The post is:
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/22513/3555
Doubt the woman wants her photo attached to that post. Makes this "Christian" site look crude.
-
Someone should ask Gila Yudkin, itsgila.com/bookgila.htm or Silvia Hess, as she took the photo. I highly doubt it is not covered under copyright law being first posted on a commercial website. Silva likely gave permission to Gila, but that's a different matter. Mods (@Susan perhaps?) you should probably remove it. – Joshua May 7 '16 at 0:22
-
1@Joshua SE's content policy does not require us to remove copyrighted material unless there is a formal claim of infringement. On the other hand, the OP would be well-advised to remove it unless they have permission. – Susan May 7 '16 at 0:52
-
That's false, Susan. It doesn't matter if it's not in SE's content policy. A work that's copyrighted is just that -copyrighted. That means you don't have the right to copy it. It's against the law to publish it and your site could be fined for publishing it. Aside from that, what kind of person would allow a woman's photo to be published like this, in such a derogatory way? It's shameful to her and it's shameful to this site. Shame on anyone that has the authority to delete it and isn't doing so. – Daisy May 7 '16 at 1:07
-
@Susan SE is still subject to the greater policies of law. At the least it is plagiarism because it gives no attribution of the source and copyright holder. SE is technically a for profit site, correct? Most of the "fair use" excuses can't apply. Also, that content policy is SE's policy with user accounts. Not SE's policy toward copyright holders, that policy is the same for everyone, the law. It is telling the user what SE may do about content it posts.It does not say it will ignore clear violations of the greater law until claims are made, it says if claims are made it will always cooperate. – Joshua May 7 '16 at 1:34
-
SE will respond to any claims reported of alleged infringement of copyright. – Dan May 7 '16 at 8:18
-
@Daisy - SE does not host it's own images, it only links to them and therefore is not "copying" the photo. Furthermore, generally speaking, even if BH.SE did copy content, we are academically oriented (not a bible study, more a seminary or university). This clearly confirms to factor 1 of fair use due to the nature of the use and any claim under factor 4 that use here would undermine the works value is dubious. – James Shewey Jun 18 '16 at 5:43
Add a comment
|
According to Stack Exchange's own Meta, moderators cannot remove material based on copyright infringement alone.
Moderators will not handle copyright infringement complaints...(If moderators handled copyright infringement complaints, that could make them legally responsible for any mistake that they make.)
However, if an image is included in the post, inline, not just linked, without attribution it is plagiarism.
Plagiarism is a whole different matter from copyright. If someone posts an image without mentioning who the author of the image is, this is plagiarism. (It is also usually a copyright violation, but again this is not a point to pursue as a third party.) Plagiarism is forbidden on Stack Exchange.
If you notice plagiarism (of images or any other form of content), please do intervene. See What to do when plagiarism is discovered. In summary, if you can find the original author, edit the post to add an attribution. Sometimes the image wasn't improving the post by much; use your own judgement to decide whether to leave it in with attribution, link to the source instead, or remove it altogether.
-
1Alright, the plagiarism charge is fair. Agreed that it wasn't improving the post much -- removed. – Susan May 7 '16 at 2:01
-
A post on S.E. is not a worthy place to get legal information. When a photo is deleted, there are no copyright issues. This was a copyright issue. Photographic plagiarism is rare; it's essentially about plagiarizing a type of artistic style, not about stealing a photograph. I saw a post here about elitism on this site and that's taking place right here. The attitude is disappointing, to say the least. – Daisy May 7 '16 at 4:13
-
1@Daisy The point is who is legally capable of enforcing copyright laws. Susan and other non-SE employed moderators are not. It's not elitism, it's profession. I'm disappointed you've chosen to feel this way as I supported the removal of the image as much as you did. I was just able to separate personal feelings from proper policy and instead I was able to find another way to show why it should be removed, within the policy. The point is not that my link is legal advice. The point is it is internal SE policy. And anything unattributed is plagiarism. More common than we may think, even here. – Joshua May 7 '16 at 13:32
-
