It seems there's been some confusion lately over why some images, which may be subject to copyright, may or may not be in the public domain, or subject to fair usage rights.

In brief, fair usage rights generally state that copyrighted images may be used without applying for permission, for informational or educational purposes, or uses of public commentary. Artwork generally falls into the "public commentary" category.

Okay, so why doesn't that apply to us here?

Answer: This site has a purpose beyond the *Display* of artwork, and falls into the category of "Distribution". Once artwork is intended for distribution (as ours is, the downloading of images for the purpose of use as a desktop image is possible and encouraged), the fair usage rights under "public commentary" are no longer applicable.

Even though we make no profit from our images, it has to be in the forefront of our minds that the "mass distribution" means the full copyright is in force, and that we are not simply uploading an image to "share" with our friends.

As far as public domain – this article on Wikipedia (yes, not a "credible" source, but a good summation for the purposes of understanding), on the definition and usage of Public Domain materials, also contains brief explanations of copyright terms and limitations, particularly with regard to trademarks (logos fall under the same rules as trademarks for the purpose of this usage).

In terms of logo and trademark enforcement here – this is a relatively small site with no profit behind it. The donations of members go towards paying the operating costs. If there's anything left over, it most certainly is not enough to defend against a lawsuit. Is it likely that the site will be sued? In all likelihood, only if we have a habit of allowing copyright violations to be posted. Therefore we do our best to avoid that.

Along these lines – no, we're not lawyers either, and we may sometimes be wrong about whether something is allowed. However, by the same lines along which nudity is not allowed on the site, because the owner does not wish to leave himself open to a lawsuit, we err on the side of caution. We do our best to investigate and truly determine whether something falls under copyright rules.

So – my aching head would truly appreciate it if members can familiarize themselves with public domain and copyright usages, and remember to credit their works, so that when we need to go hunting for information in cases where we believe there's an issue, we're looking at what the member believes allows them to use the image. Otherwise, we have no choice but to go with our best understanding, and reject images which do not have the correct accreditations.

Thank you!

Thanks very much, Cat.


And I must say.. girl got some serious writin' skillz.

You guys are admins,Caedes "GERI" picked you to do the footwork.Just do it and quit explaining why you did it.There are rules enforce them moderate the site and quit explaining why you did what you did.If he has to sit on the site 24/7 whats the point of the admins?

She's explaining why they do it because people are asking why... geez don't you have anything better to do than nit pic and whinge?

When there appears to be a fairly wide misunderstanding, I consider it useful - as part of doing the job - to give explanations.

Yea but by explaining on open forum you are allowing the rules and your enforcement of the rules to be debated.The "Caedes.net Code of Conduct" is plastered all over the place at the upload stage.You have to check a box in order to get the thing to go.By checkin the box your saying that its mine.That being said why would you have to explain why an offenders image was deleted?If it gets deleted do what you gotta do and move on.Point is part of the problem is the endless debates of why mods do what they have to do.Mods are like cops nobody likem till they need them then they are freakin awesome..

There are many times an image is posted with all good intentions following rule compliance. But for overlooked issues or forgotten sources, the image may be questioned and or deleted. No Big Deal. It is a Big Deal! if the artist who posted the image learns nothing from the experience. I for one am glad the Mods take the time out of their daily lives to inform me of why an image was deleted. I like the idea of open debate, because the Mods along with myself and anyone who reads it "Just May Learn something" Whats wrong with allowing the rules and enforcement of the rules to be debated? I may not agree with all that is written here, but I do respect the effort and strength it takes to express your views.
There is an ole saying I enjoy quoting:
Lord give me the energy to Show-up
Lord give me the strength to Stand-up
Lord give me the courage to Speak-up
And Lord give me the wisdom to Shut-up.

I'm looking to pay someone $35-$75 for the use of their image as my icon for my phone app...please see post USE OF IMAGE...If interested, please email me at cheli@coastobserver.com