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

[dnewton3]

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?

see post #41

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.

See post #41



Not to be rude, but you're clearly not understanding this entire thread ... The main topic of this thread is about AVATARS. Avatars don't have conversational text associated with them. Hence, avatars don't qualify for "fair use exemption".

Threads, OTOH, have conversational text to qualify for the "fair use exemption"; that makes images which are relevant to the conversation OK to use, even when used from other sources. As long as the image used and the conversational text are aligned (same topic), they generally qualify for display on BITOG.

 

[slo town]

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.

Is BITOG exposed to any legal risk with threads that discuss poor product quality, either perceived or real?

#1 Someone says a product is bad but doesn't back up the claim with evidence.
#2 Someone says a product is bad but shows evidence to support the claim.

In other words, must the poster provide actual evidence that the product is bad? For example, there was a Xtended Performance oil filter brand that someone claimed filtered out nothing more than "rocks". Another example, is there risk in calling an oil filter the "Orange Can Of Death" with nothing to back up that claim?

Scott

 

[hemioiler]

Is BITOG exposed to any legal risk with threads that discuss poor product quality, either perceived or real?

#1 Someone says a product is bad but doesn't back up the claim with evidence.
#2 Someone says a product is bad but shows evidence to support the claim.

In other words, must the poster provide actual evidence that the product is bad? For example, there was a Xtended Performance oil filter brand that someone claimed filtered out nothing more than "rocks". Another example, is there risk in calling an oil filter the "Orange Can Of Death" with nothing to back up that claim?

Scott

Well if we can't express our half baked opinions in a medium that is clearly designed for expressing laymen opinions, like a forum, without providing 2 pages of footnotes and citations... then we may as well pull the power switch on the internet. Daily life isn't a white paper.

 

[PF52]

There are a LOT of violations on this site,

Including in this thread.

 

[Astro14]

Including in this thread.

Oh, really? Care to point one of them out?

 

[Astro14]

Is BITOG exposed to any legal risk with threads that discuss poor product quality, either perceived or real?

#1 Someone says a product is bad but doesn't back up the claim with evidence.
#2 Someone says a product is bad but shows evidence to support the claim.

In other words, must the poster provide actual evidence that the product is bad? For example, there was a Xtended Performance oil filter brand that someone claimed filtered out nothing more than "rocks". Another example, is there risk in calling an oil filter the "Orange Can Of Death" with nothing to back up that claim?

Scott

This falls under “opinion”. You’re allowed to express your opinion.

 

[PF52]

Oh, really? Care to point one of them out?

How about the guy with the bicycle company logo? Who knows, maybe it's already been approved.... Or maybe that guy owns the company personally. But when the "bots" catch it, who's going to defend the forum? If we're banning logos, we have to ban ALL logos.

 

[Astro14]

How about the guy with the bicycle company logo? Who knows, maybe it's already been approved.... Or maybe that guy owns the company personally. But when the "bots" catch it, who's going to defend the forum? If we're banning logos, we have to ban ALL logos.

He created it. Several years ago.

Next example?

 

[PF52]

He created it. Several years ago.

Next example?

So if I create my own logo, the forum will be able to defend itself when the bots come questioning it?

 

[MaximumMini]

(My opinion...see post #66)

Humanity = Insanity
As if ANYTHING a human does matters one billionth of a nano bit on a cosmic scale.
Sad. There's got to be some real intelligence out there somewhere.

I'll just forego the avatar game and leave the default. tyvm

Tactics like this cause independent forums like this one to consider selling out to large entities.
I would not be one bit surprised if Vertical Scope (for example) has set it's sights on this forum and is doing pre-emptive legal bombing to soften up the target. If Vertical Scope acquires this forum...I'm out.

 

[SC Maintenance]

(My opinion...see post #66)

Humanity = Insanity
As if ANYTHING a human does matters one billionth of a nano bit on a cosmic scale.
Sad. There's got to be some real intelligence out there somewhere.

I'll just forego the avatar game and leave the default. tyvm

Tactics like this cause independent forums like this one to consider selling out to large entities.
I would not be one bit surprised if Vertical Scope (for example) has set it's sights on this forum and is doing pre-emptive legal bombing to soften up the target. If Vertical Scope acquires this forum...I'm out.

I do know a couple forums bought by vertical scope and that is exactly what happened. Everyone left.

 

[MaximumMini]

I was threatened by Getty Images years ago when I ran a forum saying I "Owed" them around $11,000 for copyright infringements. MANY people got these legal papers demanding payment.

They "kindly" offered to settle for ONLY $1500
All those legal demands went straight to file 13 and I ignored it all.
But, they likely raked in billions from that one. I personally knew a few people who paid them.

I was fortunate to have an attorney in the family who knows about these matters. Also, knowledge is power. Knowing the actual laws on these matters gives you the power to know real claims vs dubious tactics. Also, do not hesitate to countersue. You'd be surprised how many juries side with the little guy.

 

[Astro14]

So if I create my own logo, the forum will be able to defend itself when the bots come questioning it?

The bots are looking for known logos, whether that’s GM, an electronics company, an image from a movie, whatever.

If you create your own logo, just as Wayne‘s daughter created the avatar that I have, then you’re fine. But if you get questioned on it, then you need to be able to show us that you created it. It’s pretty obvious who took a picture of their dog, or their truck, or a scene in daily life. Those aren’t stock images that they pulled off the web, those are their own photos.

But for some images, and certainly for many logos, it’s really not clear. That requires a conversation between the moderating team and the member, or some research from the moderator in question.

To be frank, this is why we’re talking about eliminating avatars - if a moderator team member has to spend ten minutes on verifying the provenance of an avatar for each individual member, and there are tens of thousands of active members, that is several full-time jobs.

And that’s a ridiculous, untenable, amount of work.

 

[slo town]

Well if we can't express our half baked opinions in a medium that is clearly designed for expressing laymen opinions, like a forum, without providing 2 pages of footnotes and citations... then we may as well pull the power switch on the internet. Daily life isn't a white paper.

Agree.

This falls under “opinion”. You’re allowed to express your opinion.

Good. That's what I was hoping.

I would not be one bit surprised if Vertical Scope (for example) has set it's sights on this forum and is doing pre-emptive legal bombing to soften up the target.

Let's hope not.

Scott

 

[Nessism1]

How about the guy with the bicycle company logo? Who knows, maybe it's already been approved.... Or maybe that guy owns the company personally. But when the "bots" catch it, who's going to defend the forum? If we're banning logos, we have to ban ALL logos.

Hey man, that's MY logo!! No way anyone could claim that as theirs.

 

[PF52]

Hey man, that's MY logo!! No way anyone could claim that as theirs.

Exactly! Hence my disclaimer that maybe you owned the company since I didn't recognize the name. I certainly wasn't trying to pick on you. But my point remains, there's a HUGE gray area in what is allowed and what is not. Your avatar is a logo, and ONLY a logo, and it's OK. My avatar was a photo which I took myself, which had a logo only a few pixels high and it wasn't even an important feature of the picture, but it was removed.

I love the bike frame and color! Are you a custom builder? I'd love to see the whole bike.

I have a couple Bianchis but as you can probably guess, they're the same color as all the others (Celeste green).

 

[2005jettatdi]

Mine is a picture I took of my Jetta at White Sands National Park. I do not have permission from either VW or the National Park Service to post it. This is insane.

 

[Owen Lucas]

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.

Wow, what a scam. Wirecutter must be pretty mad!

 

[Owen Lucas]

@dnewton3 I think a hybrid approach to the avatar problem would be to disable/purge all avatars, and let users add them back in.

I'm not sure if there is an "approval que" or backend to reviewing images, but this could be an easier option than reviewing all of the current avatars.

What do I know lol, I've never managed a forum.

 

[wemay]

My Avatar will be personal pictures ONLY, moving fwd.