(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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-docs mailing list
Inkscape-docs@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-docs
