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the purpose of use as a desktop image is possible and encouraged), the fair usage rights under "public commentary" are no longer applicable.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.
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.