Copyright information

[Kode]

This was originally going to be implemented on the new site, but that is taking longer than hoped.

So for the interim I have added a stop gap fix. This is mostly for posters, backgrounds and album covers, if you know who the copyright of an image should belong to please click on the © "unknown" link under the image and input the details, I will then update the entry if it is correct, please also add any details that will help verifying the information easier.

When uploading new images please put any copyright details in the comments section.

[Kode]

Additionally, especially important for Artist backgrounds, make sure you have the photographers permission (where they are the copyright holder) to upload the image to the site (and ask them where they want the attribution link to go) before uploading it, in future Artist backgrounds will NOT be approved without a statement in the comments that you have received the copyright holders permission and the attribution link they want unless its a PR shot, in which case just an attribution link pointing to the label should be acceptable.

[zorensen]

Wise.

We don't want to step on any copyright holders toes. It's important that we don't steal images, but credit the correct copyright holder here

[DYSEQTA]

You do realise that this policy is just going to drive away contributors right? It’s hard enough finding quality images for many of these artists as it is without putting a further burden on those willing to do the hard yards for the good of the whole media centre community. Who's got time or the will to stuff around seeking permission?

Why not just invite take-down requests so the burden is on the copyright holder if they take issue? This is done all over the net with regard to media rights.

If you insist on making it so hard to contribute then I'm just not going to bother in the future...

[leepenny]

if you can't be bothered to upload then it's not the end of the world - thankfully there are many people out there that CAN be bothered - so although your artwork may be missed - I shall still sleep at night

[Kode]

As I said, PR shots with a link to the label are fine, but if it's an image taken by a photographer, who makes their living licensing the images then they are not to go on the site without the photographers permission, it's better to not have the image at all than the entire site dissapear because we got sued into oblivion.

[M1GHTY M4VS]

I've added a couple dozen of ©
I've used the Creative Art Director in cases when there was more information given like photographers etc. Not sure where to look for stats for contributors or when the rights will be reviewed either, that's probably something for the new site.

[Kode]

I've updated them / most of them now, thanks

[Offsprung]

Call to read wild wild west Music (did not even realize it existed) got me here, for the first time in a while and this caught my eye...
I must say I agree with DYSEQTA...
No need to run me off, that was done long ago! When I suggested Banners.
You do realize, ALL images are FOREVER owned by original photog, licensed by studios/record companies which for the most part look the other way.
Never could understand those who add their watermarks as if they own them.
Even TMDB have that disclaimer that any legal issues, user will be held responsible and uploader MUST own rights to said image LOL.
So FanArt (often neutering the copyright info from the poster) I never understood, to me I would think neutering copyright from the poster is just asking for it.
TMDB finally wised up and allow larger posters where you can leave the copyright info and actually read it.
Even google it seems get requests from DMCA to remove posters and images but link them until request.
So it would seem to me when you get info from IMDB/TMDB you should pull and display Studio info.
Have not looked, but like Pink Floyd you are requiring people to get permission from record label or ultimately Storm Thorgerson?

[Kode]

As the second post says, PR shots are fine, just add a link.

It's only where the image is obviously not a PR shot that there is an issue, as the photographers tend to go after us (we have had legal threats, hence implementing this).

Regardless of disclaimers, if the site is sued rather than the individual who uploaded the image we would still have to foot the bill for legal costs with money we don't have.