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_Preview/b...) -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape)

--https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-847538...

   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@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_Preview/b...) -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape)

--https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-847538...

   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@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

Thanks for your comments, C R.

I probably won't change much, if anything, about the way I handle these images. Not without a larger outcry from the community. But when you see one of these images, imagine that I'm shaking my fist and muttering under my breath (like Snoopy !#@&%!$*!!)

If we started removing the "could have been" it would start approaching the point where some automated process would be helpful. But for now, there's no burden.

Thanks again, brynn

-----Original Message----- From: C R Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 2:58 PM To: brynn Cc: Inkscape-Docs ; Inkscape-Devel Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

Maybe Martin could add a flagging system ti the galleries. Something that automatically sends a notification to the poster about a suspicious post. They then have x days to respond. If they don't the post is auto-deleted.

This may save you some time, and will let the poster plead their case as it were without you having to follow up on it.

Just a thought. -C

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 9:56 PM, C R <cajhne@...400...> wrote:

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_Preview/b...) -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape)

--https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-847538...

   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@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 13:49 +0100, C R wrote:

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.

Getty is the company behind iStock Images, this image searched via TinEye (which I highly recommend to anyone doing moderation on images) shows the images was uploaded[1] in 2013 by BlackJack3D.

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.

This is a ceramic tile from San Juan[2] so very likely not made in Inkscape, the email address for the store is ducart at yahoo, where as the user on inkscape.org is an aol address.

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.

The law is very clear when it gives people right to parody and create these kinds of cultural commentary works. We take stuff like this down on request from the original copyright holders only.

BUT. This work is still not an original work. It was drawn by Menselijke Christen in 2014 using Coral Draw and Illustrator[3]. So it should be taken down on grounds that it's not an Inkscape work and wasn't made by the user

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.

Generally no. If I draw something infringing, that different to if I copy an image from where else. There's at least a creative step to drawing things which we should be up for defending under grounds of free speech until asked to take it down.

Best Regards, Martin Owens

1. http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/music-in-the-heart-gm171271203-2008 0753 2. http://www.mipequenosanjuan.com/puertorican-decorative-tiles.html 3. https://nl.dreamstime.com/redactionele-stock-afbeelding-held-en-jesu s-image66927814s-image66927814

Hhm....Yes, believe me, I do a lot of 2nd thinking about this stuff!

And fortunately, thanks to Martin, we have the kind of moderation system where one person doesn't carry the entire responsibility. Images are voted up or down (sort of like reality tv haha), and it's possible to even discuss within the system.

Thanks Martin!

-----Original Message----- From: C R Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 6:49 AM To: brynn Cc: Inkscape-Docs ; Inkscape-Devel Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

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%8515230751-703016283207581-847538...

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-world2

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.

Just a few more thoughts. -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_Preview/b...) -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape)

--https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-847538...

   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@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

(sorry, got long with quotes)

...

Are we now saying that we will address certain copyright issues?

Well it's not our job to delve into the legality, ....

When I say "copyright issues" I'm not referring to legality. I'm not even thinking about licensing. It's just the only way I know how to describe it when people use images when they don't own them. I'll try to remember to say "ownership issues".

...

Moderation is firstly a measure to improve the quality of our community

content. Secondary is the removal of legal issues when identified by actual lawyers and we can take action for them.

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).

...

It's actually a lot of work to do proper tracking. Every one of the

previous entries was not just a search on tiny-eye, but also google image searches, searching for authors by email or username, looking for patterns.

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).

...

I tend to trust user content first, but there are signs that content is

poor quality such as users with only one entry, who have only logged in once and that have posted jpeg images etc etc.

Do you mean that you trust user content first, over other kind of content? If so, what other kind of content is there? Or do you mean that you start out trusting the user, and then you need to see clues before you start to lose the trust?

These are the clues I had for the images I used for examples (which apparently all are turned out to be fishy). -- They could be made with Inkscape, but probably only by an advanced user. -- It's a JPG. (*maybe* PNG) -- There is just enough blurriness that I wonder why they used blurring at all (and I start to wonder if the blurriness is from being a raster format and saved a few times). -- There are no signs of pride in the work or connection or ownership as a community member. (no description or external link) -- Or conversely, the description is extended, and has nothing to do with Inkscape, open source, vector graphics, nothing remotely related. Or the external link is completely unrelated. -- The user either uploaded only one image, or they have a few sketchy ones.

After this discussion, I think I will start looking at the licenses more.

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.

I've curated out the external links. But couldn't this be considered a "repeat offender"? I honestly can't think of any argument, for keep or remove, which outweighs the other. I guess in this case, we curate what we can curate, and moderate what we can, and after that, rely on the space limits? (Unless they start reg-ing new accounts, which I have no way of tracking.)

Thanks again, brynn

-----Original Message----- From: Martin Owens Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 3:37 PM To: brynn ; C R Cc: Inkscape-Devel ; Inkscape-Docs Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 14:43 -0600, brynn wrote:

TinEye - Omg, a whole new world, haha!!

Are we now saying that we will address certain copyright issues?

Well it's not our job to delve into the legality, so these images shouldn't be removed because we've made a decision about copyright. But because we can see a moral issue with the posting of works like this and that they create noise and reduce the quality of our galleries.

Moderation is firstly a measure to improve the quality of our community content. Secondary is the removal of legal issues when identified by actual lawyers and we can take action for them.

I know this seems like a cop-out, but I'm always concerned vesting discerning and subjective powers into volunteers.

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)

It's actually a lot of work to do proper tracking. Every one of the previous entries was not just a search on tiny-eye, but also google image searches, searching for authors by email or username, looking for patterns.

I tend to trust user content first, but there are signs that content is poor quality such as users with only one entry, who have only logged in once and that have posted jpeg images etc etc.

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?

I think it's not ignored, but just a really hard question to answer. It could be a bot posting random images in the belief that posting content will make their accounts look more real. It could be real people attempting to create a bit of fake pride in themselves by pretending they made a work. There's not a good way to know for sure why.

One reason to post an image would be to get us to host their avatar image. So they can link from forums or other places their favourite artwork.

We have space limits to stop spammers.

Best Regards, Martin Owens

Thanks for the input and guidance, Martin and C R!

All best, brynn

-----Original Message----- From: Martin Owens Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 10:06 PM To: brynn ; C R Cc: Inkscape-Devel ; Inkscape-Docs Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 21:03 -0600, brynn wrote:

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).

This is called the Safe Harbour provisions in US law. As long as we're taking reasonable actions to remove content we have been informed is infringing, we're not culpable (IANAL, this isn't 100% true)

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?

It's a fairly high account, but it's slightly possible that the user has uploaded their inkscape image to a stock image site. So it's worth checking for an Author in the stock image sites and see if it matches.

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).

You can use the username and any other information posted.

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

I think you've got a good list of things to check. Keep this list for future possible documentation for new moderators please.

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.

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.

That's a suspicious user, but it's very hard to tell for sure. But you can probably be a bit more critical of this user since as you say in your list, they don't seem to post any actual content other than links.

Best Regards, Martin Owens

On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 22:27 -0600, brynn wrote:

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?

Yes, if there's no redeeming feature, it's hard to imagine why we wouldn't spam the account.

Thanks again, brynn

How about requiring that people also upload the corresponding inkscape file? I think a gallery with ten high-quality images and the source files is way more helpful than thousand images without any idea of how they can be made with inkscape.