with this copyright stuff, how can one properly reference back to the resources/materials that are ”copywritten?”

Take a book for example. If I list a book in the resource section of my post, would that not be a copyright infringement? If so, why? If not, then listing a video (or whatever) as a resource shouldn’t be a problem as long as I’m not laying claim to that person’s work, regardless if I make money on my work or not. Same as a book. The authors don’t get paid simply because a person used their book as a resource in their own book (from my understanding).

Good

Hi...how about own images? Do we need to credit and acknowledge ouselves when using them? As curators, do we simply leave them be if the authors themselves didnt credit their own works? Or let's say unknowingly done so.
Thank you very much.