Copyright violation with the avatars

[hamanaka]

It appears that the SMF package is being distributed with avatars of several actors and musicians.

I am almost certain that these likenesses should not be distributed in the core package offering, even if SMF is a non profit, and SMF is an open source project it seems to be an open source community playing with fire.

I certainly would not want to see Shady Aftermath records sending a cease and desist to an open source community, or even worse to every community member who has installations running with the included stock avatars.  Or even WORSE... since these musicians almost all belong to organizations that attack those who share the MP3 data files illegally, I am sure that the Avatar data files are also of concern, as the wide distribution of these images increases the market and decreases the value of the likenesses and their brands.

see the folders:

avatars/actors/
avatars/musicians/

Instead, I can offer several pictures that I own of me and my friends in the Kunena forum community.  ha ha j/k

[Kindred]

well, since the same avatars have been in user for 9 years now.........

[Arantor]

I honestly doubt there would be any significant comeback anyway. Being 65x65, they're lower than would normally be considered as being in violation of copyright laws anyway because they are generic photos of the people concerned - you could not, for example, trivially cite where any picture even came from.

[hamanaka]

@kindred    same images for 9 years....    hmmm...  yes than that makes it ok?   I don't think so!  instead, that just brings more light to the situation, that there is likely a million+ websites that could be targets of some evil litigation group.

@Arantor  I'm sorry but that is not a valid arguement, of course the images can be matched to their sources, and even at their small size they clearly make out the likenesses, and not to mention the correct spelling of each celebrity's name as the file name.

ultimately it was an error in the person who committed those images and the person who applied the commit to the stable branch.... the list goes on of who is exactly liable, but ultimately they should be immediately replaced and a patch should quickly be made available to the community to reduce possible litigation and not to mention to retain the spirit of open source.

[Kindred]

ummm.... no.

1- the owner of each and every image would have to individually check and verify that the image was actually theirs (remember, the MODEL does not own the rights to most images of himself... the PHOTOGRAPHER does)

2- They would have to prove that there was malice, profit or deception involved in the selection of those images... or that the use of those images significantly impacted their own reputation or profit.


So... basically, you're blowing smoke.

[LiroyvH]

Why would it be copyright violation instantly because it's a picture of a celebrity...?
If it was a picture of a John Doe it would be fine? That's strange logic.

[MrPhil]

The photographer, assignee, or purchaser of full rights to an image would still own the copyright. I would be a bit nervous about offering such images as part of the SMF distribution, unless SMF can document each image's provenance and show that it's legal to distribute them. If SMF can't show that they obtained them (and redistribute them) in strict compliance with the law, it would be open to legal attack. Since SMF isn't making money off of them, the worst that would happen is probably a "cease and desist" order. The amount of time that SMF has been redistributing these images is irrelevant, so long as the copyrights haven't expired (the owners may not have realized what was happening).

Images of public figures are a bit of an odd situation. Being newsworthy individuals, they have somewhat less protection against someone photographing them than would you or I (the bar is raised to actual harm). Some public figures will let such things slide by, figuring that publicity is publicity, and every little bit helps. Others attempt to exercise very tightly control over their images, both to control their public image and to make money... you never know.

If SMF can't prove that it has (and can redistribute) these images legally, I would suggest removing them from distributions. Let people supply their own pictures. By the way, cartoon characters (Simpsons, Futurama, Calvin & Hobbes, etc., to name some of the more popular ones) would also be under copyright protection (perhaps even stronger than photos of real people), as would movie and video stills.

I am not a lawyer. I only play one on TV. Take this legal advice with as many grains of salt as you wish.

[Arantor]

The copyrights won't have expired. Disney and other similar companies have seen to that by ensuring copyright extends for decades - and almost all of the people pictured are still alive.

And there is no mention of fair use; the small size of images would actually be considered under that clause too.

[Kindred]

yes, the two benchmarks that I listed are part of the determination for "fair use".

[hamanaka]

@kindred  1.   my arguement is still valid for the copyright holder which may or may not be the photographer or the celebrity themself, it would only take 1 of those copyright holders to raise claim, as you are suggesting, and I am agreeing to cause serious detriment to the SMF community.

@Kindred 2.  - you said "They would have to prove that there was malice, profit or deception involved in the selection of those images... or that the use of those images significantly impacted their own reputation or profit."   since we are assuming the US is the enforcer of global copyright litigation, this is the fair use doctrine as I have learned it in college.   Malice, Deception, and Reputation are not really a concern in this matter of fair use.  I don't think that SMF is a nonprofit for educational purposes, even though it does appear to be listed as a Nevada non-profit, it is still distributing.  Think about the drug user vs. the drug dealer.

        1.The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
        2.The nature of the copyrighted work
        3.The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
        4.The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

@CoreISP  Actually it doesn't matter who the picture is of I am guessing that they are not distributed under a license that allow others to continue to distribute, in this case they are celebrities, which only makes it worse as some of the celebrities included do have a reputation of being involved with organizations that do seek damages for arguably similar issues.  "John Doe's"  photographer may not have the means, desire, or business model to pursue legal action, or even to cause most people to feel threatened with possible liability issues. 

@Arantor right, these images are all definitely not available for open use.

@MrPhil  all good comments, but don't be confused about newsworthy/public figures in this case,  these images are being distributed as part of a core product.  The liability could fall on both the distributer, the end user, and so many other parties it is unbelievable that any open source community would allow this to occur for nearly a decade.

[ARG01]

hamanaka, what formal education and/or professional experience do you attain in copyright infringement and/or enforcement? In my years of being formally educated in criminal law, I have studied copyright infringement, enforcement and recognition and have obtained the legally appointed citations and degree's to back it up.

From what I have read sir, indeed "basically, you're blowing smoke".

[Arantor]

@Arantor right, these images are all definitely not available for open use.

Well done for missing my point. As I understand copyright law, fair use WOULD apply here.

[Night09]

Nothing will ever come of this troll thread or billions of lawsuits would need to be made lol.

[ARG01]

@kindred  1.   my arguement is still valid for the copyright holder which may or may not be the photographer or the celebrity themself, it would only take 1 of those copyright holders to raise claim, as you are suggesting, and I am agreeing to cause serious detriment to the SMF community.

He must work for another forum software platform. 

[Night09]

He must work for another forum software platform. 

Some joomla forum software called Kunena based on the OP's post which just happens to be at release version 2.0.2 funnily enough after a bit of looking round..

[ARG01]

I noticed that as well. Hell, most of the icons that they use in their applications and on their own forum are pulled straight from the net. 

[Night09]

Just trollin imo based on the urge to register to point it out.

[hamanaka]

Trolling my ass...

I highly doubt fair use, but I would like to read the arguements of how they could be fair use...  if anyone is willing to spend the time to convert thoughts into typed words.

I don't work for any other forum community, that is crazy talk.  I'm a volunteer within the communities, but on my commercial offerings I work on forums, likely the same for many people here... 

I don't prefer to implement SMF, but on occasion I do use SMF as an intermediate forum to faciliate migrations between other forums, therefor SMF is important to me.

@nightbre billions of lawsuits! hilarious, ultimately an open source community would try to use images that are in the most way possible free for redistribution.

I would bet every person that replied with dissent that these images will eventually be removed from the core package, hopefully voluntarily before any external action is taken.

[Arantor]

I highly doubt fair use, but I would like to read the arguements of how they could be fair use...  if anyone is willing to spend the time to convert thoughts into typed words.

We already did. You're not willing to spend the time reading the already converted thoughts, hence the assumption that you're just trolling.

I would bet every person that replied with dissent that these images will eventually be removed from the core package, hopefully voluntarily before any external action is taken.

There have been about 4 people in total that I can remember that have claimed dissent, and none of them are acting on behalf of any of the people pictured, but like yourself taking umbridge in fear of something that probably won't ever happen.

Also, I'd still note that there has been no external action in the last 9 years, I fail to see why there would be now.

[FrizzleFried]

...someone has WAY too much time on their hands...