Hi Friends, I think I probably know how the community leans on this. But since it bothers me so much, and happens so often, I thought it was worth not assuming the answer, and finding out for sure. A few months ago, we decided not to allow random photos in the gallery, which are unrelated to the project in any way. We also decided not to bother with copyright issues. (long discussion - https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/message/35798617/) Probably equally as often as random photos being uploaded, are images which *could have been made with Inkscape* but which I doubt were. So far, I've been letting these go through. But as I said, I wanted to have a discussion, rather than assume. Here are a couple of recent examples: -- 2 images, 1 resource and 1 thumbnail -- https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@...3618.../%E2%98%85music -- https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2 (I did a little research on this one, and found it at many different sites (many on different sites selling tshirts, as well as just web images) with the same basic image (and this exact image here: https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--rVeDm8Gt--/t_Previe...) -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape) --https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n To me, all of those /could have been/ made with Inkscape. But I have reasons to doubt all of them. How do you all think they should be handled? I think they should be handled similarly to random photos (contact the member, explain and link to CoC, ask to explain the relation to Inkscape, ask if they would like to remove, inform after 2 weeks we will do it, of course with graciousness. Or do we let them have the benefit of our doubt? I honestly don't understand why people go around posting random images (apparently, afaict) in random galleries, once or twice, and never come back. (I have the same curiosity about people who post 1 or 2 frivolous, sometimes meaningless messages in forums and never return.) But it seems worth the effort not to waste our limited resource on hosting these things. Anyway, thanks for any thoughts or comments :-) All best, brynn ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

Thanks for your comments, C R. > Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape. Well of course, that's not what I'm proposing. For the image I did search, there was no scouring. It was the first result of the first search I made. It was clear enough for me just to look at the image. But I searched it out just to prove my suspicion. (It's the only time I've done that.) For the rest of your comments, I had the very same thoughts at first. If it could have been....why not. But the reason I wanted to try to discuss, is because (a) These images are numerous, considering our limited space. (b) Most of them could really only be done by advanced users (That's usually how I catch them. If they really had been made with Inkscape, in my experience, the artist wants to shout it out - not make a drive-by upload.) (c) I'm afraid it's misrepresenting Inkscape's abilities. I'm afraid it gives the impression that it must be easy to create amazing images. (d) It makes it harder to find the really awesome Inkscape-made images. It kind of dilutes the pool of awesome. I really have always (well, since I found Inkscape 10 years ago) wanted an Inkscape-only gallery. To me, THAT would be amazing! And to me, that's what the website should provide. I wonder if it would work to have another category, or another Order By option, like All Inkscape or 100% Inkscape, or something like that? Because I certainly have no objection to having images in the gallery, for which Inkscape was used only for part of it. But maybe it would be nice to have the "all Inkscape" images easier to find? Well anyway, as I said, I already had an idea that this isn't a big concern for the community. But I just wanted to voice a few thoughts as to why maybe it should be. Thanks again :-) brynn -----Original Message----- From: C R Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 4:33 AM To: brynn Cc: Inkscape-Docs ; Inkscape-Devel Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape' Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape. I can think of several ways to do the graphic in question (or at least similar) in Inkscape, so I'd let it stay as it's actually quite stunning and not really hurting anyone. Even if it's not done in Inkscape, it gets people thinking about how it could be done in Inkscape, which is not a bad thing. Maybe it will inspire someone to post a vector resource of it in the future. Going forward, this is my recommendation: If it looks like it could have been done in Inkscape, and it was posted on our website, then we can assume (for the sake of aesthetics) that it was. Obviously if the uploader came back and replied to your comment, saying "Oh, I've not done this in Inkscape." Then you can remove it without having to make any guesses. :) Thanks for bringing it to attention, Brynn. Your hard work to fight against random non-Inkscape posts is definitely making the site much more usable and clutter free for everyone. -C On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:29 AM, brynn <brynn@...3133...> wrote: > > Hi Friends, > I think I probably know how the community leans on this. But since > it bothers me so much, and happens so often, I thought it was worth not > assuming the answer, and finding out for sure. > > A few months ago, we decided not to allow random photos in the > gallery, which are unrelated to the project in any way. We also decided > not > to bother with copyright issues. (long discussion - > https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/message/35798617/) > > Probably equally as often as random photos being uploaded, are > images > which *could have been made with Inkscape* but which I doubt were. So > far, > I've been letting these go through. But as I said, I wanted to have a > discussion, rather than assume. > > Here are a couple of recent examples: > > -- 2 images, 1 resource and 1 thumbnail -- > https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@...3618.../%E2%98%85music > > -- > https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2 > (I did a little research on this one, and found it at many different sites > (many on different sites selling tshirts, as well as just web images) with > the same basic image (and this exact image here: > > https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--rVeDm8Gt--/t_Previe...) > -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape) > > > --https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n > > To me, all of those /could have been/ made with Inkscape. But I > have > reasons to doubt all of them. How do you all think they should be > handled? > I think they should be handled similarly to random photos (contact the > member, explain and link to CoC, ask to explain the relation to Inkscape, > ask if they would like to remove, inform after 2 weeks we will do it, of > course with graciousness. Or do we let them have the benefit of our > doubt? > > I honestly don't understand why people go around posting random > images (apparently, afaict) in random galleries, once or twice, and never > come back. (I have the same curiosity about people who post 1 or 2 > frivolous, sometimes meaningless messages in forums and never return.) > But > it seems worth the effort not to waste our limited resource on hosting > these > things. > > Anyway, thanks for any thoughts or comments :-) > > All best, > brynn > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > Inkscape-devel mailing list > Inkscape-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

Hey Brynn. I'd say if it gets to the point where it's diluting the awesome, maybe do it in bulk. :) Until then, I think we all trust your judgement, and appreciate your help with it. Please do whatever you think is best. I agree with all your points. :) Re: 100% inkscape... I'm not sure what that means :) I use Inkscape in Tandem with GIMP all the time, back and forth for example. I doubt very much if people use Inkscape and illustrator together, but who knows. Again, I trust your judgement on it. As long as Inkscape is being used as a graphics tool, I think we should allow posting. If someone is blatantly abusing our galleries to advertise their non-Inkscape art, then it's probably a good enough reason to delete them. Not sure if the above is all that helpful, but thanks for your thoughts and help with all of it. -C On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 7:09 PM, brynn <brynn@...3133...> wrote: > Thanks for your comments, C R. > >> Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour > > the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape. > > Well of course, that's not what I'm proposing. For the image I did search, > there was no scouring. It was the first result of the first search I made. > It was clear enough for me just to look at the image. But I searched it out > just to prove my suspicion. (It's the only time I've done that.) > > For the rest of your comments, I had the very same thoughts at first. If it > could have been....why not. But the reason I wanted to try to discuss, is > because > > (a) These images are numerous, considering our limited space. > > (b) Most of them could really only be done by advanced users (That's usually > how I catch them. If they really had been made with Inkscape, in my > experience, the artist wants to shout it out - not make a drive-by upload.) > > (c) I'm afraid it's misrepresenting Inkscape's abilities. I'm afraid it > gives the impression that it must be easy to create amazing images. > > (d) It makes it harder to find the really awesome Inkscape-made images. It > kind of dilutes the pool of awesome. > > I really have always (well, since I found Inkscape 10 years ago) wanted an > Inkscape-only gallery. To me, THAT would be amazing! And to me, that's > what the website should provide. > > I wonder if it would work to have another category, or another Order By > option, like All Inkscape or 100% Inkscape, or something like that? Because > I certainly have no objection to having images in the gallery, for which > Inkscape was used only for part of it. But maybe it would be nice to have > the "all Inkscape" images easier to find? > > Well anyway, as I said, I already had an idea that this isn't a big concern > for the community. But I just wanted to voice a few thoughts as to why > maybe it should be. > > Thanks again :-) > brynn > > -----Original Message----- From: C R > Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 4:33 AM > To: brynn > Cc: Inkscape-Docs ; Inkscape-Devel > Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape' > > > Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour > the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape. > > I can think of several ways to do the graphic in question (or at least > similar) in Inkscape, so I'd let it stay as it's actually quite > stunning and not really hurting anyone. > > Even if it's not done in Inkscape, it gets people thinking about how > it could be done in Inkscape, which is not a bad thing. Maybe it will > inspire someone to post a vector resource of it in the future. > > Going forward, this is my recommendation: If it looks like it could > have been done in Inkscape, and it was posted on our website, then we > can assume (for the sake of aesthetics) that it was. > > Obviously if the uploader came back and replied to your comment, > saying "Oh, I've not done this in Inkscape." Then you can remove it > without having to make any guesses. :) > > Thanks for bringing it to attention, Brynn. Your hard work to fight > against random non-Inkscape posts is definitely making the site much > more usable and clutter free for everyone. > > > -C > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:29 AM, brynn <brynn@...3133...> wrote: >> >> Hi Friends, >> I think I probably know how the community leans on this. But since >> it bothers me so much, and happens so often, I thought it was worth not >> assuming the answer, and finding out for sure. >> >> A few months ago, we decided not to allow random photos in the >> gallery, which are unrelated to the project in any way. We also decided >> not >> to bother with copyright issues. (long discussion - >> https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/message/35798617/) >> >> Probably equally as often as random photos being uploaded, are >> images >> which *could have been made with Inkscape* but which I doubt were. So >> far, >> I've been letting these go through. But as I said, I wanted to have a >> discussion, rather than assume. >> >> Here are a couple of recent examples: >> >> -- 2 images, 1 resource and 1 thumbnail -- >> https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@...3618.../%E2%98%85music >> >> -- >> https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2 >> (I did a little research on this one, and found it at many different sites >> (many on different sites selling tshirts, as well as just web images) with >> the same basic image (and this exact image here: >> >> https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--rVeDm8Gt--/t_Previe...) >> -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape) >> >> >> --https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n >> >> To me, all of those /could have been/ made with Inkscape. But I >> have >> reasons to doubt all of them. How do you all think they should be >> handled? >> I think they should be handled similarly to random photos (contact the >> member, explain and link to CoC, ask to explain the relation to Inkscape, >> ask if they would like to remove, inform after 2 weeks we will do it, of >> course with graciousness. Or do we let them have the benefit of our >> doubt? >> >> I honestly don't understand why people go around posting random >> images (apparently, afaict) in random galleries, once or twice, and never >> come back. (I have the same curiosity about people who post 1 or 2 >> frivolous, sometimes meaningless messages in forums and never return.) >> But >> it seems worth the effort not to waste our limited resource on hosting >> these >> things. >> >> Anyway, thanks for any thoughts or comments :-) >> >> All best, >> brynn >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot >> _______________________________________________ >> Inkscape-devel mailing list >> Inkscape-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel > >

On second thought, I'd take this down: https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@...3618.../%E2%98%85music Reason: The lead graphic is marked "getty" at the bottom, so it's clearly taken from another website.

I'd take this one down too: https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581 -8475381764676214363-n Because the author name in the graphic does not match the user name, and they have not responded to your question.

And I'd take this one down as well: https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-wor ld2

Because not only does it rip off (c) characters, it's a rip off of the original you pointed to.

Anything with (c) marked as Public Domain needs to have some proof that poster has the right to license it that way. No one should be posting other people's work on the inkscape website.

TinEye - Omg, a whole new world, haha!! Are we now saying that we will address certain copyright issues?

But maybe posting someone else's image needs to be addressed.  And especially  having such a tool as TinEye.  I knew that it was possible to search an image,  but I didn't know it was publicly available.  (Thought probably cost a lot of  money to buy or subscribe.) I would be so happy to use it, to take out this type of image.  And I would even  go retro to the date we put the CoC into effect.  (in extra spare time)

This might not be explainable (since I've asked it a few times over the years,  and it always gets ignored).  But I'm just so curious why people go around  posting things, like images that aren't theirs, or meaningless messages in  forums.  Is it a certain class of spammer which tries to fill unmoderated forums  or galleries, to overwhelm it, or test to find out if they are moderated?  There  can't be that many people who are sad wannabees, can there?

When I first was learning about the internet (just before y2k) it was common to  see websites prominently posting warnings, and further explaining that the  website owner can be held responsible (if users posts anything from another  site, without giving credits, whether text or image).  Sometimes it was  threatened to remove any members who did so. So that's where I'm coming from.  But now, it seems seems the climate has  changed.  There seems to be a different perspective (and apparently some new  regulations too).

Are you suggesting we could work up some kind of search routine, for when we  suspect an image has ownership issues (see my clues below)?  If TinEye reports,  let's say 6 identical stock images, and there's no connection in user names, why  isn't that enough?

I don't think I can see logins, or emails either.  Certainly not IPs.  Unless I  just haven't found them yet.  I've never found a member list or anything like  that.  If I need to find a member, I can only do it if I know their name (type  it into the url).

These are the clues I had for the images I used for examples (which apparently  all are turned out to be fishy).

How should we handle these members?  Just like with the random, unrelated photos  (which is delete the image, member stays)?  Or is there some point where the  member should be removed?

Here's a current example:  https://inkscape.org/en/~techie001  The hidden one is  an uploaded link (no image) to an entirely unrelated site (I think music  download site).  The Lamborghini one echoes several stock images, but I can't  investigate (whether it might be "fan art" made with Inkscape) because it's a  JPG.  Originally it had an external link to a music download site.  The green  one got no results in TinEye, but had an external link to a game and music  download site.

> How should we handle these members? Just like with the random, > unrelated photos > (which is delete the image, member stays)? Or is there some point > where the > member should be removed?

The member can be removed if you like.

When I first was learning about the internet (just before y2k) it was common to see websites prominently posting warnings, and further explaining that the website owner can be held responsible (if users posts anything from another site, without giving credits, whether text or image). Sometimes it was threatened to remove any members who did so. So that's where I'm coming from. But now, it seems seems the climate has changed. There seems to be a different perspective (and apparently some new regulations too).

Are you suggesting we could work up some kind of search routine, for when we suspect an image has ownership issues (see my clues below)? If TinEye reports, let's say 6 identical stock images, and there's no connection in user names, why isn't that enough?

I don't think I can see logins, or emails either. Certainly not IPs. Unless I just haven't found them yet. I've never found a member list or anything like that. If I need to find a member, I can only do it if I know their name (type it into the url).

These are the clues I had for the images I used for examples (which apparently all are turned out to be fishy).

How should we handle these members? Just like with the random, unrelated photos (which is delete the image, member stays)? Or is there some point where the member should be removed?

Here's a current example: https://inkscape.org/en/~techie001 The hidden one is an uploaded link (no image) to an entirely unrelated site (I think music download site). The Lamborghini one echoes several stock images, but I can't investigate (whether it might be "fan art" made with Inkscape) because it's a JPG. Originally it had an external link to a music download site. The green one got no results in TinEye, but had an external link to a game and music download site.

So going to the next step, these images, when well proven not to be related to Inkscape, can be handled just like spam. Both image and member removed without warning. Correct?

Thanks again, brynn