Status #15749

Another issue that rises to the top of the pail [...]

Brantford, Ontario
via Ubuntu Planet
Another issue that rises to the top of the pail when a group starts to gain momentum, people get interested and things start happening is the issue of copyright. When I was involved with a church a number of years ago now (the denomination in which I had grown up), the church wanted to redo their website. Another fellow and myself tried to recommend they hire a professional or third party to consult on this. They asked for volunteers, but ended up doing it in house. The graphics were acceptable, but the technical knowledge was just not there. I was sitting on the sidelines, watching, waiting hoping they would get it right (this was back when I still believed most of what they had to say).

It turned out to be a mostly brochureware site, not (mobile) responsive, rather dry and dull. But the worst part was that they included quite a number of images of church members on there, including minors. I recognized one of them. In ten minutes I was at the door of the youth pastors office. In three days *all* the pictures were off (they hadn't obtained permission from anyone). In three months they agreed to pay the going rate for just one of them ($2,000) and put that towards further website work (I should have collected the funds myself and could of, but it didn't feel right to do so).

Point is, what are the copyright terms on this site, as compared to say, Wikipedia. What happens if you share a world shaking idea on this site, and then want to proceed with it, or someone else uses it elsewhere but doesn't give you credit. Check the terms. If you use this site, this is what you agree to. Do you agree with what is there? I really don't know if that has been given due consideration, but at some point I think it should. Trust and momentum are important, but so is making sure things like that are in place over the long run.

I had brought of the idea with a wiki. CC BY-SA 3.0 is what I see there. Worth checking out. Thanks.
I have to admit it is polite to ask but in the UK you are entitled to take a photo in public and use it, of anyone. This idea of if you have a child in a photo your a pedo is frankly propaganda scaremongering (i'm not saying you are saying this). It's like at school sports day you are not allowed to take photo's it rubbish!

When I am at a protest or the like police and media have taken my photo and it's been published I was never asked (not that I'm bothered) why does it not work this way?

They are using copyright to prevent the sharing of information, with the new EU idea of copyrighting internet links, this is just another way of suppressing us!
Friday 19 August 2016, 10:03:47
These were posed images taken by a professional photographer. He normally obtained consent, but in this case didn't. The images were published at full resolution, straight out of the camera. The entire process went through the hands of at least three different people. The governing body was supposed to approve the whole deal before the site went live, but didn't. They didn't know what they were doing, and I don't even think bothered to check that far. Thanks for asking.
Friday 19 August 2016, 15:12:35
Please login to make a comment

© 2014 - 2020 The Full Circle Project
The Full Circle Project is powered by Coeō © 2014 - 2020 Coeō (Matthew Dowle) | Designed and developed by Matthew Dowle | Coeō Terms and Conditions / Legal | Sitemap