Misty Moonshine Posted January 22 Posted January 22 Hi everyone, SASS has received a packet full of notices of "Unlicensed Use" of Imagery owned by several different companies- the Associated Press, The Canadian Press, Epa Images, Hearst Holdings, and Reuters. It seems that by our forum members here copying and posting comments containing images and memes containing images- as well as cartoons - without express permission from these companies has now resulted in some pretty steep fines for SASS. Because the infringement detail was so vast, after spending far too much time in an attempt to hunt them all down, I have been forced to remove certain threads entirely- the "Sticky cartoon thread" and the "funny photos add some" threads entirely. Additionally, I've hidden about a dozen other comments and posts with imagery that were listed in the notices we received. How do we move forward? I'm not sure yet... I don't want to remove the ability to share pictures within the forums, but we cannot (and will not) be subject to fines like this again. It may be time to start restricting access to the SASS Wire Forums to active SASS MEMBERS ONLY in an effort to maintain our sanctuary here... I will be consulting with our legal team as well as our Advisory Board on the best action moving forward. In the meantime, I'm asking everyone to PLEASE not copy and paste photos or memes from any internet news or image source. Thanks in advance, Misty Moonshine 7 8 Quote
Eyesa Horg Posted January 22 Posted January 22 Thank you for the explanation Misty. Must admit I'm surprised that content taken off the web wouldn't already be public. Good Luck with this issue. God Bless. It's always sumpin these days! 1 Quote
Warden Callaway Posted January 22 Posted January 22 Well Poo! (My mother-in-law's only swear word.) 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted January 22 Posted January 22 I'm not understanding the "fines" part. I'm assuming DMCA takedown notices. Yes, then the material does need to come down if it is owned by a copyright holder. Then notify the copyright holder. Should be done at that point, but maybe things have changed since I last came across this. Quote
Tyrel Cody Posted January 22 Posted January 22 2 hours ago, Misty Moonshine said: It may be time to start restricting access to the SASS Wire Forums to active SASS MEMBERS ONLY Is the Forum Software connected to a Membership Database now, making it easy to restrict to active SASS members? I’ve long thought the Classified should be locked down in this manner(could help prevent scammers if hidden from public view). My opinion only active members should be able to post For Sale or Want To Buy Ads. The Saloon should probably have been hidden from the public a long time ago as well. As to the Main SASS Wire it would be good(my opinion) to allow guests to post questions there and learn things from. Perhaps the forum software could restrict posting pictures by “guests”. 2 Quote
The Original Lumpy Gritz Posted January 22 Posted January 22 Misty, the fact we are a gun friendly 'sight' comes into play here, I'm sure! Sorry you have to deal with this nonsense, not like you and your crew don't already have your hands full...... 5 Quote
Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L Posted January 22 Posted January 22 (edited) My Church got hit with the same BS not that long ago. I signed up for a IStock account so I could use the "purchased" images for our Cowboy match applications. This is about to get a whole lot worse as Getty Images/iStock is in the process of purchasing Shutterstock. These companies are buying up the rights to as much digital imagery as they can and then going after anyone they think has money. They contact the person who posted the original image, pay them some small fee and possibly residuals, then charge $15 or more to each person that uses it. They are using AI technology to search for these images out on the world wide web and that is what is making all of this possible. The result, I think, is that we will see be a significant drop in the use of imagery on websites world wide. If they keep this up, we will be back to the old BBS days.... Edited January 22 by Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L 'Cause I Don't Spel Two Gud! Quote
Captain Bill Burt Posted January 22 Posted January 22 It’s unfortunate you’re having to deal with this Misty. I don’t recall posting images like those you describe, but it’s certainly possible that at some point I have. If we retain the ability to post pictures or video in the future I will be careful not to post anything that has the slightest chance of being copyrighted. I’m sure once other members are aware of the issue they will also exercise due care. 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted January 23 Posted January 23 I am going to be more careful. Even with stuff pulled from the book of faces or through a search because I am after a specific thing as a response. I'm sure some of the things I posted are ending up in the sweep for which I apologize; copyright violation was certainly never my intent. There are some things I don't think would be a problem. When asking about a product, grabbing a picture from Dillon or Midsouth or Amazon is not likely to be a problem IMO. Memes? I'm not even sure background image content from meme generators is safe. I will have to think and look deeper. Is the lady and the cat now off limits? There are a bunch of "standard" meme images with any variable amount of text. Also Star Trek TNG with Picard, Riker, Deanna, Data, etc... Those are all probably under copyright but are incredibly common in the wild. I still can not see how "fines" apply. A web host gets a DMCA takedown notice, it complies with the takedown notice, it informs the complainant the content is no longer there, done. No "fines." 1 Quote
Texas Jack Black Posted January 23 Posted January 23 19 hours ago, John Kloehr said: I am going to be more careful. Even with stuff pulled from the book of faces or through a search because I am after a specific thing as a response. I'm sure some of the things I posted are ending up in the sweep for which I apologize; copyright violation was certainly never my intent. There are some things I don't think would be a problem. When asking about a product, grabbing a picture from Dillon or Midsouth or Amazon is not likely to be a problem IMO. Memes? I'm not even sure background image content from meme generators is safe. I will have to think and look deeper. Is the lady and the cat now off limits? There are a bunch of "standard" meme images with any variable amount of text. Also Star Trek TNG with Picard, Riker, Deanna, Data, etc... Those are all probably under copyright but are incredibly common in the wild. I still can not see how "fines" apply. A web host gets a DMCA takedown notice, it complies with the takedown notice, it informs the complainant the content is no longer there, done. No "fines." Why does a gun site forum will grown adults need to post foolish pictures. ? Quote
Eyesa Horg Posted January 23 Posted January 23 For our entertainment in the Saloon! And not all pictures are meant to be funny, some are educational/informative. 3 1 Quote
Cowtown Scout, SASS #53540 L Posted January 23 Posted January 23 24 minutes ago, Texas Jack Black said: Why does a gun site forum will grown adults need to post foolish pictures. ? On this forum those are posted in the Saloon. I am also on two other gun related forums and they both have areas that post non-firearm related threads. 1 2 Quote
Texas Jack Black Posted January 23 Posted January 23 1 hour ago, Eyesa Horg said: For our entertainment in the Saloon! And not all pictures are meant to be funny, some are educational/informative. unfortunately causing issues with the main office $$$ Best Wishes 1 Quote
Eyesa Horg Posted January 23 Posted January 23 1 minute ago, Texas Jack Black said: unfortunately causing issues with the main office $$$ Best Wishes But ya can't really blame posters that were never warned and were posting things off other public sites. How was anybody to know. And until Misty and the legal team deal with it. Expense is the unknown and may just be settled as they were never warned. It's always the heavy fist first. Time will tell, in the meantime,we have now been warned. 4 Quote
Indy Kid, SASS #4638 Posted January 24 Posted January 24 Here is an article written by a lawyer about copyrights. https://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/copyright-fair-use-and-how-it-works-for-online-images/ . Basically it says any picture that is taken, any thing that is written and any thing that is drawn or is painted is copyrighted the instant it is created. It does not have to be registered to be copyrighted. So with some exceptions anytime you cut and paste on the internet there is a good chance you are breaking copyright laws. Indy 1 2 Quote
Cholla Posted January 24 Posted January 24 There is a new industry of people searching for copyright violations. Some of the magazines I write have been hit with this because we assume something is in the public use domain. Now, if I need an old photo I have to list where I got it such as the Library of Congress or the Smithsonian. The editors prefer I take my own photos. 1 4 Quote
Sedalia Dave Posted January 25 Posted January 25 3 hours ago, Cholla said: There is a new industry of people searching for copyright violations. Some of the magazines I write have been hit with this because we assume something is in the public use domain. Now, if I need an old photo I have to list where I got it such as the Library of Congress or the Smithsonian. The editors prefer I take my own photos. Yep. First it was Patent Trolls. Now AI has created the Copyright Troll. 1 1 Quote
Bladesmith, SASS 113085 Posted January 31 Posted January 31 (edited) On 1/22/2025 at 4:49 PM, John Kloehr said: I'm not understanding the "fines" part That was my thinking too. I’m not attorney so maybe there’s some nuance I’m missing but it appears the DMCA provides protection from liability for forum owners in cases where members may have posted copyrighted material, provided the forum owner had not been previously notified and advised to remove it. Referencing https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf, page 11 the section beginning with “Limitation for Information Residing on Systems”. I’m sure the legal team will give good guidance, but definitely worth investigating since it wouldn’t surprise me to learn an attorney tried to enact something like fines without following actual procedures. It also strikes me as a little odd that so many large and diverse entities would all have the same legal representation and would all notify SASS simultaneously, but that’s just my view from the peanut gallery! Edited January 31 by Bladesmith, SASS 113085 1 Quote
Pat Riot Posted February 5 Posted February 5 On 1/23/2025 at 3:31 PM, Texas Jack Black said: Why does a gun site forum will grown adults need to post foolish pictures. ? Where do you see grown adults here? 2 4 Quote
Marauder SASS #13056 Posted February 8 Posted February 8 On 1/22/2025 at 5:26 PM, Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L said: My Church got hit with the same BS not that long ago. I signed up for a IStock account so I could use the "purchased" images for our Cowboy match applications. This is about to get a whole lot worse as Getty Images/iStock is in the process of purchasing Shutterstock. These companies are buying up the rights to as much digital imagery as they can and then going after anyone they think has money. They contact the person who posted the original image, pay them some small fee and possibly residuals, then charge $15 or more to each person that uses it. They are using AI technology to search for these images out on the world wide web and that is what is making all of this possible. The result, I think, is that we will see be a significant drop in the use of imagery on websites world wide. If they keep this up, we will be back to the old BBS days.... That explains a great deal! This partly, We are seeing a corporate level of what many would consider "legalized theft." They use computers to find free images they like, that was created by other, then copyright it in their name. Now they "own it" almost like the people who are stealing homes, but using sort of a loop hole. Then they can make millions using fines as much as actually selling the images. This is where our world has fallen, so we must be smart and adjust. We need a LOT fewer lawyers and more honest lawyers. Unfortunately, the law schools teach a great deal of dishonesty and encourage such behavior. God warns us about thinking being evil is being smart. One day, we will all learn the truth - most won't like it. 4 Quote
Marauder SASS #13056 Posted February 8 Posted February 8 Just to add a note, artists have the right to their work and to be paid. It is easy to violate that if we are not careful, especially in the computer age. Quote
Bison Bud Posted February 16 Posted February 16 While I understand the SASS office being very concerned, I think that restricting the SASS Wire to "Active Members Only" may be a knee jerk, over-reaction and sincerely hope that it doesn't require this kind of response. Posting this warning and monitoring posts for violations should be effective and I don't think anyone here has intentionally tried to abuse this issue. I also agree that this is probably another "AI" issue that someone is using to try to make money, as this sort of thing happens all over the internet, so they have found a big market for searching out violations and trying to collect fines. I guess we will see soon enough how all this shakes out. Good luck and good shooting to all. 1 Quote
watab kid Posted February 17 Posted February 17 im pleased that you have shared this explanation , there have been so many little innuendos with no real explanation of the origins , im sad that SASS has had expenses because of this , i appreciate the work , the costs and the irritations this has caused , we appreciate you and all of the staff , thank you , i believe the only things i have posted have been photos i took myself , but if not i apologize for my contribution to this issue , ill be very careful in the future , i had thought that all of our site members were SASS members or past SASS members , possibly a newby guest that would become a SASS member , so this has enlightened me some , im not sure how i feel about it so ill refrain from commenting or weighing in on the member only issue , Quote
Snakebite Posted February 21 Posted February 21 Since Day one, I have been an advocate of allowing only current SASS members the ability to post on the SASS forum. THAT is the only way to control things. Any member that refuses to comply should be banned from access. People sometime get confused into thinking that Freedom of speech applies to private forums, FB or such. IT DOES NOT! 1 Quote
Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L Posted February 21 Posted February 21 I'm pretty sure that SASS members are, for the most part, the individuals that caused this situation. Not on purpose, but it was a misunderstanding by all involved of what constituted copyright infringement. The assumption was, that as long as the post was not intended to generate income, that posting meme's and comics was not infringement. There is going to be a whole lot of case law generated before this issue is completely resolved, but until some entity decides to pursue it in court, settling and ceasing the practice is usually the cheapest and fastest solution. Cross Posted From The Same Thread In The Saloon.... I have done a tiny bit of research on this topic and this article in the National Law Review seems to imply that as long as the meme is not used for the purposes of generating income, then it should be OK to post them. Not in all cases, but if you or I were to take a picture from the internet, modify it into a meme, and then post it, we should be OK, as long as we aren't putting it on Coffee Mugs, T-Shirts, or in some other way trying to make money with it. But, IANAL, (I Am Not A Lawyer) so take that with a grain of salt, but it seems like that would be OK. Who Owns Memes Now, the same does not hold true for the reposting of comic strips, or cartoons that have been copyrighted. That still seems as though it will get you in trouble. I think, and again IANAL, that you can post the comic as long as you also post a link along with it that takes you to the original work, but someone who understands copyright law a lot better than I will have to be your guide on that. Lastly, in the end, it all depends on what the Owner of the Website decides is acceptable. Companies can always sue for copyright infringement, and unless the sue-ee (Is that even a word ) has legal representation on retainer, they usually just settle for some number that gets them out of the lawsuit at minimal cost, regardless of them being guilty or not. Like I said upthread, in my opinion it's a money grab by some of these big corporations and nothing more. Personally, I miss the Memes. I used to used this place (and another shooters forum I frequent) to give myself a last chuckle and purge the days trouble before crashing for the night. I hope we can bring that back. 4 Quote
Pat Riot Posted February 26 Posted February 26 (edited) On 2/20/2025 at 8:30 PM, Snakebite said: Since Day one, I have been an advocate of allowing only current SASS members the ability to post on the SASS forum. THAT is the only way to control things. Any member that refuses to comply should be banned from access. People sometime get confused into thinking that Freedom of speech applies to private forums, FB or such. IT DOES NOT! Glad you’re not in charge. I can’t tell you how many people have joined SASS and became active Cowboy Action Shooters because of being able to come in here and ask questions and see what it’s all about. Edited February 26 by Pat Riot I forgot a laughy emoji 4 2 1 Quote
Snakebite Posted February 26 Posted February 26 I understand, I just don't agree with allowing anybody to post anything at anytime. It would be easy to add a place where "outside" questions could be screened before being put directly on the wire. IMO many problems have brought to wire by outside people just wanting to stir things up. Every open forum that I have seen ends up with interlopers causing problems. 2 Quote
Oak Ridge Regulator Posted March 2 Posted March 2 So I may be wrong about what I’m about to suggest and if so I apologize up front but dident Facebook recently change their terms to state that Anything posted by a member on their Facebook page can be used by Facebook for anything they want basically ? And if that’s true ( that’s how it seemed to me ) how can Facebook get away with someone like me posting a meme or some other “copy righted paste “ from the web ? Seems like some double standards floating around. As usual Quote
John Kloehr Posted March 2 Posted March 2 6 hours ago, Oak Ridge Regulator said: So I may be wrong about what I’m about to suggest and if so I apologize up front but dident Facebook recently change their terms to state that Anything posted by a member on their Facebook page can be used by Facebook for anything they want basically ? And if that’s true ( that’s how it seemed to me ) how can Facebook get away with someone like me posting a meme or some other “copy righted paste “ from the web ? Seems like some double standards floating around. As usual FB also prohibits posting of copyrighted material without license, and the use of content by FB only applies to content generated by the FB account holder. Quote
Oak Ridge Regulator Posted March 3 Posted March 3 So does that mean that if I post something copyrighted on my Facebook then Facebook will get fined and not me ? That sort of sounds like what happened to us on SASS Quote
John Kloehr Posted March 3 Posted March 3 34 minutes ago, Oak Ridge Regulator said: So does that mean that if I post something copyrighted on my Facebook then Facebook will get fined and not me ? That sort of sounds like what happened to us on SASS I think SASS was likely a shakedown, but defending against it and winning can cost more than paying. The process as I understand it is supposed to be: Copyright holder (or authorized representative) finds infringing content Copyright holder properly serves DMCA take-down notice on the site Site takes down infringing content (or challenges the copyright) If site takes the content down, then that ends it Quote
Oak Ridge Regulator Posted March 3 Posted March 3 Yup certainly sounds like we got the raw end of the deal, being a firearm related group I’m not the least bit surprised 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted March 6 Posted March 6 (edited) On 3/3/2025 at 12:41 AM, Oak Ridge Regulator said: Yup certainly sounds like we got the raw end of the deal, being a firearm related group I’m not the least bit surprised I know someone who owns a lot of forums. This includes at least one well-known firearms forum. I let him know about this event. He says (paraphrasing) "bring it on." He has lawyers SASS can not afford. Edited March 6 by John Kloehr Quote
John Kloehr Posted March 9 Posted March 9 Hey folks. I jut reported a couple posts where the graphic has a clear copyright in the graphic. If an image has a copyright clearly readable in the graphic, maybe don't post it. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.