Thanks for pointing out the TOS section #3 - I’ve update gallery to be clearer about the license. I believe I’m adhering to the terms and the spirit of the license by clearly stating who the source is and where it came from.
I like this way of being able to see images that have been posted in this forum. I am concerned that it is not part of the forum itself. I could see potential for something like this being incorporated into the forum where we have a gallery of pictures available for playraw. Selecting the image from the gallery would take you to the original playraw thread. This would be a great way to improve the playraw category, but it should be part of the forum itself. I wonder if this is something that could be achieved or even should be achieved.
I too would be concerned about images being sourced form the forum and used elsewhere. I don’t feel that is the spirit of this community.
1 Like
I have to echo these sentiments here. Aside from IP-legal issues, I don’t like content being siphoned from this site, especially without the permission of the image owners and site administrators. Play Raw with CC licenses may be a different issue in some respects, but even for that–let’s keep all this content here.
This.
sorry confused what you mean
@Terry This = Agree with this statement = Ditto
1 Like
So, am I right, that if no license is specified in a post, it falls back to the TOS #3 an hence is CC BY-NC-SA?
I checked some of the posts at random and no licence is specified, hence no one has to be asked and photos are indeed free to be used:
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
[…]
However: The website clearly violates the CC licence, as the license is not stated per photo: Deed - Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International - Creative Commons
IANAL but I think just linking to the original post is not enough.
The ref-appropriate-credit clause you mention states (emphasis mine):
If supplied, you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material.
I am providing the name of the creator and a link to the material. None of the topics or posts in this forum link to a copyright claim, disclaimer or a license notice specifically, but my site itself does mention the CC license and states copyright is the original posters.
I think I’m adhering to the spirit of the license, if not the letter, as best I can.
By the way, If I look at an individual topic in this forum, I see no mention of licenses or copyrights - that is derived from the T&C.
My goal here is to provide a visual index of sorts to this topic. It is a visual introduction to the content of this forum. Without it, one has no idea what photography is being discussed. For a photography focused forum, I suggest a visual overview is kind of compelling:
My intention is not to “siphon traffic”. If you look at the site, nearly all the links are directly back here. Anyone accidentally coming across my site feeds directly here. It seems exactly in the spirit of the community - there are no ads or sales pitches - it is entirely focused and in support of this forum.
I’m not trying anything nefarious. I’m just a retired software engineer with a photography-focused open-source project.
My assumption was, that if the photo is uploaded to pixls and no other license is stated, the photo is under CC BY-SA-NC.
Hence, you should also state this license directly near the photo…
Well, better to adhere to the license and not just the spirit 
IMHO the rules how to use CC-licensed media are pretty clear. But again, IANAL and this is just my (properly over-cautious) advise.
I was curious about this, so I dug into it a bit.
The CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 §3(a)(1) (the actual legal code) uses the phrase “You may satisfy the conditions … in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material.”
I believe this supports a gallery-wide license notice rather than requiring it on every single lightbox view, especially since:
- The license link is unmissable on the homepage, something a user would encounter first
- Every individual photo carries the 2 pieces of information most specific to that photo (author + source link), which is the part that can’t reasonably be centralized
- The medium (a photo gallery aggregating many images from one source under one license) supports one clear notice covering the whole collection rather than repeating identical boilerplate hundreds of times
IANAL also, but this seems to be a common sense interpretation. I believe aggregators like Unsplash and Openverse follow the same pattern.
If you loom at both unsplash and openverse, the license is listed on the page with the media.
Curiously, unsplash doesn’t list a CC license anymore.
Yeah, I guess I’m remembering from quite some time ago - they changed to Unsplash license in 2018.
the discussion around the use of contributors images outside of this forum gave me pause however I value posting here more and will continue doing so, just with more reservations than before