IMPORTANT - Notice about Infringement & the SASS Wire Forums

[Rye Miles #13621]

Good job Misty, thanks for the update 🤠

[Pat Riot]

 

 

Something to consider… 

 

Many forums require that if you post something from another website that you post a hyper link to the media (image, video, graphic, etc.) for people to click on to access the site OR you post a link showing where the image came from either above or below the image. This removes or mitigates the chances of copyright infringement issues. 
 

EXAMPLE:

Image from: https://www.sassnet.com/sass-clubs/find-a-club-near-you

 

I also posted this in  the GOFWG’s thread

Edited January 24 by Pat Riot

[Texas Joker]

See a meme, like it and want to post it. Open chat gpt or Microsoft copilot and create your own AI  generated meme. 

 

 

"My" original artwork and copilot really can't generate the same image thing twice even using the same prompt

Edited January 24 by Texas Joker
Added image

[John Kloehr]

29 minutes ago, Texas Joker said:

See a meme, like it and want to post it. Open chat gpt or Microsoft copilot and create your own AI  generated meme. 

 

"My" original artwork and copilot really can't generate the same image thing twice even using the same prompt

Even AI is under attack for copyright violation. Many AI systems are undergoing retraining as the original training included copyrighted works. This made any output from those AIs potentially derivative (derived from) works.

[Texas Joker]

20 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

Even AI is under attack for copyright violation. Many AI systems are undergoing retraining as the original training included copyrighted works. This made any output from those AIs potentially derivative (derived from) works.

I would think they would have to prove derivation vs transformation of the copyrighted work. And if the original was is in the public domain and then taken private via copyright...

 

That's like that guy that tried to patent the wheel. They yanked the patent in 2014.

 

https://forums.sassnet.com/index.php?/topic/364788-reinventing-the-wheel/

 

 

Yea that thread has Flintstones, BC and hotwheels

 

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

On 1/23/2025 at 5:15 AM, Cypress Sun said:

This may not sit well...but here it is anyway.

 

If the SASS Wire Forums become restricted to SASS members only, I foresee...

 

The Wire Forum will become a BBQ gun picture forum, a WTC bickering site and very little else. Many potential members ask questions about many different topics. They ask questions on everything from firearms suggested/required, dress, reloading/ammo, general rules, membership, etc. 

 

The Saloon will become a ghost town. Many of the folks that post here are past SASS members, some have never been SASS members but 99% of Saloon posters have been very informative and fun. A few past SASS members have stated that they will renew their membership just for the ability to post on the Forums. Many have stated that they will simply say goodbye and/or post elsewhere. I think that the ones that do actually renew the membership will drop it on the next renewal as the Saloon would now be a dying ghost town.

 

The Classifieds would be the only forum where required membership would be a plus and a scammer deterrent. It would cut out many buyers however as many prospective buyers are NOT SASS members yet. The non-members are the ones looking for good deals, gathering equipment, clothes, accoutrements and other items to complete their entry into SASS.

 

The other forums are (no offense to SASS or regular forum visitors/posters) pretty much a ghost town already with very limited viewers and/or posters.

 

For the record, I'm a current SASS member (not life) and have been continuously since 1998. I haven't shot a SASS match of any kind in almost two years, yet I renew. Why? To be honest, mainly so I can sell items in the Classifieds and secondly to support SASS. I'm not a wealthy person, not even close, so the $69 spent on SASS renewals is an expense that I consider necessary to make a few bucks in the Classifieds that cover membership fees...and possibly make a few extra bucks. Without the extra non-member traffic, I don't see the Classifieds being frequented enough by 'approved current members' to justify the cost of renewing my membership.

 

With that said, I believe that establishing a required membership for the ability to post/participate on the SASS Wire Forums is a mistake that will not have a positive result for SASS for the reasons, and more, stated above.

 

If I'm one of the ones that posted pictures, videos or cartoons that caused a problem for SASS, I apologize and can honestly state that I never thought that posting them would cause any problem for SASS. 

 

 

 

This brings up another question: Are the "elsewhere"s also being attacked by theses suits or only those that are firearms related?  Are gun sales sites and auction houses being targeted as well?  How about The Bluebook, outdoor places selling stuff that is copyrighted, newspapers, magazines, and such also having threats of suits glaring at them?  Are ads for second hand items going to be threatened too? 

[Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L]

1 minute ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

This brings up another question: Are the "elsewhere"s also being attacked by theses suits or only those that are firearms related?  Are gun sales sites and auction houses being targeted as well?  How about The Bluebook, outdoor places selling stuff that is copyrighted, newspapers, magazines, and such also having threats of suits glaring at them?  Are ads for second hand items going to be threatened too?

 

 

As I mentioned either up-thread or in the same thread on the SASS Wire, they hit my Church to the tune of around $2,500.00 for using pictures on the Church Bulletin.  These guys don't care who it is, they are just after the $$$$.  Anytime one of the AI Bots happens to pickup a thread anywhere with one of their copyrighted images, it will be game on.

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

Has this message been locked?  Or have I personally been blocked from posting a few questions?  I can't get a reply to the entire message or any individual response to open.

 

Am I to believe that I have been copyrighted?

[Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L]

11 minutes ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

Has this message been locked?  Or have I personally been blocked from posting a few questions?  I can't get a reply to the entire message or any individual response to open.

 

Am I to believe that I have been copyrighted?

 

From my browser, I am seeing each of your posts appear twice in the thread.  Not sure if that is related or not.

 

Note:  There are two threads, one in the SASS Wire and one in the SASS Saloon.  Are you posting in one and looking in the other?  Do you have multiple tabs open in your browser?

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

30 minutes ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

Has this message been locked?  Or have I personally been blocked from posting a few questions?  I can't get a reply to the entire message or any individual response to open.

 

Am I to believe that I have been copyrighted?

 

Not locked.

For some reason your previous message quoting Cypress Sun was reposted NINE times...twice with multiple repeats in the same post.

Those duplicates were "hidden" pending deletion.

(the latest one also reposted).

[Eyesa Horg]

7 minutes ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

Has this message been locked?  Or have I personally been blocked from posting a few questions?  I can't get a reply to the entire message or any individual response to open.

 

Am I to believe that I have been copyrighted?

Your recent posts are appearing on my phone. So you aren't blocked in any way that I can see.

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

Okay, I kept pushing the Submit Reply button and  it didn't appear to be getting transmitted.

 

Posted Just Now message didn't show up and the Submit Reply button kept reappearing.

 

I had no way of knowing if it was taking or not.  Maybe I need to clean the chimney and trim the wick..  These old kerosene powered computers aren't all that reliable any more......and I have a dyslexic keyboard.  

Edited January 24 by Forty Rod SASS 3935

[Eyesa Horg]

2 minutes ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

Okay, I kept pushing the Submit Reply button and  irtdidn't appear to be getting transmitted.

 

Poster Just Now message didn't show up and the Submit Reply button kept reappearing.

 

I had no way of knowing if it was taking or not.  Maybe I need to clean the chimney and trim the wick..  These old kerosene powered computers aren't all that reliable any more and I have a dyslexic keyboard.  

So your submit button has gone full auto. We'll just assume you now have a stutter. Carry on, but stay off my ice!

[Father Kit Cool Gun Garth]

Here's a fail safe method..
Just my......

[Eyesa Horg]

34 minutes ago, Father Kit Cool Gun Garth said:

Here's a fail safe method..
Just my......

Happy New Year FKCGG

[Father Kit Cool Gun Garth]

26 minutes ago, Eyesa Horg said:

Happy New Year FKCGG

Hey @Eyesa Horg
You forgot to use the link to my picture. 

[Eyesa Horg]

Oh crab CRAP, my humble appologies. I will consider this fair warning.

Edited January 25 by Eyesa Horg
Fricken otto

[Will Kane]

On 1/24/2025 at 2:08 PM, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

Not locked.

For some reason your previous message quoting Cypress Sun was reposted NINE times...twice with multiple repeats in the same post.

Those duplicates were "hidden" pending deletion.

(the latest one also reposted).

Image of Nelson Mandela Muntz from The Simpsons yelling, “Ha! Ha!”.

[Pat Riot]

@Misty Moonshine are there any updates that you can share regarding this situation?

[Pat Riot]

Anyone? Any updates or guidance on this issue?

[Dogmeat Dad, SASS #48563L]

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.

[Eyesa Horg]

Page 2 and no word from Misty!??

[John Kloehr]

5 hours ago, Eyesa Horg said:

Page 2 and no word from Misty!??

I'm assuming her lawyer says shut up. So I'm leaving it at that.

 

Another forum owner I gave a heads up to has not been shaken down for all the memes on his site, he also has lawyers on retainer and is not afraid to use them. On this site, it may have been the comic strips, and I may have posted one or two of those myself over time when they were on point to a particular conversation.

 

I also am not a lawyer, and where memes fall is not fully settled from what I can determine. The underlying picture may be and often is copyrighted, but adding  the meme text can be considered as "transformative" in terms of such things as comedy or parody. This would then be fair use. I don't considered this settled law.

[Pat Riot]

@Misty Moonshine @Eliphalet R. Moderator

 

Any updates in this situation that you can share?

[Cowtown Scout, SASS #53540 L]

Misty willl be at EOT at least through tomorrow.

[Palouse]

Any thought to having administrators filter and block "web crawler"  connections?  Allow search engines to keep our text content available for reference searches, but block the image search web crawlers retrieving large files.

 

To determine if a file is "copied", the entire file must be downloaded and the hash code compared to original. How many image files are on the web?  

 

Block some web crawlers not to prevent detection of unlicensed use of copywrite material, but to prevent unauthorised and excessive use of SASS resources. 

 

Think about it, the world is allowing image copywrite holding companies to pull huge files from every internet source whenever they want. Once a year? Once a day? Once a minute?  For free. 

 

What a business model!  Buy up essentially worthless image file copywrites, put tremendous strain on the intetnet to pull all image files from all locations, and then legally extort money from the people who ultimately pay for the bandwidth to allow image file transfers.

 

Now, if there was only a way to easily change a file's hash code ...

 

[John Kloehr]

36 minutes ago, Palouse said:

Any thought to having administrators filter and block "web crawler"  connections?  Allow search engines to keep our text content available for reference searches, but block the image search web crawlers retrieving large files.

 

Now, if there was only a way to easily change a file's hash code ...

 

Web search engines directives are only hints and search engines do not always honor them.

 

Changing just one bit changes the file hash. Google steganography for more that can be done with images which a computer can detect but a human will not notice..

[Palouse]

26 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

Web search engines directives are only hints and search engines do not always honor them.

 

Changing just one bit changes the file hash. Google steganography for more that can be done with images which a computer can detect but a human will not notice..

Sure.  But I'm not talking about directives.  Depending upon the control allowed by an isp, block specific domains from accessing website.

 

Search engines capture (via web crawlers) text and metadata about a webpage, not attached pictures or other large files.  The image companies either have their own crawlers, or querry the URL/location of pics via search engine metadata.  The image companies must go to the source for actual file download.  SASSNet bandwidth should not be used by other companies. It is bad enough with SPAM, fraud and advertisements.

 

Yes, Windows bundled app, "Paint", is a simple and marvelous tool.

[John Kloehr]

3 minutes ago, Palouse said:

Sure.  But I'm not talking about directives.  Depending upon the control allowed by an isp, block specific domains from accessing website.

 

Search engines capture (via web crawlers) text and metadata about a webpage, not attached pictures or other large files.  The image companies either have their own crawlers, or querry the URL/location of pics via search engine metadata.  The image companies must go to the source for actual file download.  SASSNet bandwidth should not be used by other companies. It is bad enough with SPAM, fraud and advertisements.

 

Yes, Windows bundled app, "Paint", is a simple and marvelous tool.

It would be more up to the forum software developer, but graphics do not need to be copied and served from "this" web server. They can be embedded and still served from the host where the file is stored. This is commonly done for YouTube videos. It looks like it is in a post or other web page, but actually comes from a link.

 

Copyright law is not yet clear if this (linking and embedding) still counts as a copyright violation or not, but it does address server host bandwidth by putting the load onto the original file source. To complicate matters, some places resist such efforts as theft of their own bandwidth (as it removes possible revenue from ads served with the content originally).

[Palouse]

JK,

Amen, brother.  My point of posting was just throwing out options.  I think it is important to NOT present the appearance of trying to get around the law for files on our servers.  And, I do not know that SASS has been fined for posting links, (but I may have missed that in the previous two pages). 

 

If all providers and web domains protected their resources and  blocked image company access, the carpet baggers would be left holding the bag.

 

I don't advocate breaking the law, nor ignoring perversions of the law. I don't like the current state of copywrite law.  But Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, ain't goin' to be changed.  Congress can be convinced to make changes, which is as it should be

 

[Buckshot Bear]

People can send invoices asking for money all the time.

I hope before any monies were handed over a copyright lawyer was consulted. 

[Pat Riot]

I am curious. Are we ever going to get an update to this issue? 

[Pat Riot]

 

Image (GIF) from: https://giphy.com/gifs/awesomenesstv-season-2-guidance-l4FGI0SsKVBU69V5e

[Eyesa Horg]

Odd this was posted and then info on what is OK from there or what's happening with it! Without follow up, it's just going to revert to where we were or the Moderators are going to be awful busy.