Re: [Inkscape-docs] [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'
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@...172.../%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
TinEye - Omg, a whole new world, haha!!
Are we now saying that we will address certain copyright issues?
I think when we were discussing it before, we might have been lumping "fan art" together with blatant posting of someone else's image. I think "fan art" is fine. For example, if that Jesus image had actually been drawn in Inkscape, would have been fine.
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?
Thanks for the great info and guidance :-)
All best, brynn
-----Original Message----- From: Martin Owens Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 8:24 AM To: C R ; brynn Cc: Inkscape-Devel ; Inkscape-Docs Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'
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@...172.../%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
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
(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
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%C2%A0%C2%A0The 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
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
Another 2nd thought :-)
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.
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
-----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
Thanks Martin.
I'm going explore how to identify these images, over the next few weeks, and try to work out a sort of routine for handling this type of upload (which I think will amount to a significant percentage of uploads). Then I'll write the new info into the Charter, and notify the other moderators.
Thanks again, brynn
-----Original Message----- From: Martin Owens Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 10:54 PM To: brynn ; C R Cc: Inkscape-Devel ; Inkscape-Docs Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'
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.
Thanks for your comments :-)
I suspect that opinions on this will be wide-ranging.
I'd be afraid it would limit how many images are shared. Personally, I only share the SVG file once in a while. Offering the SVG file (in my view) makes it too easy for someone to use it (for example, send to tshirt printer, or poster printer, or change one little thing and claim as own, etc.). But I still might like to show what I've made with Inkscape - just not make it so easy to steal it.
However, I do think there are those in the community who would be very happy with that kind of requirement. I think it has been considered, although perhaps not discussed publicly.
I think having identified this new sort of class of spam (it's spam for us, the Inkscape community), will result in a gallery which much better represents Inkscape. I expect when I start to go retro with moderating this type of image (back to when the CoC was published) it will remove a lot of unrelated images.
Thanks again, brynn
-----Original Message----- From: Maximilian Gaukler Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 5:42 AM To: brynn ; Martin Owens ; C R Cc: Inkscape-Devel ; Inkscape-Docs Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'
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.
participants (3)
-
brynn -
Martin Owens -
Maximilian Gaukler