"We do not own the images/video clips/soundtrack used. No infringement intended."
"CTTO: Credit to the owner."
I've seen these phrases quite often, mostly in Youtube videos by content creators* who, in their quest for producing their content, forget the root word of the word creator* which is quite ironic if you really think about it. Are they actually content creators if they are using content that they do not own? Of course, some bozo will just drop a hapless joke about the matter, for example, "even god copied Eve from Adam."
Just to disambiguate the above paragraph, content creation may not always be all about producing all original content. Of course, not everyone can really create all forms of content on their own, but, if one has to use content that is not theirs, one should take note about something a lot of people commit without knowing they are committing it.
Infringement. Specifically, copyright infringement, which is also something a lot of people take for granted until it happens to them. So, how do you know if you are infringing on someone else's (intellectual) property? Also, CTTO is a lazy and irresponsible attribution, and most often done by those who got caught infringing and as an attempt to save face, but a tad little too late. It's also done by people who don't want to bother with source tracing.
The short of it, if you don't have permission to use it, but use it anyway, you're already infringing. Putting a "no infringement intended" disclaimer does not negate the fact that you have used a certain material without permission.
The long of it is more complicated, as copyright and intellectual property remains an alien concept to certain people who do not accept it, mainly because they believe that if its out there, it's free game.
It's not. Whereas there are materials in the public domain that people can use freely without guilt (heck, there are those who do not really feel any guilt at all, but, that's a different matter), there are a lot of materials that are under certain copyright protocols for use.
Even Google has revised its search result parameters when one is searching for certain images. For example, when you Google "Gundam," then click on Images, once you click on a hit, it will preview the image on a side tab, now with a warning:
 |
| "Images may be subject to copyright" is not a suggestion |
A lot of people ignore that statement, and only a few even bother clicking the Learn More link beside it, thinking, "oh well, I'm not gonna use it for profit, so, why bother?"
But, profit is not the start and end of it, so, let's see what those people missed (just in case you didn't bother clicking the link).
Fair use, yet another concept people misinterpret next to royalty-free. I shant discuss these two in length, but the gist of the matter is that these two terms, like "Gunpla is Freedom," do not mean what you think it means, so though I'll put a simple explanation, it's better to read up on them on your own.
Copyright is by virtue of creation. Seems vague, yes, but, the Truth points to itself**. This simply means that anything one creates is theirs at the moment it was made, provided of course it is covered on the list above.
If you use an image, video or audio clip you own, or produced yourself, you're all set. You do not have anything to worry about so as long as that image, video or audio clip do not have proprietary material in it. As such, you can post a selfie so as long as the selfie does not include anything in the background that can bite you on the ass later on. (Addendum: If you use a photo or an image of a person, and you took that photo without permission, or secured permission then after, aka, model release, then you may be liable with infringement).
If you use an image, video or audio clip you found while searching, and you like it so much you just have to use it, you will have to do one or two of these things, laziness notwithstanding, to see if:
- the material is in the Public Domain
- it's covered under Fair Use
- it's covered under Creative Commons License
- it requires attribution
The last part is the one I'm most particular about. I've seen a lot of people post images without regard of the images' source. Whereas this isn't really so much of an issue with memes or public domain images, it becomes a very sensitive issue when it comes to copyrighted work. Posting an image of a Gundam or Gunpla kit you want to purchase on your Facebook profile page is okay since the intent of use does not infringe, but, to claim that an image is yours, or ignore to attribute it, for example, a photo or illustration of a Gundam or Gunpla kit, whether for monetization or education purposes, then you are infringing on that person's copyright.
There are people who do not mind their work being shared, that's the point of sharing it after all, but it's an entirely different matter altogether when one misrepresents that image as theirs. This is what is known in the Interweb as photo-grabbing. Photo-grabbing is either infringement and/or plagiarism, as the case may be. It becomes worse when one alters the image, removing any detail that pertains to the image's ownership. That makes it an act of infringement (use without permission) and plagiarism, since the image has been altered to remove any indication of ownership.
Before the advent of the Internet and Social media, before the introduction of digital cameras and camphones, it's relatively easy to claim that a photo or image is yours since there is no massively-global way to verify it. This happens not only with images or photos, but music as well, but it's easier to check if a certain piece of music was plagiarized since there are a lot more people listening to a lot of different types of music (as with the case of Orange and Lemons' Pinoy Ako ripping off The Care's Chandelier). The Internet however, is a double-edged sword: it has made both verification and plagiarism rather easy, but, it has propagated the latter quite a lot more often, maybe because most people are inherently ignorant or just don't care about copyright.
Edit: Attributing copyrighted works is okay in most cases when you're
just sharing the work concerned, but, when you plaster your product on
top of a photo you do not own or have permission to use, especially in
the context of commercial use, you are still very much infringing on
that image's copyright, since your product has no connection
whatsoever with the photo you do not have permission for. Common Sense
is never common, as it were, so is Common Human Decency as the case may
be.
It's very much the same with music or any creative work. Just to prove the point, I posted a video on Youtube recently and I used one of my own songs as soundtrack. I tried turning on its monetization, but I couldn't, saying that the track is licensed somewhere. I verified it later on with our distributor that they have the sole license to assign the monetization, but I do not have to worry since it's done to centralize the process.
There are certain artists, mainly independent songwriters, bands and musicians who don't mind their material being pirated shared (as opposed to plagiarized or infringed), mainly because it gives them mileage. That is more the exception than the rule, and in most cases, changes as soon as they start making mainstream money.
As a very-related aside, you can claim that the marinated chicken you are peddling tastes like Jollibee, but, you shouldn't use the Jollibee brand anywhere, on your post, and especially your packaging. Doing so infringes on Jollibee's trademark.
 |
| Blatant misappropriation of branding / trademark infringement |
The long and short of it, do not use an image, video or audio if you do not own it, but, if you really, really just have to, make sure you credit the source material and/or ask for permission from the author or owner. Additionally, most anything pinned on Pinterest has been very difficult to source-trace the ownership because of those people's habit of pinning things they like but do not own and do not bother to attribute. It has become difficult to source-trace certain images in Google as well since it mostly points back to Pinterest.
Lastly, here's another very good example of blatant copyright infringement,
... the image of which is the cover image of Falldog's Gunpla blog, Layman's Gunpla Guide, which a lot of people refer to (as do I). No permission, no attribution, and the original text was removed in lieu of their covid warning.
This is the proper way of attributing copyrighted images or material.
 |
| Source |
** Ambassador Kosh, Babylon 5
References and Additional Sources:
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/fair-use
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attribution
https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/
https://www.rightsdirect.com/international-copyright-basics/
https://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/copyright-fair-use-and-how-it-works-for-online-images/
https://www.vontweb.com/blog/how-to-use-internet-images-legally/
https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/guide-copyright-fair-use-laws-online-images/
https://whatiscopyright.org/what-are-the-copyright-rules-on-images-found-on-the-internet/
http://bryantonpost.blogspot.com/2005/10/orange-and-lemons-pinoy-ako-rip-off.html
No comments:
Post a Comment