AVATARS and USERNAMES ... what's going on?

[dnewton3]

Regarding product placement with CR/TM material(s) in the images ...
This has been discussed before but apparently needs repeating.

When the object (such as a Wix oil filter) is the main focal point of the avatar, that is not allowed.
If the object (that same Wix filter) is not the main focal point, then it's allowed.
I'll make some examples based on a Wix filter, but the same concept applies to bottles of brand X lube, brand Y vehicle, brand z ...

Examples of impermissible avatar use:
- You take a photo of the Wix filter sitting on your workbench; it's the sole prominent object in the image
- you take a photo of the filter while holding it in your hand, but you (the human face and torso) are not visible; this is also not allowed because you still are making the main focal point the filter only. Just by holding it does NOT alleviate the concern. Nor are you off the hook if you have several items in the photo with the Wix filter; the effort to surround it does not nullify it.

Examples of permissible avatar use:
- you take a photo of you installing the Wix filter on your engine; not only is the filter visible, but a reasonable portion of your body such that YOU (the person) are the focal point and not the filter
- you take a photo of the filter, but the Wix label and number are not visible; no reasonable way to identify the filter by brand name or part number exists and therefore it's a generic image



Now, when we post pictures of filters in threads about filters, such that there are not only images but also contextual conversation about the filter, THAT existing conversation meets the "fair use exemption" clause as identified by the FTC. So posting pictures of filters (in whole, or part) whey they are the main focal point of the photo is acceptable as long as they are accompanied by significant discussion about the filter in view.

Further, please understand that when a grey area exists, BITOG is always going to err on the side of caution. As with all our other rules, BITOG has the final say, not you. It's not that we're intent on hurting your feelings or making members upset, but again, there's a $10k bounty on violations and we're not going to pay to have to save your feelings. Survival of the site outweighs someone's avatar. I think most folks would certainly understand that.

 

[dnewton3]

I've got a friend who works for the federal government and therefore knows how lawyers work in and out of the courts.

As busy as the court system is, this would most likely be laughed out of the courthouse.

It's clear you don't understand how this process would play out. Here's a very realistic scenario ...

- 3rd party entities contract with companies to find violations of CR/TM violations of product X; 3rd party does this on a commission basis
- BOTs are seeded with images to look for; AI has made this stupidly easy for them
- BOTs scour the 'net and finds the image(s) on BITOG; it gets reported to the 3rd party
- 3rd party takes the issue to the CR/TM owner, who then agrees to proceed
- 3rd party (or the CR/TM owner) has a lawyer who contacts BITOG and says "looky here ... you did something wrong ... "
- IF the violation is legitimate, they will attempt to negotiate a cash settlement along with a cease/desist agreement; that cash settlement is typically around $10k per violation
- IF BITOG does not agree to settle, then we engage a specialized attorney and fight the fight; none of which is affordable because dozens and dozens of hours of special legal counsel also costs $10k or more (way more)
- either way, it's buckets of money BITOG does not have; we cannot afford a settlement and we cannot afford the legal fight

This isn't about what a judge or jury might do; it would never get that far, because we cannot afford to take it that far.

And, as I've said previously, this has actually happened to BITOG. This is not an exercise in the hypothetical; it's real and it's happened 2x already in 2025 !
Twice now, with different images, we've been contacted by lawyers representing CR/TM owners. By sheer luck, we've been able to avoid payment because we were not directly at fault. But we are unwilling to continue to play with fire; we're now taking an ultra cautious approach. There are a LOT of violations on this site, and they will be dealt with as quickly as practical. Please do not be offended if we contact you; it's not personal.

What matters is the BITOG doing what is in it's best interest for survival.
We choose to self-police and clean up the concerns, so as to avoid any legal issues whatsoever.

 

[RDY4WAR]

When do we start putting the ™ logo by names like Fram™ and Castrol™? (j/k)

One of my FB groups got dinged with a copyright infringement about 5 months ago. We appealed it, and the claim was dropped 2 days later when an actual person reviewed it. It's a copyright image, is still there, but it's not used for monetary gain or personal advancement. The bots don't know what actually infringes the copyright and what doesn't. They're glorified search engines. I can understand such a stance here if the site takes in a profit from donations and sponsorships. It could be argued that it's used for monetary gain. It's a huge stretch, but I don't blame the admins for being cautious. I'm a repeat offender here with several posts and an avatar removed, (I apologize) all of which I never once considered to be a violation because I've posted and used them elsewhere for years or a decade or more. One of them was a meme of Gary Busey™ that was my profile picture way back in the days of Myspace. The thought of it being copyright never crosses my mind because it's never had to.

 

[Nessism1]

It's clear you don't understand how this process would play out. Here's a very realistic scenario ...

- 3rd party entities contract with companies to find violations of CR/TM violations of product X; 3rd party does this on a commission basis
- BOTs are seeded with images to look for; AI has made this stupidly easy for them
- BOTs scour the 'net and finds the image(s) on BITOG; it gets reported to the 3rd party
- 3rd party takes the issue to the CR/TM owner, who then agrees to proceed
- 3rd party (or the CR/TM owner) has a lawyer who contacts BITOG and says "looky here ... you did something wrong ... "
- IF the violation is legitimate, they will attempt to negotiate a cash settlement along with a cease/desist agreement; that cash settlement is typically around $10k per violation
- IF BITOG does not agree to settle, then we engage a specialized attorney and fight the fight; none of which is affordable because dozens and dozens of hours of special legal counsel also costs $10k or more (way more)
- either way, it's buckets of money BITOG does not have; we cannot afford a settlement and we cannot afford the legal fight

This isn't about what a judge or jury might do; it would never get that far, because we cannot afford to take it that far.

And, as I've said previously, this has actually happened to BITOG. This is not an exercise in the hypothetical; it's real and it's happened 2x already in 2025 !
Twice now, with different images, we've been contacted by lawyers representing CR/TM owners. By sheer luck, we've been able to avoid payment because we were not directly at fault. But we are unwilling to continue to play with fire; we're now taking an ultra cautious approach. There are a LOT of violations on this site, and they will be dealt with as quickly as practical. Please do not be offended if we contact you; it's not personal.

What matters is the BITOG doing what is in it's best interest for survival.
We choose to self-police and clean up the concerns, so as to avoid any legal issues whatsoever.

Sounds like all the American's with Disabilities lawsuits that are filed in California for minor violations. A bathroom mirror is too high, doorway too narrow. Stuff like that. It's a huge business for lawyers in California.

 

[Hall]

There are a LOT of violations on this site

Just disable them then. You don't have to play detective nor deal with approving them going forward.

 

[dnewton3]

Just disable them then. You don't have to play detective nor deal with approving them going forward.

That conversation has taken place, trust me. And it's still being considered.

The topic of avatars has been ongoing for several months now during our monthly Moderator meetings.

 

[chemman]

Just to be safe, I got rid of my avatar. I do not desire to cause any problems for this forum!

 

[walterjay]

Is the Avatar of my dog ok? She is a specific breed.

 

[dnewton3]

Is the Avatar of my dog ok? She is a specific breed.

Did you, personally, take that photo?
- If yes, then you can use it, because you own the rights to the photo
- if not, then no (unless you can provide credible, verifiable proof that you have permission from the owner to use it)


There seems to be some confusion, based on the numerous PMs I'm getting.

Do NOT confuse the topic of image ownership with the topic of subject matter ownership.

Example 1:
You own a 1969 Camaro.
You take a photo of it and post it as your avatar. That's perfectly fine.

Example 2:
You own the 1969 Camaro.
Someone else takes a photo of that car. You, personally, don't own the rights to the photo.
You need specific written permission, which you provide to us, and we can verify, to be able to use it as an avatar.



Real life example of how this plays out ...
Several years ago, I rode my Goldwing on the Tail of the Dragon (US-129).
Along the route are some guys who are set up who take photos of you riding through the corners.
Those guys have small billboards which advertise their website where you can go and pay to get a copy of your photo.
I paid to get a couple of photos of me dragging pegs around a corner (don't laugh, it was still fun on a 'Wing).
Although I paid for copies, I don't own the original, nor have the rights to use it for any commercial or public broadcast use.

Another example of real life ...
Think of wedding photos. You pay a photographer to photograph/video your wedding.
Although you pay for copies, you don't own the originals, nor the rights to reproduce those images.


So, I repeat, do NOT confuse the topic of image ownership with subject matter ownership. Those are two different things.

 

[dnewton3]

Folks -
If a question is asked regarding this topic, it's best left to a Mod to answer please.
It's good for folks to ask for clarification, but the nuances of answers matter here, and the Mods have the best information relative to the site owner's interests.

Also, let's keep the twaddle comments out of this thread. This thread is supposed to be informational to help folks understand what's going on with avatars; it's not a place to toss around non-helpful quips.

 

[RDY4WAR]

What if someone else took the picture but they used your phone to take it? I think Wayne used my phone to take the picture in my avatar.

 

[dnewton3]

There are websites dedicated to sharing photos.

One such example is Flickr. Here is what Flickr says regarding license rights:
https://www.flickrhelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/40048459562388-Copyright-Licenses-on-Flickr

So, as you can see, if you want to use a photo from Flickr as an avatar, you need to do the following:
- check to see if it's public domain or not (is it rights-reserved or not?); if you cannot prove it's public use approved, then it's not OK for use on BITOG
- if it is OK for public use, then you must provide the link to the specific image to either wwillson or dnewton3 so we can verify the exemption

 

[dnewton3]

What if someone else took the picture but they used your phone to take it? I think Wayne used my phone to take the picture in my avatar.

Fair question.

I would interpret that as being your photo, not Wayne's. It was your equipment (phone) and you directed the photo; he was (in effect) your "unpaid employee" by taking that picture with your equipment. If someone takes a photo of you with your equipment, it's your rights to the image.

Which is why photographers don't like folks taking phone-photos and videos at weddings; it's cutting into their profits. They cannot charge you for images you took on your phone; they don't own your phone and you don't work for them. So they often will have exclusionary clauses in the contracts to discourage such things. They cannot charge you for images you took on your phone, but they can "fine" (charge an extra fee) to the wedding party for significant willful violations of their contract.

 

[dnewton3]

Yet another example is the image of my personal avatar.

The flag image is from a public domain free image website; I just searched "thin blue line flag" and the basic image popped up.
I then used a simple artwork program to overlay the text over the flag image.

If you want to use an image from a public domain website, you need to provide us with the link to the specific image of interest so we can verify the authenticity of the free nature of the image before we would approve it.

 

[Owen Lucas]

Source: Founded and staffed various forums for many years. Migrated several large forums for clients over the years. Web developer 10+ years.

@DoggoWoggo

Have you seen other forums implement Amazon Affiliate links successfully? I make a few bucks a year from links in my video descriptions.

For a site of this size, maybe there is an opportunity for more revenue besides what adsense or another ad network provides.

Maybe even a periodic product reviews? Or whenever a certain tool /product is mentioned, an Amazon link can be inserted. These can be peppered throughout the site on new posts.

IDK, just an idea. Amazon's affiliate program gives you from 1 to 3% of the entire shopping cart as a commission. It used to be more, but still seems pretty generous.

 

[goblin]

Given that no other internet gathering place (forums, comment sections on news websites, all sorts of message boards) seems to be affected by such an issue to the same extent, I believe BITOG is the victim of malicious, targeted and purposeful ill-will external attacks for such things to become an issue of such proportions.

I feel for the site's management, this can't be fun by any means. As far as I'm concerned, I'm ready to make a donation in any campaign that would finance some investigation, or at least some claw-back into this.

As of now, the restrictions currently in place - clearly mandated as a necessity to counter attacks from outside powers, as witnessed by the foum's management, already borderline impede on the normal communication flow proper to the average forum.

Common memes, gifs, snippets, videos, usually can not be posted unless they are framed by descriptions and disclaimers. Which, most of the time defeats the purpose of using them, so they are not used.

At this point, such restrictions can drive away members, but worse - this external arm-twisting can degenerate to a point where it would start dictating forum's policy. Today it's an image, tomorrow it will be a citation. What would prevent bots to look for chunks of text that would match literrary snippets for example.

My avatar is my late dog. The picture was taken 20-ish years ago. I have been using it everywhere.
While I have the original picture, proving that I took it is another thing. I can prove it by providing other pictures from the same series, if I can find them but others in a similar situation might not be able to. And if someone has to provide personal or family pictures in a series to prove that the one they use as avatar is part of that group - a hard stop will be hit, at high speed.

 

[BHopkins]

What about this scenario?

You put together a series of pictures as instructional information for service of a particular model car. In an effort to include specifications and part numbers, so to reduce the risk of any confusion, you include a picture of the part number on the end of a cartridge type oil filter, and the logo or brand name is next to the part number. It is clear that the picture is only for instructional purposes. Is this OK?

And that made me think of another. It has been common to attach pictures of oil jugs, perhaps to show which specifications that a motor oil meets. Or a discussion about oil bottle features, such as the extending pour neck on a Motul oil jug. By the discussion around the picture(s), it is clear that it is there to be informational.

 

[dogememe]

@DoggoWoggo

Have you seen other forums implement Amazon Affiliate links successfully? I make a few bucks a year from links in my video descriptions.

For a site of this size, maybe there is an opportunity for more revenue besides what adsense or another ad network provides.

Maybe even a periodic product reviews? Or whenever a certain tool /product is mentioned, an Amazon link can be inserted. These can be peppered throughout the site on new posts.

IDK, just an idea. Amazon's affiliate program gives you from 1 to 3% of the entire shopping cart as a commission. It used to be more, but still seems pretty generous.

Amazon affiliate program is wonderful. But with the proliferation of browser extensions like Honey and even default shopping features on Microsoft Edge that steal your commission… it’s not what it used to be.

 

[daves87rs]

That conversation has taken place, trust me. And it's still being considered.

The topic of avatars has been ongoing for several months now during our monthly Moderator meetings.

Well, I can tell you from other car sites that I am on- this already taken place. Avatars, along with other images on the site/ forums had to be taken down to potential issues. Crazy enough, I’ve seen a local truck site go down with issues because a lawyer said it was “ too political leaning”

These AI bots are looking for more than just pictures. All they need is a little money…..

Might put us us back into the Stone Age here…

 

[Lyman]

What a pain. I've dealt with this type of lawyer before. I've even been sued by one. I did win my case, though it cost me some money.