I was under the impression this was the case so I acted on what I thought I knew. Clearly, I do not know and am a total fucking wanker for acting on what I thought to be correct.
Please let me know if you would like me to be clearer or if this is sufficient to satisfy your curiosity.
Hey man. In cases like this it falls under fair use laws. It's an honest review, there's commentary, nothing is taken out of context and so on. The owners of the property would view this as free honest advertising. If someone posted just that movie poster and nothing else, then it doesn't fall under fair use. Or if they posted it and started talking about something else, then it doesn't fall under fair use guidelines. There are some fairly thick books to read on the subject, if you're interested. Don't feel bad though. Pretty sure everyone on the planet makes mistakes.
But let's say a business or service provider took images without consent, took them out of context, then used them as a tool or weapon in order to make others (or other businesses/service providers) look bad, all while breaking other laws (committing libel for instance), wrapping it all up neatly into an unethical marketing campaign (even that alone leads to huge fines and even prison time), then pushing to distribute the entire disaster; settlements are often in the tens of millions of dollars. And that's if the marketing campaign only included one name or one business/service provider. If they included several it would be similar to how, if someone murdered several people in one go, they wouldn't just get charged with murder, they'd be charged with several counts of murder.
The reason the penalties are so steep is due to the wealth of information easily available. Steep penalties exist to encourage people to play fair. Otherwise it would be a free-for-all. That would discourage people from ever wanting to stand out by doing exceptional work. Let's say you spent years travelling, taking photos, making it your life and converting those experiences into money. That's expensive and time consuming. You'd be pretty pissed off if someone sitting on their couch at home took your experience and attempted to monetize it.
Well, all the best to the CineTV community posters then, I'll stick to using my own photos, the occasional Pixabay image properly sourced and my own text.
That's always the safest. Your own property is also protected by default, unless you state otherwise. I place 'all rights reserved' under my work but technically I don't have to. By law it's assumed that's the case. So if someone took your photo or my art, posted it, said something about it (positive or negative, doesn't matter), then attempted to monetize, that wouldn't fall under fair use. In a case like that it's all about the image, and that image belongs to someone, so they need to get consent first.
Awhile back some character here took a whole bunch of my work, placed it in a strange arrangement (some were even upside down), then thought I'd pay for compliments, after making a total mess. It's like letting some random dude come in your house and decorate. That's not how life works.
Fair use is a tricky one. A pixabay image can be used but if you took that image, printed copies, then sold them, you'd be in big trouble. Someone can't just take your stuff and claim fair use.
I’m honestly curious, I have been part of Cine since the beginning and never seen this stance.
Mark, I don't know what you want to hear.
I was under the impression this was the case so I acted on what I thought I knew. Clearly, I do not know and am a total fucking wanker for acting on what I thought to be correct.
Please let me know if you would like me to be clearer or if this is sufficient to satisfy your curiosity.
Australia, yes.
Hey man. In cases like this it falls under fair use laws. It's an honest review, there's commentary, nothing is taken out of context and so on. The owners of the property would view this as free honest advertising. If someone posted just that movie poster and nothing else, then it doesn't fall under fair use. Or if they posted it and started talking about something else, then it doesn't fall under fair use guidelines. There are some fairly thick books to read on the subject, if you're interested. Don't feel bad though. Pretty sure everyone on the planet makes mistakes.
But let's say a business or service provider took images without consent, took them out of context, then used them as a tool or weapon in order to make others (or other businesses/service providers) look bad, all while breaking other laws (committing libel for instance), wrapping it all up neatly into an unethical marketing campaign (even that alone leads to huge fines and even prison time), then pushing to distribute the entire disaster; settlements are often in the tens of millions of dollars. And that's if the marketing campaign only included one name or one business/service provider. If they included several it would be similar to how, if someone murdered several people in one go, they wouldn't just get charged with murder, they'd be charged with several counts of murder.
The reason the penalties are so steep is due to the wealth of information easily available. Steep penalties exist to encourage people to play fair. Otherwise it would be a free-for-all. That would discourage people from ever wanting to stand out by doing exceptional work. Let's say you spent years travelling, taking photos, making it your life and converting those experiences into money. That's expensive and time consuming. You'd be pretty pissed off if someone sitting on their couch at home took your experience and attempted to monetize it.
Well, all the best to the CineTV community posters then, I'll stick to using my own photos, the occasional Pixabay image properly sourced and my own text.
That's always the safest. Your own property is also protected by default, unless you state otherwise. I place 'all rights reserved' under my work but technically I don't have to. By law it's assumed that's the case. So if someone took your photo or my art, posted it, said something about it (positive or negative, doesn't matter), then attempted to monetize, that wouldn't fall under fair use. In a case like that it's all about the image, and that image belongs to someone, so they need to get consent first.
Awhile back some character here took a whole bunch of my work, placed it in a strange arrangement (some were even upside down), then thought I'd pay for compliments, after making a total mess. It's like letting some random dude come in your house and decorate. That's not how life works.
Fair use is a tricky one. A pixabay image can be used but if you took that image, printed copies, then sold them, you'd be in big trouble. Someone can't just take your stuff and claim fair use.