In case of copyright infringement

EDIT: Here on this thread you find information what you can do if you want to defend your copyright.

I was looking for good instructions and template how to write so called 'DMCA notice' in case of copyright infringement. I found this article 'How to Write an Effective DMCA Notice' by Jonathan Bailey: http://www.blogherald.com/2007/06/04/how-to-write-an-effective-dmca-notice/

Especially notice list what to write on paragraph 'Pulling it all Together'.

So, that's what the post should contain and which you can send to service provider who host the pages where violation done.

EDIT: You can use this thread to report copyright infringements against any of our members. Then we moderators contact that member and advice what s/he can do if s/he want to defend her/his copyright.

EDIT: Important! Before you do anything else, open your image displayed on the other Web site or on someone else's pages. On PC right click on image and open the image. On Opera Mini/Mobile, long press the image and open image. Then check the URL of that image. If it points to your files at MyOpera, then there is no copyright infringement happened, and this is actually just so called 'inline linking'.

EDIT: Here are instructions for posting Copyright aka DMCA notice. However, it is wise to try negotiate first with the person who violate your copyright before you take more serious actions. You can for example explain how you wish your pictures republished and ask the person do that as you want, and tell to ask your permission first next time.

Copyright infringement notice should contain the followings and then send to service provider who host the infringing pages:

1. Links to the original picture(s).
2. Links to the infringing pages.
3. The following statement: "Use of the material that appears on the service is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or by operation of law. The information in this notice is accurate, and I am either the copyright owner."
4. Your name a signature and full contact information.

EDIT: Around MyOpera you can post the DMCA notice to abuse@opera.com

EDIT: Here's a draft:

Dear recipient,

My picture at MyOpera has been republished by another MyOpera member without my permission.

The original picture, where I'm the copyright owner, I have published at Shoot & Tell photography group:
http://my.opera.com/shootell/albums/...

The infringing page where my picture published without my permission is at:
http://my.opera.com/...

Use of the material that appears on the service is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or by operation of law. The information in this notice is accurate, and I am the copyright owner.

Your Name and complete contact info

Thanks for the link, Sami!! You have a great work about this topic..

Sami thank you very much for this nice work

I hope it pays of. Based on my earlier experiments people just give damn about copyright. Including service providers. Spam issues are well taken care of but in copyright issues one has to prove this and that before anything happens.

I was digging some old posts at moderator areas and found this rather useful post of mine. So, I just repost it here to give more help and info to our members:

First inform the author who's picture being used without permission. Then the author should proceed to fight for his/her copyrights. In all examples I have found on net it is said that author or person authorized by owner are the only persons who should start to deal with the copyright infringement.

Moreover, author may know if the person actually has the permission for publishing the picture.

To avoid false alerts, I recommend you all give the following advice to anyone who ask if they can use your photos elsewhere, and you decide to give the permission: Advice the person to make sure there are credits like authors name mentioned and text: "Permission to publish granted by author."

Then some advices to authors in case of copyright infringement:
1) First try to contact the person who has used your material without permission and ask politely to remove it, or if you allow the use, mention one should always ask the permission first. Moreover, if you allow the use, advice to add that text: "Permission to publish granted by author."
2) If you do not allow, and person who did the copyright infringement does not reply or does not remove your material, then contact the service providers and ask them to remove the material. Use this http://www.google.com/dmca.html as an example how to formulate a proper copyright
infringement notification.

Very informative details..

Thanks Sami very informative topic.

For the record I post the current cases here:
http://my.opera.com/salimserane/blog/2011/10/26/zdenotim-album
http://my.opera.com/salimserane/blog/2011/10/26/a-lovely-times-2
http://my.opera.com/salimserane/blog/2011/10/26/a-lovely-times
http://my.opera.com/salimserane/blog/2011/10/25/memories-and-moments-by-serola

So far our comments and reports has not led to anything. Each of the members (Nimu, Zdenko and Sami) may have to post more detailed report.

Originally posted by serola:

For the record I post the current cases here:
http://my.opera.com/salimserane/blog/2011/10/26/zdenotim-album
http://my.opera.com/salimserane/blog/2011/10/26/a-lovely-times-2
http://my.opera.com/salimserane/blog/2011/10/26/a-lovely-times
http://my.opera.com/salimserane/blog/2011/10/25/memories-and-moments-by-serola

Are you sure those constitute copyright infringement? To me it looks as if she/he simply used the community share button (The red button with white O in the middle, in the sidebar) on the respective photo pages. I mean the photos are linked back to the original album photo page. Isn't it how the community share button supposed to work?

[Update]
I did an experiment using the O share button on one of Sami's picture, and confirmed the same outcome (only published privately and deleted within minutes of publication).

Hmm... I have never thought it that way. But in that case MyOpera encourage copyright infringement from my point of view So, maybe we should point that out on MyOpera feedback forum

Updated information on how to send DMCA notice in case of copyright infringements around MyOpera:
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=10644162
I updated that also to instructions written on previous posts on this thread.

But this person did not misrepresent Zdenko's, Susumu-san's or your photo as her own, did she? And the photo is linked back to the original. So is it still copyright infringement? Or just someone wanting to share photos she/he saw on the net and liked, using the "Share" button as provided?

Originally posted by serola:

But in that case MyOpera encourage copyright infringement from my point of view So, maybe we should point that out on MyOpera feedback forum

Yes. My Opera should include at least the name of the album owner in addition to the current photo + link when the "Share" button is used. As well as making it completely clear that the resulting post is produced by use of the "Share" button.

[Edit]
Added the underlined sentence

Originally posted by mimi_s_mum:

So is it still copyright infringement?

Well, that's what I now try to find out: http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=10644162
I have always understood it like this:

In most countries, authors automatically own the copyright to any work they make or create, as long as they do not give the copyright to someone else.
...
A copyright is a law that gives the owner of a written document, musical composition, book, picture, or other creative work, the right to decide what other people can do with it. -Simple English Wikipedia

And I don't just build my trust on that Simple Wikipedia article but on what is said about copyright on numerous other sources.

EDIT: The point is that anyone does not even have right to share unless permission asked.

FYI Opera Terms of Service says
...
2.8 Opera does not claim ownership of any User Generated Content. However, by submitting User Generated Content to us, User grants Opera the right and limited license to use, copy, display, perform, distribute, and adapt this User Generated Content for the purpose of carrying out the Services. (underline mine)

Aren't we users of Opera's photo and content sharing service?

by submitting User Generated Content to us, User grants Opera the right and limited license to use, copy, display, perform, distribute, and adapt this User Generated Content for the purpose of carrying out the Services.

I take that as MyOpera has right to do so for example on community news, but that should not give MyOpera members any rights to share each others' content. Links are of course acceptable, and quotes, but republishing the whole work (complete post or picture) without permission granted by author should not be okay.

I have now sent a new DMCA notice as instructed here: http://my.opera.com/shootell/forums/findpost.pl?id=10637502

Originally posted by serola:

but republishing the whole work (complete post or picture) without permission granted by author should not be okay.

But your work, the picture you've uploaded to Opera server, has not been infringed. You've uploaded the picture for the purpose of sharing it using Opera's online services. "Share" button merely allows display of it in another page, which is in effect copy to distribute in another context. And that is what Opera Terms of Service says

2.8 Opera does not claim ownership of any User Generated Content. However, by submitting User Generated Content to us, User grants Opera the right and limited license to use, copy, display, perform, distribute, and adapt this User Generated Content for the purpose of carrying out the Services. (underline mine)

Originally posted by serola:

I take that as MyOpera has right to do so for example on community news

That is your personal interpretation. But is it actually correct? Shouldn't you ask Opera staff to confirm it?

Originally posted by serola:

I have now sent a new DMCA notice

Even the community manager Aleks Aas confirmed members have right to share this way?

I'm sorry but I have to tell you, Sami. With all due respect, I believe you are handling this the wrong way. I think the real issues are correct interpretation of the TOS and Opera's implementation of the "Share" button facility. Not an innocent (until proven otherwise) community member merely used the "Share" button provided by Opera. I will not further criticise you taking actions as an individual member. But I ask you to refrain from presuming that is our consensus position as the group S&T or instructing/ suggesting other group members to do the same.

@ MM - What MyOpera term of use #2.8 really means, that I really would like to be clarified by someone who works at MyOpera. I have understood it only "grants Opera to copy, display, perform, distribute, and adapt for for the purpose of carrying out the services". It does no grant anyone else to do it. But if it does give right for all members of MyOpera to republish contents as whole, then that is not how I have understood the terms of use

What comes to your feedback for the instructions given on this thread, you are absolutely right. We (moderators of S&T) should not say what our members should do, but rather give instructions what they can do if they want. I reformulate the top posts again ASAP

Then we surely need to find out how different "stakeholders" understand the difference between sharing and republishing. For me the picture I have published here is automatically protected by copyright. Opera ASA has right to use it in certain extent. But anyone else (individuals) does not. For me sharing means that I say to you: "Guys, go and have a look at this nice picture." If I want to republish that here or anywhere else, then I need to ask permission to do so from Finorion.

What comes to the purpose of "share buttons" on side of the album pictures here, I think service providers have not thought it through when implementing them. I claim the usual way they are used is that the author her/himself get easy and quick way to share her/his work around social media. But the way it is implemented in case of MyOpera share button is merely quick way to republish. But again, that is only my opinion. However, your suggestion on MyOpera feedback forum is nice and could be an option you can give on your albums if you wish to be more liberate like is idea behind Creative Commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons

EDIT: Corrected links etc.

Originally posted by serola:

... only "grants Opera to copy, display, perform, distribute, and adapt for for the purpose of carrying out the services". It does no grant anyone else to do it. But if it does give right for all members of MyOpera to republish contents as whole, ...
... understand the difference between sharing and republishing. ...

Two things I want to clarify, Sami.
1. "Share" button facility is Opera's service: It was Opera that provides the photo "Share" button, whose function is to facilitate displaying the photo in another page, which is IMHO, a part of Opera's online service for the community members.
2. Use of "Share" button is surely sharing. Or is it republishing?: What is the definition of "republishing"? To me purpose of the community photo "Share" button is, just what it says it is, sharing. IMHO It is a mere re-distributing facility as per Opera's TOS, does not constitute "republish". You seem to think differently. I have asked for clarification in the community forum. Maybe we should wait for the official response before carrying away with our passionate debate?

Originally posted by serola:

What comes to your feedback for the instructions given on this thread, you are absolutely right. We (moderators of S&T) should not say what our members should do, but rather give instructions what they can do if they want. I reformulate the top posts again ASAP

Thank you very much, Sami

"Share" means for me and for Greek language that:
I want to share my thoughts or my ideas.
Re-publishing means that I publish something from the estate of someone else's, who probably will not want to do this...

Ok, ok ....don't get stuck on details!!! When there is no permission for something, then it is not allowed!

Originally posted by mimi_s_mum:

Maybe we should wait for the official response before carrying away with our passionate debate?

A little too late because "we boys" were too passionate and already sent the DMCA notices to Opera. So, maybe we were just crying "wolf!" for no reason

@ Everyone - But yes, let's cool down and wait till we get some replies on what each of us has asked from MyOpera/Opera admins. I also noticed it's actually "hot-linking" what happens here at MyOpera, if someone "share/republish" the images using share button. Or maybe it's more like "cool-linking" since it happens on the same Web servers

Boys! (As uttered by Hermione Granger in the film version of Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix )

FYI Found during my lazy Sunday morning casual surfin'

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlinking_and_framing#History_of_copyright_litigation_in_field

In large part, linking and framing are not held to be copyright infringement under US and German copyright law, even though the underlying Web pages are protected under copyright law. Because the copyright-protected content is stored on a server other than that of the linking or framing person (it is stored on the plaintiff's server), there is typically no infringing "copy" made by the defendant linking or framing person (as may be essential), on which to base liability. Some European countries take a more protective view, however, and hold unauthorized framing and so-called deep linking unlawful.
(links to the respective term definitions mine)

I suppose the diversity of our group members is probably the reason why we see this issue quite differently. And Opera, as an international company, operates more in line with the US provisions, which often seen as de fact global standards on web matters.

Here are the results of my Sunday morning surfing.

IT Law Wiki says:

If (...) the owner of a website uses in-line linking to display an image rightfully posted on another site, the courts have held that no copyright infringement has taken place.

This means "we boys" definitely did cry "wolf!" when no such thing existed

A few clarifications on terminology:

A 'deep link' is a link to somewhere in the middle of another hyper text document. For example link to page n or link to an inline anchor. It is just a link, and therefore I would never treat it as any kind of copyright infringement.

A 'inline link' aka hotlink means you use HTML code to display the external contents (e.g. an image). Since the image is not exactly copied into new location, this is not a copyright infringement according to IT Law Wiki, and same thing said on several other sources.

A 'framing' means very much the same as 'inline linking'. The thing is that using so called frame or iframe tags on HTML, you can display any external content "in-line", and then you don't actually copy the content into a new location. I would say then this should be treated no different than in case of displaying image inline.

For my case, "we boys" is not in the so-called hot links, He has saved my copy photo to his folder.
I think that Nobody have the permission for to violate the copyright.

I'm very sorry for using informal language With "we boys" I meant Zdenko, Nimu and Sami (me).

So, I try to explain it more clearly what turned out after I was seeking more information.

Zdenko, Nimu and Sami (me) decided to send DMCA notice to MyOpera where we accused Salim Akhtar for copyright infringement. However, it has turned out he has only used so called 'in-line link' to display our pictures on his blog. If you right click (on PC) or long press (on Opera Mini) over the image, and choose 'open image', you will find out the original is still saved into files of a legal owner. In Web terminology it means the image is only "displayed" on Web page but not copied into another location.

This means that Zdenko, Nimu and Sami (me) would loose the fight if it would be taken to court.

However, I personally hate this kind 'in-line' linking done without permission given by author It looks like we (Zdenko, Nimu and Sami) can only express our disapproval

Thak you Sami!! OK!!
I understand that.

This seems wrong

So we can display prof. art on our pages as if we owned them

This seems wrong

So we can display prof. art on our pages as if we owned them

Originally posted by samoht1:

So we can display prof. art on our pages as if we owned them

Unfortunately that's pretty much so, if we do it using 'in-line linking'. Is it appropriate? I think not. If the picture is linked to another server, then it's also so called hotlink, which is causing more traffic on network and takes bandwidth. And do notice by link it is not meant something you click to get elsewhere but a HTML tag used to display image on a Web page.

Originally posted by serola:

I personally hate this kind 'in-line' linking done without permission given by author

Yes! Sami!
I didn't hope him to do it without the permission given by author. I hate his act.

My personal problem is that I don't understand people who just post pictures that other's have taken or done, and don't even comment or discuss about them But I guess my behavior can be seen just as strange by someone else.

Originally posted by serola:

My personal problem is that I don't understand people who just post pictures that other's have taken or done, and don't even comment or discuss about them

A bit spooky, isn't it? Like you were cyber-stalked.

I actually had one of my pics "shared" the same way a couple of months ago. derWandersmann PMed me to draw my attention. I checked and saw the image was src-ed from the original and linked back to the original page, so decided nothing was copied therefore no copyright was infringed. I thought about leaving a comment, 'Hi. You've my photo on your page. I'm happy to know you apparently liked it. But it'd be nice if you leave your feedback on the original page, too.' But then I realised his blog was written in a non-Western language, so he probably wouldn't understand my comment. I decided the best thing is to let him be and not to do anything about it.

It looks like he has now deleted the post. So he may well have been a victim of the "share" button himself. It'd be so easy to click the "share" button without thinking much just because it was there beside the picture he happened to bump into. That would have brought up a new post editing page with some BBcode, he didn't quite understand. I can imagine he then thinking, 'What the heck? Oh, well', then simply clicking the "publish" button, without quite knowing what was going to happen, and ended up "republishing" my picture.

Originally posted by mimi_s_mum:

But then I realised his blog was written in a non-Western language, so he probably wouldn't understand my comment. I decided the best thing is to let him be and not to do anything about it.

And that's another personal problem of mine I expect people at least try to understand comment written in English. How arrogant from me Nimu tried a lot harder to become understood

This is a sad part of Internet and different sites . I totally agree with Sami Nimu and Zdenko. And the feeling is to give moral support.

The Idea of when we can choose whom to share our moments with and where is no longer on our table. At least we can tell what we think

Originally posted by MrLeffe:

This is a sad part of Internet and different sites .

Yes!! Eve!! I agree.
Don't worry!! Eve!!

Today, I confirmed that he has been removed my picture from his folder.
The photos of Sami and Zdenko is seems to have been removed.
he's a member of our Shoot & Tell.

This problem is that a copy of a photograph without permission, and had put on his album.
An ordinary person was that looked like his picture.
I think good that the photo is linked to Shoot & Tell.

It is nice to hear the problem is solved with a good ending .
From time to time we will learn how to handle this.

For this time it is solved
I am happy for you

Originally posted by nimuchan:

Today, I confirmed that he has been removed my picture from his folder.
The photos of Sami and Zdenko is seems to have been removed.

Thanks for heads up

I am even more happy now

Hi guys.

I know the issue and discussion as to what's infringement and what's "share" seem to have hit a dead end. I do believe it's worth requesting a better photo sharing function in the community in the public forum. But meanwhile, I've an idea.

Using the tip from our beloved Tamil to hide stuff using CSS, I've been able to "hide" the entire "Share" section in the photo page sidebar. Just go take a look at any photo in my site. No more "Share" button, no more easy "republishing" of our photos in someone else's blog.

Here is the code

div#embedform.sidebox { display:none !important; }

Originally posted by mimi_s_mum:

Using the tip from our beloved Tamil to hide stuff using CSS, I've been able to "hide" the entire "Share" section in the photo page sidebar. Just go take a look at any photo in my site. No more "Share" button, no more easy "republishing" of our photos in someone else's blog.

Here is the code

div#embedform.sidebox { display:none !important; }

Excellent idea I'll implement that ASAP. Thank you very much MM

I think I need some help about how here

MM Thanks a lot You are a

Eva here is what you do:
- Click the wrench in top right corner (next to message symbol)
- Select "Customize design"
- Select "Customize"
- Select "Edit CSS"
- Paste MM's code and his SAVE

You are done

Any Q's just ask

Happy to be of help.

Thank you!! Mimi's mum and Sami!!
I'll try it.

I now hid the share buttons at S&T with the following css:

div#embedform.sidebox ul { display:none !important; }

Notice the 'ul' that differs from Tamil's example. We kind of need the copy/paste link codes, I think. But we can consider hiding those as well. If we do, then we just need to ask general opinion on this, maybe on December news.

EDIT: Even better... I hid the share in MyOpera button only:

div#embedform.sidebox ul li:first-child { display:none !important; }

Originally posted by serola:

We kind of need the copy/paste link codes, I think.

Do you? I thought you didn't want to have our photos embedded in full scale elsewhere, especially without acknowledgement of whose work. The "Big photo" copy/paste link code does exactly that. And the "Small photo" link code does nothing of acknowledgement of copyright holder. At least the community "O" share button puts the source album name and owner in title field.

The problem is that we first have to change our own habits. We moderators have used to copy/paste the image code for exhibitions. What we (or I) need to do is explain this to all other moderators first and tell how to get the code for pictures as easy as possible. Everyone of us are not so good with coding.

But surely we consider hiding copy/paste link codes as well

Here's what I did on my own albums:

div#embedform.sidebox ul li:first-child { display:none !important; }
div#embedform.sidebox form { display:none !important; }

I wanted to give some share buttons that does not include image. Although, I'm not quite sure what all of them actually include on those social media sites.

Originally posted by serola:

The problem is that we first have to change our own habits. We moderators have used to copy/paste the image code for exhibitions.

I see. Yes. The link codes would come in handy there. Seems another case of one size doesn't fit all.

At least hiding the "O" share button would stop some. It's a start.

Interesting case at Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/105228323457033543279/posts/4uCWofaYEoe

This is a difficult part and I am not at all surprised.

we have to read and learn I saw that also facebook is somehow involved in this . Allways remember when posting pictures in facebook . Automatically you give the rights to facebook to do whatever they choose to do. I once closed my account in facebook everything was removed and gone but not
my pictures I got a message about their right to keep and use the pictures .

Idont know if this exist in google+ There are only a few sites where you get to keep your own rights flickr and Opera are the two I know

I can only hope this guy wins his case in google +

Originally posted by MrLeffe:

I once closed my account in facebook everything was removed and gone but not my pictures I got a message about their right to keep and use the pictures .

Sorry about hearing your experience, Eva. Added to my load of reasons why I don't do FB.

Originally posted by MrLeffe:

There are only a few sites where you get to keep your own rights flickr and Opera are the two I know

Also with My Opera, your account will be kept indefinitely even when you are no longer able to log in. Have a read on this discussion: Safely and securely archiving deceased Opera members blogs?

You never know what happens next in your life. But at least your My Opera friends will be able to visit your blog and albums as long as they like, unlike some other services that would wipe your account if you don't log in for several months.