DerGolgo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:32 pm
If it's your own photo, or it's public domain, you can upload it here.
If you took a photo, it's your intellectual property, and you can make as many copies as you like or don't, and do with it whatever.*
If it's in the public domain, you can make as many copies as you like or don't, and do with it whatever.*
*"whatever" not including using it to make untrue claims about entities (like a non-satirical claiming that the state of California is endorsing your emissions-defeat-teabags), or deeds that violate other laws.
Pro tip: Anything published by an entity or officer of the US federal government as part of their duties is automatically in the public domain, domestically. NASA may assert copyright over a photo of astronauts on the moon if I try and publish it on my non-fiction (claimed) book in which I claim NASA hired Walt Disney to fake the moon landing so as to make people believe the earth is flat and buy more teabags. But you lot, so long as you don't break no other laws, can do with that photo whatever.
In theory, any work will fall into the public domain after a certain number of years.
Over here, it's 70 years after the death of the author, for example.
Over yonder, because heaven forfend that someone make a funny about the rat, Disney has bought itself 95 years after first publication, or 120 years after creation, whichever passes first. Sonny Bono himself lent his name to this particular outrage (the 1998 "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act").
Since
Steamboat Willie, and hence its main character, Mickey Mouse, will hit the 95 year mark in 2023, I fully expected that Disney got that extended to "120 generations after any entity that ever claimed a copyright to anything ceases to exist", or "one galactic epoch after the continent on which the work was created has been fully subducted and reabsorbed into the earth's mantle", whichever passes last.
However, this time, the side of
not extending copyrights beyond the heat death of the universe has some serious muscle - specifically, Google et al would prefer copyrights to end, finally, and they let their congressmen know it.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... ic-domain/
So we
might will see Mickey Mouse furry-porn in 2024.
However, take note that derivative works also get copyright protection.
Beethoven's music is in the public domain. Beethoven sheet-music published in 1891 is in the public domain. But Beethoven sheet music published last year isn't, because whoever arranged the notes on his computer screen to match Ludwig's composition, and did all the layout-work, typed "Symphony No. 9" into their computer one time, they hold a copyright to that publication, to their work.
The layout of the streets of London is in the public domain, since that sort of thing never was protected under copyright to begin with.
More or less any map of London you can buy or study, meanwhile, will have a few streets that just don't exist.
Because whoever created the map has the copyright to their creation, and to ensure that nobody cribs off of their work, put in little traps like that, which will let them prove in court that another map is a copy of their original work.
I hope you're not getting the idea that I'm tragically paranoid about copyright.
Not because I'm not, but I hold the copyright to that idea.
DerGolgo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:32 pm
If it's under a CC license, you could probably do that, too, so long as you provide a link, attribution, etc., whatever the license requires.
If someone else took that photo, and it's from a commercial website like BikeExif, they might not appreciate if you make a copy. They may not even want to let you use it. The latter being the reason many commercial websites don't allow hotlinking images.
If you wanted to circumvent such anti-hotlinking measures, you'd have the options of saving the photo to your device and uploading it elsewhere, and not to Flickr, as it appears. Or you could take a screenshot and upload it to not-Flickr.
In either case, you would be making a copy without the approval of the copyright holder. Which, 9,999 out of 10,000, even if somebody notices, they probably wouldn't bother, since writing a cease and desist to some website hosted in Europe, and even just finding out what European copyright law to cite (yes, convoluted international legal situations have their upsides, too), is worth more than they can justify to protect their copyright there.
However, suppose you're some paranoid potato like a guy I know, you could try and find something that shows what you wish to illustrate with a photo, and that has been published under an appropriate Creative Commons (CC) license.
There are many, ranging from "it's public domain, but using a CC license makes me look cool" to "it's just as protected as under regular copyright, but using a CC license makes me look cool".
Common licenses are things like "BY", which means it's free and you can do whatever, so long as you attribute it to the creator, or "BY-NC-ND", which means you gotta attribute, you may not use it commercially, you may not create derivative works from it.
See hence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_ ... f_licenses
Image by Shaddim; original CC license symbols by Creative Commons
Like I did here, I posted an image published under CC-BY.
If the image or video or whatever you want to use it on Wikimedia Commons, the "More Details" page will have a "Licensing" section with explicit explanation of what you may do with the image, and under which conditions. Click the linked text under the image to see an example.
"Fair Use"
It's not a law, but a legal doctrine. That allows, for instance, using parts of a copyrighted work for purposes of critique or review. Without that, you would have to work out an individual license with the movie studio every single time you want to publish a review of the latest Disney movie, and use an image of the movie poster in your review. Which they wouldn't let you do if you intend to tell the world the latest Disney animation is once again full of negative representations of queer or trans people (aka many/most "Disney villains").
However, websites make their money from advertising, they need traffic.
So if an article with images is published, one might assume that it's fair to show one or two of the images when recommending that article. After all, one advertises their product, one directs traffic at them.
Which is why, unless any such website complains, I for one assume it is fair use to show off one or two images from a BikeExif article, so long as the link to that article is provided alongside.