Stop posting articles for other GN'R fans to enjoy, it's stealing! (was Brain in Modern Drummer)

[Lisa]

bottom line, NO. if someone is doing it for their personal pleasure and they created it in photoshop, and usuing it just for themselves, say as a screen saver or skin for their email...

B U T if it is on a public forum(with hundreds of people reading in a given day) and they d/l the photo from somewhere else,yet watermark that photo with the websites' name/logo, does that not indicate that the site using the watermark has exclusive rights? they own? they took the photo? bought the photo? the whole reason for watermarking photos or interviews is beyond me unless it indicates ownership. If it does not belong to me, if I didn't have a hand in its creation then I have no right to it and shouldn't put "Lisa's Pic" all across it. It gives the perception to people who may not be so computer sauve, that this site owns or has laid some kind of claim against a certain pic.

It's like taking a personal photo and giving to your boyfriend...but you break up..and the new girlfriend finds your photo and posts it to a public forum with her name watermarked all over it for shits and giggles.
IMHO

[jarmo]

A wallpaper. You take a photo and/or artwork, you alter it in a photo editing application and.then post it online for others to see/use.

It might or might not say your name somewhere as the creator.


You think that's wrong?


If the answer is "yes", we've had this thread for years: http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=48568.0

And there's also: http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=45608.0



How do you feel about the fact that eBay watermarks their images used in the auctions?


Like here, look in the bottom right corner:



Would you be ready to e-mail them to protest?

I bet eBay themselves didn't take that photo. But it's hosted by them for the auction.



/jarmo

[chineseblues]

None of us can tell Gypsy what to do though. If she wants to watermark it then fine, it's really none of our business. If she gets in trouble for it, then she probably won't do it again. If the magazines don't care then who are we to say anything?

did your photographer 'friends' tell you that?
just curious

What the hell does that have to do with anything? Oh right I know, you are just looking to stir more shit.

[Death Cube K]

Such as radio stations putting station IDs over songs?

TV stations broadcasting shows and films they didn't make themselves with a watermark logo? It's an extreme example. But the fact remians, they didn't produce it, they were just the middle man.

You fail to realize that these media types pays fees. Do you think they download it off Isohunt and edit it with their watermark?

Unfortunately that's not how it works in the real world.

And they can all be brought down to their knees. If that's to the copyright holders approach.

And I think they react because it means they can't just take it as they wish....

And thats where I think you're wrong.

Did you ever visit Perezhilton.com?

Nope.

I bet eBay themselves didn't take that photo. But it's hosted by them for the auction.

Haha, good try. Too bad you don't see the difference.

[Lisa]

HUGE difference between Ebay and a message board ..like comparing apples and oranges.
and I did say personal use for their created wallpaper..not posting on the net for others to use. Jarmo, you're talking constantly in circular arguments because you never want to give a single inch by saying someone else may be right or may at least be correct in their own logic.

[ppbebe]

so again is it posting the articles or watermarks?

[jarmo]

You fail to realize that these media types pays fees. Do you think they download it off Isohunt and edit it with their watermark?

Of course I know they pay.

But the whole idea was that it's wrong to watermark something you didn't produce. That's essentially what they do....

I even pointed out that it was an extreme example.


Got an issue with bootlegs and fan made music videos?

And thats where I think you're wrong.

I'm just speaking as someone who's had most of the articles I transcribed by typing them up word by word copied and pasted on other sites.

I'm aware how easy it is to copy and paste things or hotlink images to post as your own on forums, blogs and web sites.

That's why I have my opinion.

Haha, good try. Too bad you don't see the difference.

I know the difference.


But I suspect they put the watermark on the images for the same purpose as Gypsy did. It's not about owning the copyright for it.

That was my point.  

and I did say personal use for their created wallpaper..not posting on the net for others to use.

How come none of you have had the idea to complain about those wallpaper threads? They've been around since 2005.

Could it be that it was fine because Gypsy or myself weren't involved?

You looked between your fingers because none of them mentioned this site's name. And if they mentioned the name of the creator, it was fine. Even though the images and/or artwork was copyrighted.

Jarmo, you're talking constantly in circular arguments because you never want to give a single inch by saying someone else may be right or may at least be correct in their own logic.

That's exactly what your friends do.

I have pointed out that I understand that it's not legally right to post articles. Like you claim. So there goes your theory.

I have stated why we post them even though it's not legally correct.

I have posted reasons for why I think the way I do.


Everything was explained to you and I was naive enough to think that somebody could see it from my point of view.

Instead I was met with idiotic statements like "stealing is stealing".

That's like saying speeding is speeding. But how come the punishment is related to how much you speed? I don't see it as black or white.

Obviously both are illegal, but it's still not the same. It's just an easy way out of the discussion for those who have no interest in it in the first place.



I'm sorry that I don't see things in just black and white like you and your friends. I'm sorry that I didn't join in on the name calling and making fun of peoples' names when I had the chance. Because that seems to be the way you cool people discuss things.




/jarmo

[GeorgeSteele]

Your friends couldn't handle a civilized discussion.

Insults were thrown around like usual.

Instead of being civil about it, people who didn't even READ the article were taking the whole thread off topic with their whining and personal attacks.

It's unfortunate that the discussion degenerated into trading insults, but a review of the thread shows that both sides share blame for that.  Particularly, in my opinion, it was wrong for you to call SLC a thief.  Starting off by impugning someone's character in such a manner completely killed any chance for a civilized discussion.  Also, not all the people banned were making personal attacks.

I may be biased because I very much enjoyed the contributions to this site from SLC, Tap and Bandita.  I'm very disappointed to see them get banned, it's kinda sad.  

[jarmo]

Particularly, in my opinion, it was wrong for you to call SLC a thief.  Starting off by impugning someone's character in such a manner completely killed any chance for a civilized discussion.  

As I explained.

Them calling me a hypocrite while their own sites does something I'm completely against. In their case, it's using the band's music without permission to do so.


You know, you can attack me for copyright infringement, but when I see you're doing the same exact thing, and in my opinion something worse, I will tell you so.




Those people were, not only attacking me as usual, but also those that "dared" to voice an opinion that actually either supported my point of view or pointed out that I might have a point.

That's like the cool kids bullying the not so cool in elementary school.


And this is just from people who openly admit that they didn't read the article, who like to point out how much this site sucks and how big of an idiot I am.

I don't necessarily understand why I need to be doing them favors after their disrespectful behavior.



/jarmo

[GeorgeSteele]

I did not see it as them attacking you for copyright infringement, rather that the watermarking was inappropriate.  Whether it is or isn't, I don't know (only that I wouldn't do it for fear of potential liability).  Basically, my take was that all sites post articles, even though it's technically copyright infringement, the issue was the watermarking.  Maybe the comments about it could have been less charged, but even still, the stealing comment was a low blow.  I understand why you said it, in defense of the band, but I would expect if the band had an issue with it, they would have been asked to stop.  To me, streaming music online that you can't download doesn't seem any worse than going to someone's house who plays the music for you. 

[chineseblues]

Your friends couldn't handle a civilized discussion.

Insults were thrown around like usual.

Instead of being civil about it, people who didn't even READ the article were taking the whole thread off topic with their whining and personal attacks.

It's unfortunate that the discussion degenerated into trading insults, but a review of the thread shows that both sides share blame for that.  Particularly, in my opinion, it was wrong for you to call SLC a thief.  Starting off by impugning someone's character in such a manner completely killed any chance for a civilized discussion.  Also, not all the people banned were making personal attacks.

Is it not stealing when someone takes something that doesn't belong to them (the song playing on his site and copyrighted pictures) and uses them without paying for it or getting permission to do so? I'm fairly certain you will find it is....

[GeorgeSteele]

Your friends couldn't handle a civilized discussion.

Insults were thrown around like usual.

Instead of being civil about it, people who didn't even READ the article were taking the whole thread off topic with their whining and personal attacks.

It's unfortunate that the discussion degenerated into trading insults, but a review of the thread shows that both sides share blame for that.  Particularly, in my opinion, it was wrong for you to call SLC a thief.  Starting off by impugning someone's character in such a manner completely killed any chance for a civilized discussion.  Also, not all the people banned were making personal attacks.

Is it not stealing when someone takes something that doesn't belong to them (the song playing on his site and copyrighted pictures) and uses them without paying for it or getting permission to do so? I'm fairly certain you will find it is....

It's already been established that all sites post copyrighted articles, pictures, etc., this one included.  As for streaming music on a fan site for the band, I'm not so sure that's stealing, you're gonna need to source that one.

[Death Cube K]

But the whole idea was that it's wrong to watermark something you didn't produce. That's essentially what they do....

No that's not what they do. They don't steal movies and then watermark it as their own. They pay fees, make contracts, the whole deal.

Got an issue with bootlegs and fan made music videos?

Fan made music videos are breach of copyright. It's up to the copyright holder what he feels about it or want to do with it.

As for bootlegs, that is also up to the artist to decide. Some allow it, some don't. Selling bootlegs for money are morally disgusting.

But I suspect they put the watermark on the images for the same purpose as Gypsy did. It's not about owning the copyright for it.

It's not the same. The intention of GypsySoul might be the same but the outcome is not.

That's like saying speeding is speeding. But how come the punishment is related to how much you speed? I don't see it as black or white.

Copyright is copyright. It goes under different laws than both stealing and speeding. You know that.

You wouldn't get away with any of this in a court of law, but that's not really the point. The point was the morality of putting watermarks on someone elses work. If I see anyone doing that to my articles I will be pissed off.

[jarmo]

I did not see it as them attacking you for copyright infringement, rather that the watermarking was inappropriate. 

And for that I got called a hypocrite among other things.

But when I point out that posting a full song isn't exactly cool in my book, I'm just being a mean liar?

People get offended when I call them out on posting an officially released track, but when I'm called a hypocritical liar, it's just no big deal?


They pretty much ruined the thread for the whole board with the whining and they're the ones who are insulted?

You start shit and expect me to do you favors? Get a clue....

As for streaming music on a fan site for the band, I'm not so sure that's stealing, you're gonna need to source that one.

To use their defense, stealing is stealing.  

Myspace streams a lot of music, but those songs were paid for and/or uploaded by the artist/record label.


Just because a song is streaming on a Myspace page, a band web site, a radio station web site or some other legal alternative, doesn't give you the legal right to rip a track off your recently purchased (I hope) cd and post it on your own site.

When you do, you're essentially stealing from the band. That was my point.


Even though you're not intending to do so, you're doing it to promote the band and you don't make money of it, it doesn't make it legally right.


Now, all this time it's been said that they like to link to articles and list sources etc.

Why didn't that work with the audio? Why not just link to the band's Myspace and said "listen over there"?

The problem is that the band's Myspace only has samples. Not full songs.

So it makes me wonder, if the record label feels like samples are more than enough, how come a fan site just keeps defending their policy of posting a full song?

No that's not what they do. They don't steal movies and then watermark it as their own. They pay fees, make contracts, the whole deal.

But you said it's wrong to watermark something you didn't produce....

Does MTV pay fees for playing music?

As far as I know, they don't....

Got an issue with bootlegs and fan made music videos?

Fan made music videos are breach of copyright. It's up to the copyright holder what he feels about it or want to do with it.

As for bootlegs, that is also up to the artist to decide. Some allow it, some don't. Selling bootlegs for money are morally disgusting.

I was asking you.

I'm not interested in hearing what you think the artists think.

Just like in this case, we haven't heard from the magazine or photographer. Your opinion on the matter is pretty clear though...

It's not the same. The intention of GypsySoul might be the same but the outcome is not.

And who gets to decide that?

The point was the morality of putting watermarks on someone elses work. If I see anyone doing that to my articles I will be pissed off.

Yes, the point is "you're putting them there because you think you own them".

That whole thing has been explained to be the wrong idea....




Do you object to wallpaper creation?




/jarmo

[GeorgeSteele]

And for that I got called a hypocrite among other things.

But when I point out that posting a full song isn't exactly cool in my book, I'm just being a mean liar?

People get offended when I call them out on posting an officially released track, but when I'm called a hypocritical liar, it's just no big deal?


They pretty much ruined the thread for the whole board with the whining and they're the ones who are insulted?

Well, I think the original poster invited the negative comments with the unflattering emoticons and such.  Apparently, there was prior history, but that I know nothing about.

From what I could tell, the liar/hypocrite comments were preceded by your thief remark, other than SLC's comparison of your treatment of the leaks and the watermarking, implying it was inconsistent.  You ultimately addressed that inconsistency in a rational way, perhaps that could have been done from the start without the stealing allegations and such.

Just because a song is streaming on a Myspace page, a band web site, a radio station web site or some other legal alternative, doesn't give you the legal right to rip a track off your recently purchased (I hope) cd and post it on your own site.

When you do, you're essentially stealing from the band. That was my point.

Even though you're not intending to do so, you're doing it to promote the band and you don't make money of it, it doesn't make it legally right.

That all makes sense, I suppose, so I'll take you on your word that it's "not legally right", but explaining to someone how what they are doing is 'not legally right' is not the same as calling him a thief.  Especially when you yourself acknowledge it's not being done for personal profit but rather to celebrate and promote the band.


 

[freedom78]

At this point, I can't imagine why we don't just repost the article, sans watermark, which is the easy and obvious middle ground.

[jarmo]

Well, I think the original poster invited the negative comments with the unflattering emoticons and such.  Apparently, there was prior history, but that I know nothing about.

Yes, because the usual shit happened with the prior transcription.

So she made fun of those whiners.



The first insult was from SLCPUNK calling Gypsy lame.

Then he went onto comparing leaking GN'R songs and how we're against it while we post articles. That's the whole hypocrite thing.


Twist it around anyway you want, he knows what he said and that's where it started.

From what I could tell, the liar/hypocrite comments were preceded by your thief remark, other than SLC's comparison of your treatment of the leaks and the watermarking, implying it was inconsistent.  You ultimately addressed that inconsistency in a rational way, perhaps that could have been done from the start without the stealing allegations and such.

His second post in the thread, the one following his first one where he called Gypsy lame, was the one where he made sure that he thought we re a bunch of hypocrites.


They were all pretty much in on the "you're a hypocrite kissing the band's ass" train.

If you fail to understand why we won't let you talk about something the band didn't want out in the first place, you just need to get a fucking clue.

Everything was explained to these people.

Running a Guns N' Roses fan site that goes against Guns N' Roses never interested me. I've made this very clear. More than once I might add.

That's also been turned into being something negative by these people.

The explanation was only met with "you're a hypocrite". I didn't realize that fans supporting GN'R are hypocrites.

I would have not made any of those comments if it wasn't for the little army coming over here to start shit. I don't care what the fuck he does with his site!

That all makes sense, I suppose, so I'll take you on your word that it's "not legally right", but explaining to someone how what they are doing is 'not legally right' is not the same as calling him a thief. 

You have to remember that the whole discussion was about me stealing from Modern Drummer while not allowing fans to steal from GN'R.

A fucking ridiculous thing to even bring up if you're a GN'R fan.

If you have to ask "Why won't you let us use your site to rip off the band and spread bullshit about them?", then I truly feel sorry for you.






/jarmo

[jarmo]

Talking of sharing: http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=55996.0

How come he didn't copy and paste his own interview for us and just posted a link?

Now, I know that if you interview somebody and just started a new site, you'll probably want visitors.

But since it's all about doing it for the fans and sharing, I thought it was interesting how he handled his own interview by posting a link to promote his own site.

 



/jarmo

[D]

I honestly just don't see the big deal out of watermarking. If I spend time doing something, I don't want 20 other places taking credit for it.

I am postitive that anyone with an IQ over 50 would be able to realize that Gypsy or HTGTH didn't write the article or take the photos. Hell one could even go as far as saying this promoted "Modern Drummer" magazine. I personally had never heard of it.

I guarantee posting this article and making die hard fans aware will actually increase the sales of said magazine cause people who collect all things GNR will now go out and buy the magazine.


I jumped into this, not because I care about watermarking, but just due to the usual hypocrisy.

a week previously, the person in mention posted and watermarked one of my photos but yet will come in here and bitch about someone else watermarking. Then that same person will try to call Jarmo out on being a hypocrite for allowing Modern Drummer scans but not GNR leaks.

Don't get me started on all the insults thrown my way just because I happen to agree with Jarmo for a change.

[GypsySoul]

He was just upset because he didn't want the words "HERE TODAY ... GONE TO HELL" on his site.

Once AtariLegend posted the text from that blog site, slcpunk immediately copy n' pasted it to his site along with the pics he copied from the Modern Drummer site.  (And then a few hours later he changed his site so that you now need to register and log in to see what he did).

But I guess the timing is just a coincidence.  He was probably in the process of paying Modern Drummer and the writer and the photographer and the advertisers for the rights.