Rule no 16 and images

[anonymous-user]

Given the sudden specific enforcement of rule 16 against Byker, why is rule 16 not more generally enforced for images reproduced on PH?

Reproducing images is no less a copyright infringement than text (unless and exemption applies) and photos unlike text are specifically excluded from the fair dealing defence that applies to news reporting.

Expecting the customary lock in 3, 2, 1…

[anonymous-user]

That’s fine, but it’s not the point. Rule 16 is there to protect the publisher of the site from a legal claim. Pictures are far more frequently pasted into PH than news articles.

Are you really saying that a newspaper/news website has been complaining about content reproduction in the Trump thread?

ETA: must remember to use quote next time. The missing post said that pictures get removed if there is a complaint.

[Big Al.]

Sorry. I was trying to edit my post and appear to have lost it.

Got it back here:-

Images in the main are not routinely removed unless we get personal requests to do so.

HTH

[Big Al.]

BlackWidow13 said:

That’s fine, but it’s not the point. Rule 16 is there to protect the publisher of the site from a legal claim. Pictures are far more frequently pasted into PH than news articles.

Are you really saying that a newspaper/news website has been complaining about content reproduction in the Trump thread?

ETA: must remember to use quote next time. The missing post said that pictures get removed if there is a complaint.

No, as I said by routine images are not routinely removed, unless requested to do so.

No one has requested removal of any images on the Trump thread or any other to my knowledge.

The only requests I can recall in the past have been for photos of members cars posted without their permission.

[anonymous-user]

I think we are at cross purposes.

[Big Al.]

BlackWidow13 said:

Are you really saying that a newspaper/news website has been complaining about content reproduction in the Trump thread?

Sorry, thought I answered that:-

Big Al. said:

No one has requested removal of any images on the Trump thread or any other to my knowledge.

[silentbrown]

Big Al. said:

BlackWidow13 said:

Are you really saying that a newspaper/news website has been complaining about content reproduction in the Trump thread?

Sorry, thought I answered that:-

Big Al. said:

No one has requested removal of any images on the Trump thread or any other to my knowledge.

You answered regarding images. I think the q is more general in terms of content, but more specific about the complainer. In other words, have you had DMCA takedown requests (or threats of same) due to the Trump thread?

[anonymous-user]

Let me have another go.

Rule 16 says Do not copy and paste content from newspapers, news sites or other websites. This is a breach of their copyright and any such threads will be deleted.

That rule covers text and images and news and non news sites.

The rule doesn’t say: if PH gets complaints about copying of third party material it will delete it and censure posters. It says don’t do it in the first place. And that is because copying material creates a risk of copyright infringement for PH’s owners. The rule is there to protect PH against complaints from third parties.

There are tons of photos copied into PH, all of which create the same risk of complaints against PH. But none of them get pulled.

The mod position is “yes, because we don’t get complaints about them (photos) from the owners or anyone else”. Fine - that’s a pretty relaxed view of the rule but if that’s how it is enforced, that’s PH’s risk.

Does that mean though that Byker got his ban because a news website complained? Or did he get his ban because other PH posters complained about his posting?

I’m not expecting any engagement on this because it’s for the mods to address. But it would seem odd to allow some posters to silence others via the selective use of a rule that really has nothing to do with the first group of posters.

[APontus]

My understanding is that the moderation here is generally reactionary, i.e. not much will be done against posts that break the rules unless someone complain.

[HM-2]

APontus said:

My understanding is that the moderation here is generally reactionary, i.e. not much will be done against posts that break the rules unless someone complain.

Most forums are primarily reactively moderated, but it is fairly typical for staff member to address posting that violates the rules if they come across it in their daily use of the site (assuming they're active contributors rather than solely tasked with responding to reports, at least).

[citizensm1th]

APontus said:

My understanding is that the moderation here is generally reactionary, i.e. not much will be done against posts that break the rules unless someone complain.

i am not sure that is always the case, sometimes mods can be quite active if they take a dislike to a view or someone who posts a view they don't like. not all of them but defiantly some of them.

[valiant]

HM-2 said:

APontus said:

My understanding is that the moderation here is generally reactionary, i.e. not much will be done against posts that break the rules unless someone complain.

Most forums are primarily reactively moderated, but it is fairly typical for staff member to address posting that violates the rules if they come across it in their daily use of the site (assuming they're active contributors rather than solely tasked with responding to reports, at least).

Then how do you explain mods who have actively participated in the thread in question?

Why didn’t they enforce or at least warn Byker that he was in violation of rule 16 whilst perusing the thread? Kinky was very quick to kick people off and delete posts that he felt didn’t meet the criteria (and understandingly so) yet ignored Byker’s many, many posts which seemingly flouted rule 16.

This ban simply makes no sense and is showing moderation to be selective, hypocritical, non-accountable and unequal.

[HM-2]

valiant said:

HM-2 said:

APontus said:

My understanding is that the moderation here is generally reactionary, i.e. not much will be done against posts that break the rules unless someone complain.

Most forums are primarily reactively moderated, but it is fairly typical for staff member to address posting that violates the rules if they come across it in their daily use of the site (assuming they're active contributors rather than solely tasked with responding to reports, at least).

Then how do you explain mods who have actively participated in the thread in question?

Why didn’t they enforce or at least warn Byker that he was in violation of rule 16 whilst perusing the thread? Kinky was very quick to kick people off and delete posts that he felt didn’t meet the criteria (and understandingly so) yet ignored Byker’s many, many posts which seemingly flouted rule 16.

This ban simply makes no sense and is showing moderation to be selective, hypocritical, non-accountable and unequal.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm speaking solely from the perspective of someone who has moderated or administrated multiple forums in the past, and was in fact thanks to a direct PM the member that informed the Trump 45 contributors he was banned from the thread in question.

I have created my own thread a couple below this one asking for clarification on Rule 16 and am equally concerned that it's implementation seems to contradict fair use exemptions in some instances but allow obvious copyright infringement in others.

If the same moderators who have been active participants in the thread in question, and if I'm not mistaken have essentially confirmed with Byker in the past that his posting has been above board and acceptable, then I suspect a lot of longstanding and active members may seek to find more welcoming, fairer and more measured communities elsewhere. If it's a misunderstanding it miscommunication within the moderating team, I hope it's addressed quickly and transparently.

Edited by HM-2 on Saturday 19th June 19:50

[Byker28i]

Just for the record, at no point was I given any warning just a ban.

I was aware of the rules and believed I was within them by posting a snippet of the article to get peoples interest/show why it was sent, then with the link for people to read the rest of the article and attribute the source, driving traffic to the source to read the full article.

I have been doing this for over 5 years on that thread, have been a PH member for many years doing the same with other articles - such as from TVRCC. Had a mod contacted me I would have immediately modified that posting style.

It does however seem to be a kneejerk reaction to this thread
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

However, it's PH playground and they set the rules. I just wished moderation was considered, consistant, especially in regard to multiple duplicate accounts from banned returnees.

And to the person that sent me the gloating, threating email from a made up gmail account - really? This is a discussion forum, if you don't like what you are reading, discuss why, try to change the other persons mind. As a regular at PH meets, it's seriously made me consider my participation. Congratulations