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

[dnewton3]

We are in the process of reviewing all avatars for legal reasons. There are more than 90,000 member accounts; it's a LOT of work because it has to be done manually.

Recently, BITOG has been contacted by two different lawyers representing two different clients; both concerns were about copyright infringements. Lucky for us, the two in question were not directly our fault, as they were "pass through" issues (details don't matter here). But the underlying concern, that of CR/TM infringements, was germane. These two in question were found by BOTs; programs which were seeded with images by 3rd party entities who make money (on commission) looking for CR/TM violations.

Our lawyer has advised us to take a very strict approach to any potential violation, as any single violation can be up to $10,000; that's per occurrence! And despite what some think, there are no deep pockets at BITOG. Even one violation has the potential to end this site; it cannot succumb to such a financial hit.

If you didn't personally take the photo or create the image, then you don't own it ... someone else does.
- if you can provide verifiable, credible proof that you have specific permission for use of the image, then you should forward that info to us; send to dnewton3 or wwillson via PM
- if you cannot provide verifiable, credible proof ... then it cannot be allowed to exist here and must be removed. Either you can remove it, or we will.


NOTE: this will also apply to usernames; any username which is a concern for copyright/trademark infringement, advertising, website infringement, etcetera, will be addressed as well.


We hope this explains what's happening and why.

 

[dnewton3]

I have been asked about AI generated content.
The same concept applies to AI as would any other content.
If you personally created the content, and you have proof which can verify you as the creator, then we would consider it for use.
If you didn't create the AI content, then you are not the owner, and the same restrictions apply; you cannot use it here on BITOG.
NOTE: generally, AI content is discouraged on BITOG.

 

[dnewton3]

Also, just because the original content creator is not available ...
- you cannot locate him or her
- the person has passed away
- etc
Does not mean the content is automatically free for use. Think of Michael Jackson or Elvis Presley ... do you think those estates are OK with unrestricted use of their content (music, images, swag, etc)? Clearly the answer is "no'; it's not OK just because those folks are gone.

 

[dnewton3]

Also, just because a company is no longer functioning, does not mean that the copyright or trademark they held doesn't exist ...

Example: The word "HyrdaMatic" (a term used by GM for transmissions way back decades ago)

Even though there are no more HyrdraMatic transmissions being built today, the word is STILL TO THIS DAY protected by GM trademark.

So don't assume just because you know a company went out of business, that the CR/TM protections ended.

 

[dnewton3]

Additionally, all avatars still must also comply with our Standard of Conduct policy, as well as the Avatar policy (both found in this sub-forum).

 

[SilentType]

As an example, my avatar is of a lizard I found while doing yardwork. I took the picture, it is mine and no one else can claim it. Is this considered proof of ownership or do you need other information?

I have no problem taking the avatar down if requested.

 

[zzyzzx]

So, if I take a picture of my own actual cat, and want to use it as my avatar, I still have to PM it to dnewton3 or wwillson and somehow (??) prove that it's my actual cat before using it as an avatar pic?

 

[Zee09]

Personally I would give those avatar criminals a vacation. The pillars of this community were also caught.. Did they think they were above the law?
Forge onward

 

[dnewton3]

We expect our members to be honest and forthright.
If you personally took the photo or created the image, then it is OK for you to use as long as that image also complies with the SoC and Avatar policies.

 

[rstsco]

Lucky for me (I think), BITOG assigned my avatar. Techically, I didn't create or own it.

If a company has bots scouring the internet to find non-compliance and getting a commission on what they find, is it not possible, or likely, those same companies are creating accounts on a websites such as BITOG using knowingly copyright infringement avatars?

 

[wwillson]

Lucky for me (I think), BITOG assigned my avatar. Techically, I didn't create or own it.

My daughter created the avatars, so she owns the copyright. Not to worry, she assigned perpetual right to use to BITOG.

If a company has bots scouring the internet to find non-compliance and getting a commission on what they find, is it not possible, or likely, those same companies are creating accounts on a websites such as BITOG using knowingly copyright infringement avatars?

If they got caught, and they would, they would be in serious trouble.

 

[PF52]

Mine was taken down because apparently my picture (an oil filter) cannot be the sole subject of an avatar photo.

 

[AZjeff]

It's a shame BITOG has to spend man hours cleaning this up to prevent being fined. Hopefully people don't grumble too much, the easy solution would be to eliminate all outside avatars and provide a selection to chose from. They're taking the hard path to give us some individuality . Much appreciated.

I dealt with the copyright issue in the early 2000s when Kodak came out with the machine that copies photos in minutes while you wait. We had one in our shop and people would bring in school photos or photos from local photographers and want copies made and we couldn't/wouldn't do it. People just don't understand about not owning the image and the right to reproduce it. I used a TM'd logo in a print ad once and was notified by mail it was a violation. Back then there were people whose job it was to physically look for TM violations in print and probably online in internet early days.

FTR I took the photo and have the dog's permission to use it.

 

[SShooterZ]

Mine was taken down because apparently my picture (an oil filter) cannot be the sole subject of an avatar photo.

That makes zero sense to me.

 

[PF52]

That makes zero sense to me.

I agree. The filter obviously has a logo on it, but the forum rules say logos are OK as long as they are in photos which we have personally taken (IE, not copied off the internet). I think my replacement photo will be a filter surrounded by tools (filter wrench, socket wrench, rags etc).

 

[wwillson]

That makes zero sense to me.

It's no different than taking a picture of a gas station sign that is the subject of the photo, then using it as your avatar. We don't own the copyright of the name "Mobil", "Shell" or "Circle K" for example. If there is a copyrighted object in the photo, but that object is not the main subject of the photo, then it's generally not a copyright violation.

 

[PF52]

It's no different than taking a picture of a gas station sign that is the subject of the photo, then using it as your avatar. We don't own the copyright of the name "Mobil", "Shell" or "Circle K" for example. If there is a copyrighted object in the photo, but that object is not the main subject of the photo, then it's generally not a copyright violation.

The rules do allow logos, though, and they make no mention of whether or not they are the subject of the photo. In my case, the logo was not the subject. On a 400 x 400 photo, the logo is microscopic.

"Thus avatars may include non-copyrighted images and self-made graphics associated with items including but not limited to the following: cars, trucks, boats, aircraft, and manufacturers and emblems of same; oils, lubricants, and manufacturers and emblems of same; engines, mechanical components, or items similar in nature; personally-taken images that reflect any of the aforementioned elements."

 

[Hohn]

Well, nobody else I know of would bother welding my surname onto some thin steel just to make an avatar, so I'm pressure sure it's unique and mine alone.

 

[SShooterZ]

It's no different than taking a picture of a gas station sign that is the subject of the photo, then using it as your avatar. We don't own the copyright of the name "Mobil", "Shell" or "Circle K" for example. If there is a copyrighted object in the photo, but that object is not the main subject of the photo, then it's generally not a copyright violation.

So, for instance, I take a pic holding a WIX filter in my hand, with the logo clearly visible, I'm OK as long as I, or even my hand, is the main portion of the pic? But a straight up WIX filter with logo is not?

 

[SC Maintenance]

So, for instance, I take a pic holding a WIX filter in my hand, with the logo clearly visible, I'm OK as long as I, or even my hand, is the main portion of the pic? But a straight up WIX filter with logo is not?

Put the filter in a pretty bowl with an apple and banana. Give your masterpiece a name. It’s now art.