Which will never happen as many authors will bitch about it and leave the site.
Actually, my translations get cross-posted onto aggregators as soon as I upload them, but I don't feel like I usually react as strongly as my translator peers... I guess they're probably hate losing their internet traffic / monetary income from patreon/ads(?).It does not matter what is "right" or not because they do not give a flying f*ck what you think. It is an easy way for those authors to boost their novel with no penalties. Enforcing penalties = less users and content on the site.
It does not matter what you consider "drama bait" or not because we are trying to hold a discussion here despite what you think. It is an easy way for participants to speak their mind without being subjugated to rude insults. Being rude = not a user to discuss this topic.
Agree.
commons.wikimedia.org
First red flag, not a CC license, it's not wrong just less trustworthy. And I KNOW it's not original
@theSeaSquidfish said some, For more resources:
www.chriscollins.me
Agree.
*nods*
I'm not sure what K-on is?I used to volunteer at a dirt-poor non-profit, making promo posters and advertising collaterals. SOooo making posters and covers that are good enough but have no legal ramifications while costing next to nothing is pretty much my jam.
The first thing to understand about material made by other people is by default EVERYTHING is copyrighted by a creator as soon as it created, BUT there is a catch, two catches, fair use and Creative Commons.
First, Fair use: it can be murky for some things and not so for others, but a general rule of thumb use the 4 rules, if you are playing the semantics of "transformative" then you are gambling, stop if you are not sure-sure, up in the air feeling should be minimalised where possible.
the 4 rules
Here is the link from standard... read if curious have some pretty clear language and examples: https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/#educational_fair_use_guidelines
- the purpose and character of your use
- the nature of the copyrighted work
- the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Here is a more official statement of 4 rules from https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
@LostLibrarian & @Freesia.Cutepearl
- Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.
- Nature of the copyrighted work: This factor analyzes the degree to which the work that was used relates to copyright’s purpose of encouraging creative expression. Thus, using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support a claim of a fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item). In addition, use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair.
- Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Under this factor, courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. If the use includes a large portion of the copyrighted work, fair use is less likely to be found; if the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material, fair use is more likely. That said, some courts have found use of an entire work to be fair under certain circumstances. And in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair because the selection was an important part—or the “heart”—of the work.
- Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread.
The most difficult part of fair use is the idea of "Transformative". Things that are clearly transformative are parodies, in a veritable sense Fanfics and doujinshi have an easier time. Also transformative are research and education a site indexing the lore of Starwars can use those picture as well.
But where it gets murky is the question if I am taking a landscape art, its purpose is to be "landscape" and composite it on my picture where it is the background is the purpose of the art still "landscape" have I added any additional purpose to the art?
Murky... You will be in the "remix" territory of the law. And right and wrong is not decided by you or the content creator but by a judge.
Now here is the fun part.
Creative Commons!
You guys have the benefit of this existence, helping with making contents and collaboration, way back before this it was a bit wild west.
Around the Year 2000 CC was born
Here is an explanation of Creative commons (1min 59 sec long)
Now that you understand CC. First is understanding what you want is the beautiful CC0 logo (“No Rights Reserved”) of Some rights, only attribution.
So how to work with/under CC.
Look for the licence. Often is quite straight forward. even with google.
Say search Anime on google image search then choose tools, narrow licenses
Now don't just click and go!
there is a few more step!
Example 1.
Click into it and chase it to the end will lead you to the source
and at the bottom of the page, you'll see.File:Anime Girl.svg - Wikimedia Commons
Now if you follow those rules, you would have done your due diligence.
If you want to be super safe you can even lookup the author, and thin Ah~ yup super legit it is not just some Rando uploading someone else's art.
Example 2.
you can do the same
First, there is less info on the creator, but Wikimedia commons is quite well moderated (I think?) so it's fine (I guess?)
but the licence is slightly different with a:
Which means if you make a cover with the picture, your cover can be taken and made into... I dun know... t-shirts, remixed into other people covers etc.. I think...
Example 3.
It is obviously BS, since that is K-on but lets check it anyway since I could be wrong.
Opening the link it shows
First red flag, not a CC license, it's not wrong just less trustworthy. And I KNOW it's not original
But even if I don't know it. since I am want to avoid any trouble further down the road I did an image search.
and image can be found on various site but all/most are under "Image License: Personal Use Only"
So for things that like that, at your own risk and ethically, is it no different from taking without permission? if it not K-on? Yes? Murky? if you don't know for sure, rule of thumb, don't use it.
As for How to attribute here are links
Recommended practices for attribution - Creative Commons
wiki.creativecommons.org
Best Practices for Creative Commons attributions - how to attribute works you reuse under a Creative Commons license | New Media Rights
To properly attribute works that you reuse under a Creative Commons license the general rule of thumb is to include in your attribution the acronym TASL, which stands for:1. Title – What is the name of the material?2. Author - Who owns the material3. Source – Where can I find it?3. License –...www.newmediarights.org
Now, is google the only place for CC?
Nope!
As you saw Wikimedia commons is a good place, art quality.... varies. But still way better than 10 years ago
What's more, there are now CC groups on Deviant art, just search by typing Creative commons, likewise with google, search engines are not perfect once you find what you want, look for the license info, but with Deviantart messaging the artist takes 2 seconds and a tiny bit of effort.
Likewise, license info can be found on some of the art at artstation and but messaging the creator is not difficult.
@theSeaSquidfish said some, For more resources:
Alternatives to Unsplash for free stock photos
Chris Collins is a Glasgow based multi-disciplinary software engineer working across digital design, web development and solutions architecture.
Agree.
*nods*
It makes me sad too when people do eventually go on and pay for a commissioned art when their novels do become successful. But they fail to mention a word about the artist they have been exploiting in the past. The Art that helped build a fanbase gets no credit or money And then cast aside when the novel is successful, used and abused, swept under the rug.
Ah ok, was confused in your above post mentioned what is and what is not K-on.I am not sure either, it is just what it is called
K-On! - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
This is such a great idea! >.< I think a list like this should be pinned in the forums if it's created. Unfortunately, I don't know any sites that offer free photos to use, so I wouldn't be able to contribute to the list... D:
Just would like to note that other TLs have the right to get angry as the aggregators make money off of what is yours (and the original authors work).Hmm, I guess I can add my own response to this thread, although I think it heavily varies by person on an individual basis.
For me, I come from an Internet background of forum roleplays, translations, fanfiction, and tumblr blogs. Sort of from the beginning, I've been well aware of the fact that translations are illegal and infringe on copyright. Likewise, on my forum roleplays, many of the sites I've been on use faceclaims and people include artist artwork (usually without permission) on their character profiles. Meanwhile, there were a few years that I liked to make tumblr mangacaps, which are basically manga artwork with the text cropped out for an aesthetic purpose.
...Thinking about it, I've sort of been doing it for so long that I've more or less just gotten used to it.
That said, talking about copyright is actually a very convoluted territory that carries a lot of thought and consideration.
What of people who use anime pictures as discord profiles or to decorate their facebook profile? Fanfiction is technically also copyright infringement, which is why archiveofourown exists (as a safe harbor to protect fanworks from being taken down by DMCA claims). Japanese copyright law is looser than US/Western law (in the sense that in Japanese law it isn't copyright infringement unless the original copyright holder complains per the concept of 親告罪), and there were concerns in Japan about joining TPP affecting doujinshi artists.
I tend to personally hold looser views on copyright in terms of personal use and self-expression.
Specifically, I feel like the usage of art is also a form of expression, and tumblr profile wall is kind of like a collage (at least in my eyes). As a result, I don't tend to believe that it is as wrong for people to use artwork (that they don't own) as profile pictures or other decorative elements of their community spaces, particularly when it is as a non-commercial form of self-expression.
Although that is just a personal view.
Above we have exhibit A, in which the youtube uploader rotoscoped (traced) the entire Chika dance and set it to the music of Aaron Smith - Dancin (KRONO Remix).
A lot of artists consider tracing a form of copyright infringement, and likewise it is extremely on youtube for uploaders to just use music (that they often aren't licensed to use). That said, I feel like some element of youtube videos also suffers when content creators are unable to use the song that comes to mind, and I think there is something special about the present state of youtube (and the online community) about it being possible for random people to piece together elements of art, and I tend to view it as a form of self-expression. Moreover, even the act of tracing the chika dance takes a lot of work....... and some random fan decided to spend months doing it because they loved it so much.
Personally, my sympathy tends to disappear when a commercial element appears.
As a translator, I have never monetized any of my translations because I don't think it's morally right to.
As soon as a financial aspect is introduced, I feel like it's no longer just a fanwork or a work of self-expression.
I've noticed a lot of people say that they hate it when their work gets stolen, but it's hard for me to relate.
Also would like to stress one thing you said. Google isn't perfect and the license info may be wrong. Try to find the original original image and check.I used to volunteer at a dirt-poor non-profit, making promo posters and advertising collaterals. SOooo making posters and covers that are good enough but have no legal ramifications while costing next to nothing is pretty much my jam.
The first thing to understand about material made by other people is by default EVERYTHING is copyrighted by a creator as soon as it created, BUT there is a catch, two catches, fair use and Creative Commons.
First, Fair use: it can be murky for some things and not so for others, but a general rule of thumb use the 4 rules, if you are playing the semantics of "transformative" then you are gambling, stop if you are not sure-sure, up in the air feeling should be minimalised where possible.
the 4 rules
Here is the link from standard... read if curious have some pretty clear language and examples: https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/#educational_fair_use_guidelines
- the purpose and character of your use
- the nature of the copyrighted work
- the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Here is a more official statement of 4 rules from https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
@LostLibrarian & @Freesia.Cutepearl
- Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.
- Nature of the copyrighted work: This factor analyzes the degree to which the work that was used relates to copyright’s purpose of encouraging creative expression. Thus, using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support a claim of a fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item). In addition, use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair.
- Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Under this factor, courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. If the use includes a large portion of the copyrighted work, fair use is less likely to be found; if the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material, fair use is more likely. That said, some courts have found use of an entire work to be fair under certain circumstances. And in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair because the selection was an important part—or the “heart”—of the work.
- Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread.
The most difficult part of fair use is the idea of "Transformative". Things that are clearly transformative are parodies, in a veritable sense Fanfics and doujinshi have an easier time. Also transformative are research and education a site indexing the lore of Starwars can use those picture as well.
But where it gets murky is the question if I am taking a landscape art, its purpose is to be "landscape" and composite it on my picture where it is the background is the purpose of the art still "landscape" have I added any additional purpose to the art?
Murky... You will be in the "remix" territory of the law. And right and wrong is not decided by you or the content creator but by a judge.
Now here is the fun part.
Creative Commons!
You guys have the benefit of this existence, helping with making contents and collaboration, way back before this it was a bit wild west.
Around the Year 2000 CC was born
Here is an explanation of Creative commons (1min 59 sec long)
Now that you understand CC. First is understanding what you want is the beautiful CC0 logo (“No Rights Reserved”) of Some rights, only attribution.
So how to work with/under CC.
Look for the licence. Often is quite straight forward. even with google.
Say search Anime on google image search then choose tools, narrow licenses
Now don't just click and go!
there is a few more step!
Example 1.
Click into it and chase it to the end will lead you to the source
and at the bottom of the page, you'll see.File:Anime Girl.svg - Wikimedia Commons
Now if you follow those rules, you would have done your due diligence.
If you want to be super safe you can even lookup the author, and thin Ah~ yup super legit it is not just some Rando uploading someone else's art.
Example 2.
you can do the same
First, there is less info on the creator, but Wikimedia commons is quite well moderated (I think?) so it's fine (I guess?)
but the licence is slightly different with a:
Which means if you make a cover with the picture, your cover can be taken and made into... I dun know... t-shirts, remixed into other people covers etc.. I think...
Example 3.
It is obviously BS, since that is K-on but lets check it anyway since I could be wrong.
Opening the link it shows
First red flag, not a CC license, it's not wrong just less trustworthy. And I KNOW it's not original
But even if I don't know it. since I am want to avoid any trouble further down the road I did an image search.
and image can be found on various site but all/most are under "Image License: Personal Use Only"
So for things that like that, at your own risk and ethically, is it no different from taking without permission? What if it not from K-on? Use it? Too murky? if you don't know for sure what the origin of the art work is, rule of thumb, don't use it.
As for How to attribute here are links
Recommended practices for attribution - Creative Commons
Best Practices for Creative Commons attributions - how to attribute works you reuse under a Creative Commons license | New Media Rights
To properly attribute works that you reuse under a Creative Commons license the general rule of thumb is to include in your attribution the acronym TASL, which stands for:1. Title – What is the name of the material?2. Author - Who owns the material3. Source – Where can I find it?3. License –...
Now, is google the only place for CC?
Nope!
As you saw Wikimedia commons is a good place, art quality.... varies. But still way better than 10 years ago
What's more, there are now CC groups on Deviant art, just search by typing Creative commons, likewise with google, search engines are not perfect once you find what you want, look for the license info, but with Deviantart messaging the artist takes 2 seconds and a tiny bit of effort.
Likewise, license info can be found on some of the art at artstation and but messaging the creator is not difficult.
@theSeaSquidfish said some, For more resources:
Alternatives to Unsplash for free stock photos
Chris Collins is a Glasgow based multi-disciplinary software engineer working across digital design, web development and solutions architecture.
- bara-art.com/photos
- barnimages.com
- cc0.photo
- crowthestone.tumblr.com
- cupcake.nilssonlee.se
- epicantus.tumblr.com
- fancycrave.tumblr.com
- foodshot.co
- freelyphotos.com
- freenaturestock.com
- freestocks.org
- jaymantri.com
- libreshot.com
- magdeleine.co/license/cc0
- mmtstock.com
- moveast.me
- mystock.photos
- nos.twnsnd.co
- photocrops.com/browse
- photos.oliur.com
- publicdomainarchive.com/public-domain-images
- realisticshots.com
- rightlight.nordwoodthemes.com
- semi-recta.tumblr.com
- skitterphoto.com
- skuawk.com
- snapwiresnaps.tumblr.com
- startupstockphotos.com
- streetwill.co
- travelcoffeebook.com
- goodfreephotos.com
- lookingglassfreephotos.tumblr.com
- pexels.com
- pixabay.com
- stockified.com
- unsplash.com
Agree.
*nods*
It makes me sad too when people do eventually go on and pay for a commissioned art when their novels do become successful. But they fail to mention a word about the artist they have been exploiting in the past. The Art that helped build a fanbase gets no credit or money And then cast aside when the novel is successful, used and abused, swept under the rug.
Man, it makes me feel old now seeing people not know what K-on is. I remember the start of the previous decade like yesterday and the series was one of the biggest and most recognizable moeblob shows out there at that time.
I know right!
I know right!
I remember...., The year was circa 2009
when School Days and Higurashi no Naku Koro ni just blew everyone's minds.
And every second person was stil obsessed with Haruhi,
then was the beginning of long ass anime names that need shortened handles.... like Oremo and anohana...
oh those times.... when crunchy roll and Netflix did not exist
and then you learned that subtitles were .srt files separated from the video..
when some of the timing is wrong, you have to learn how to edit the subs and make alterations to time codes, speed and learn font settings...
Then you just plain learned Japanese.
Ah~what a decade...
Subtitles with off timing...