The online world has changed in the nearly-20 years since the Coffee Shop forum was started.  The rules and regulations around what we all (and that includes posting members) post has changed somewhat, and is taken far more seriously.  Our moderator and admin team, for example, now have to keep an eye out for the 17 (yes, 17) types of post / content that the law does not allow and requires us to remove, and we have a couple of admin tools that will pick out search engine naughties, grooming, under age activity. We are very, very fortunate and thank you - our members - for respecting protocol - so much so that it's rare for us to have to take any action.

Although we look our for these things, at the end of the day it's your responsibility as members to post content which is "legal, decent and honest".  It always has been - the forum agreement that everyone has to agree before they post includes:

I am writing a reminder here about copyright - and specifically copyright of images. There have been no reported transgressions on the Coffee Shop that I am aware of and have caused a problem. However, incidents elsewhere and reported to me have suggested that a reminder of image copyright is prudent.  If you source images directly or indirectly from the likes of Alamy, iStock, Getty, Adobe, Shutterstock and PA, and that is not a complete list, you need to check and probably pay them or someone for a license if you are publishing them via the Coffee Shop.

Concern has been expressed to me about some images posted here, by one of our the posters. Over 14,000 messages have images in them (in total) on the Coffee Shop. To give all of our members an opportunity to review / reconsider images in their posts if they wish, I have tweaked the code so that only logged in members can see most images within posts.  That means that they are no longer being published (which - dictionary checked - means "made available to the public").  If you are logged in and viewing on the "coffeeshop", no difference, but if you are not logged in or looking on the read-only pages you'll mostly see a message saying that images are not available at present.

I'll be leaving the temporary image restricting in place at least until the weekend ... and maybe beyond.  The action taken to restrict them is to provide protective cover while we think this one through and look further forward - a balance between a freedom to post in public and providing a safety net to help protect our members.  I will follow up tomorrow with further comments on copyright and how images can be safely posted - the vast majority here already fit that description, but a single error can be expensive.

If you have any doubt about your images, please ask me for an (unprofessional but with some knowledge) opinion and suggestion.  If you need an old post editing, let me know.

 
The whole thorny question of "what images can I post" has arisen (again) and it's worth a refresh of the situation. 

What's the issue?

Basically, people go out and take pictures, or create images using their own skills. They can also create audio (music), moving images (videos), text (including works of fiction, explanation and news).  They can then make that information available in ways which includes putting it onto web sites. But that doesn't mean anyone else can copy and use it - the originator wants, perhaps, to use it to attract people to his web site, or to have people pay if they want a copy or reuse it.  After all, they may have to earn a living / have re-reimbursement for the cost of production. This is copyright

What images can I post?

[advice from an AI engine] You can post images you took yourself (you own the copyright), public domain images, or those with a Creative Commons license allowing reuse. Otherwise, you generally need permission (license) from the owner, though fair use for commentary/education might apply. But it's risky. Even with credit, reposting others' work is often infringement unless licensed. Always check the image's source or license, or create your own.

Who is responsible for Coffee Shop posts?

The person who posts is responsible.  That's part of the forum agreement you checked when you signed up (reference copy ((here))) - it has been like that from post no. 1 on 28th January 2007, and no-one can post without having agreed. The Coffee Shop is what I thing is described as a "common carrier" - we carry content for the poster.  In the same way, a train driver is not an accessory to a theft if he carries a robber leaving the town where he has burgled, even with the items stolen.   Where we do have a responsibility in the admin / moderator team is if something comes to our attention which contravenes certain laws, protecting privacy and vulnerable people for example, and we'll go further where we feel it's appropriate to help protect our members and our forum's  position. 

What if I am concerned as I post?

Please consider what you are about to post against the suggestions above. Our team are not legal experts and if in doubt you should seek advise for an expert - or simply not post. You are also welcome to ask what the admin / moderator team think, but what we say is just to help you work things out for yourself.

What if I am concerned about something already posted?

If it's your recent post you are welcome to go back and edit it if you wish. For some time after you post, you are able to go back and edit your own posts, but in due course it's considered archived and you'll need to seek help from an admin to make changes.  If it's someone else's post that concerns you, please raise the matter by personal message with the original poster or with the admin team.

And finally

We are looking here at concerns over a very few / small proportion of posts, but a single social media (and we are) post can make for problems.  Our team is very much aware of lots of the issues and we have come forward over the years in how they're handled.  We characterise it as "helping you post safely" and we'll continue to give the very occasional nudge if we're worried about something.  We do not want to make a mountain out of a molehill - please carry on posting the 99.9% of content that's AOK!

 
That all makes sense.

Where do you/the poster stand when all a post does is to quote another webpage? I'm guessing the same? I think confirmation of that might help members?

Otherwise, we can provide a link to the original content where viewing can take place.

 

Yes, Chris - the same applies - "If you source images directly or indirectly from ..." in the original post that stared this thread.

The issue has arisen to be flagged up on the Coffee Shop NOT because of something that's happened here, but because of an article on the Daily Mail website about a rail issue, which was then copied onto a user group web site.  It seems that the Daily Mail had licensed an image for their article which, however, did not allow it to be copied onward by the user group.  The "oy" came not from the Daily Mail, as I understand it, but from the licensing company representing the original photographer who had made in available to them, probably to monetarise his/her picture.

If in doubt, provision of a link is a good idea.

 
In keeping the posts on-topic of copyright in this thread, I have not re-iterated other reasons you cannot post even your own images.  You may need the permission of people whose pictures you publish, or of their parents / guardians if they are children. You may not post indecent images, or images that incite or show violence, for example.

 

That said Graham, in UK law, there is no implied right of privacy when in a public place - and that includes a railway platform owned by Network Rail behind a ticket barrier. If you are in a public space, man or boy, you can be photographed, and that photograph can be published. If you took the picture, you own the copyright, not the subject in the frame.

The owner of the premises, in my example above - Network Rail, can ask you not to take photos at all, or maybe just not of certain objects, such as safety critical equipment - their land, their rules.

 

Indeed, but it makes sense to be considerate and not do anything likely to upset people / cause a breach of the peace.  And, the Coffee Shop not being a "public place", our moderators / admin team would / will / can go back and make changes.  I can only think of 3 occasions in 20 years where such has been done, only one of them a photo, where we have done so and the circumstances have been truly exceptional.

 
About links to Telegraph articles I occasionally post - you wouldn't normally be able to read them unless you have a subscription. I do (one of those cheap initial offers that I forgot then couldn't be bothered to cancel Image not available to guests ), and make use of the "Gift this article free" button to get a link which allows anyone to read it for free; you get 10 of those per month IIRC. I assume that's ok? I'll stop if not.