Image Attribution & Creative Commons



  • The main issue with PB usage (legally) isn't the actors so much as it is the photographer. It was mentioned in another thread that some actors do purchase their headshots, but many of the images we use are from magazines, candids, etc... those are photographer owned. So we're actually using an artist's work when we use PB pics.

    That becomes an attribution thing. Now, most of the time? They won't give a shit. We aren't taking credit. We aren't making money. Where an actor might care is the context (Bob the Actor might hate being portrayed as a Werewolf that eats children). Where a photographer might care is that their pic was photoshopped and some passerby might think you made the pic.

    We know we didn't take/make the photos, but there are communities that thrive off of stealing other peoples' art. It may very well be a good idea for us to begin including attribution. I'm sure @faraday could look into including this on a future release of Ares. Arxcode already has this on their website. One could easily do it in alt-text on most mediawikis.

    For those that like to use non-actor art (@KDraygo is the person who immediately comes to mind ;)), you can specifically search google images for creative commons, but I also like https://ccsearch.creativecommons.org/. Again, for our purposes, it's not a big deal, but if you want to make sure you're legally 'in the clear,' something licensed under CC will cover you.



  • I have always found it very weird how much credit photographers get, generally speaking in regards to the modeling/etc industry.

    Like it’s not unusual to find pictures and have NO IDEA who the model is, but the photographer’s shit is watermarked all over it, listed in the description of the work, etc.

    I don’t get it. And it has honestly always felt VERY fucking weird to me, in a sort of ‘dehumanizing the model’ kind of way.

    Down with photographers.



  • @Auspice
    Not to be a nay sayer. But I was curious about all of this and a quick google search kicked up this stuff...

    In most states, you can be sued for using someone else's name, likeness, or other personal attributes without permission for an exploitative purpose. Usually, people run into trouble in this area when they use someone's name or photograph in a commercial setting, such as in advertising or other promotional activities. But, some states also prohibit use of another person's identity for the user's own personal benefit, whether or not the purpose is strictly commercial. There are two distinct legal claims that potentially apply to these kinds of unauthorized uses: (1) invasion of privacy through misappropriation of name or likeness ("misappropriation"); and (2) violation of the right of publicity. (The "right of publicity" is the right of a person to control and make money from the commercial use of his or her identity.)

    Now I am guessing at this but I think the stickler here may be A) The States involved and B) The Legal definition of benefit in this situation.



  • @Tempest said in Image Attribution & Creative Commons:

    I have always found it very weird how much credit photographers get, generally speaking in regards to the modeling/etc industry.

    Like it’s not unusual to find pictures and have NO IDEA who the model is, but the photographer’s shit is watermarked all over it, listed in the description of the work, etc.

    I don’t get it. And it has honestly always felt VERY fucking weird to me, in a sort of ‘dehumanizing the model’ kind of way.

    Down with photographers.

    The argument is that the creative work is being primarily done by the photographer (They're responsible for creating the set, arranging the lightning, directing the model etc) while the model just happens to be in the picture.

    @Seamus
    The rules protecting the likeness of a person are pretty weak overall and is the reason you every now and then get these news articles about a random tourist family being used for billboard advertising since some random photographer took their picture and sold it.



  • @Seamus said in Image Attribution & Creative Commons:

    @Auspice
    Not to be a nay sayer. But I was curious about all of this and a quick google search kicked up this stuff...

    In most states, you can be sued for using someone else's name, likeness, or other personal attributes without permission for an exploitative purpose. Usually, people run into trouble in this area when they use someone's name or photograph in a commercial setting, such as in advertising or other promotional activities. But, some states also prohibit use of another person's identity for the user's own personal benefit, whether or not the purpose is strictly commercial. There are two distinct legal claims that potentially apply to these kinds of unauthorized uses: (1) invasion of privacy through misappropriation of name or likeness ("misappropriation"); and (2) violation of the right of publicity. (The "right of publicity" is the right of a person to control and make money from the commercial use of his or her identity.)

    Now I am guessing at this but I think the stickler here may be A) The States involved and B) The Legal definition of benefit in this situation.

    Like I said in the Savage Skies thread:

    Since it's not being used for profit, 'ain't got time for that' usually factors in.
    There's also, in your own quoted bit there, a few things to consider:
    advertising, promotional activities, misappropriation... By and far we don't do those things.

    Now, if we were to use, say, Ben Barnes' likeness to advertise a Westworld MU? That'd be a problem.

    There's a lot of 'fan tumblrs' out there and actors know about them. Some actors even like them. I think, in many cases, they'd view what we do in a similar light (it's positive, it's not trying to make money off of, or claim to be them, etc.).


  • Pitcrew

    @Ghost said in Savage Skies Stuff:

    Yanno, despite the fact that I'm very openly in agreement with @Pandora and some others in my dislike of PBs I thought of something and I cant shake it this morning.

    In the era of consent, #metoo, etc isnt it a little weird to use another human being's likeness to lure or partake in TS? Story/RPG stuff is one thing but technically if you're choosing some hot actor/actress, pasting their pictures on a wiki, and then describing their likeness to other players while cybersexing them, isnt that teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeechnically sexually exploiting that other human being without their consent?

    Good luck convincing anyone on MSB that does a thing that the thing is bad.



  • @Pandora Rightright. Some read Animal Farm. Others understood it.

    Four legs good, two legs bad and all that.



  • While using someones likeness without their consent is iffy, I consider it a victimless crime unless they happen to know about it.



  • @Groth said in Image Attribution & Creative Commons:

    While using someones likeness without their consent is iffy, I consider it a victimless crime unless they happen to know about it.

    However, it sounds like someone is going through the trouble to make it known.


  • Pitcrew

    @Groth said in Image Attribution & Creative Commons:

    @Tempest said in Image Attribution & Creative Commons:
    @Seamus
    The rules protecting the likeness of a person are pretty weak overall and is the reason you every now and then get these news articles about a random tourist family being used for billboard advertising since some random photographer took their picture and sold it.

    The EU has some pretty strict rules about copyright and the rights belong to.

    "The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that internet users should be free to share links to material, for example photos or videos, providing the material itself has been published online with the permission of the rights holder. The right to share links however does not go as far as allowing users to share links that are designed to circumvent paywalls or other subscription only services. Copying images and then hosting them on another website however will usually amount to copyright infringement. You should ask permission from the copyright owner before using images in this way."

    I remember staffing on Windy City and a pissed-off player emailed the author to tell her that we existed. Luckily, she didn't seem to care so..



  • @Seamus
    If that talent agency replies something along the lines of 'Please stop using our models likeness' then obviously you should stop using their likeness. I really hope noone is intending to walk up to Jason Momoa and tell him about all the people using him for sexual gratification online because that sounds a lot like harassment.



  • @Groth said in Image Attribution & Creative Commons:

    While using someones likeness without their consent is iffy, I consider it a victimless crime unless they happen to know about it.

    We could test this.

    I'll need one person to send me their best picture of themselves. I wont say WHOSE picture that is, but I'll put it on a random game and wriggle into some TS with this person as the PB (using descriptions from PB photo in scene), then post the log.

    If no one feels weird about it, then it's not weird.



  • @Ghost said in Image Attribution & Creative Commons:

    @Groth said in Image Attribution & Creative Commons:

    While using someones likeness without their consent is iffy, I consider it a victimless crime unless they happen to know about it.

    We could test this.

    I'll need one person to send me their best picture of themselves. I wont say WHOSE picture that is, but I'll put it on a random game and wriggle into some TS with this person as the PB (using descriptions from PB photo in scene), then post the log.

    If no one feels weird about it, then it's not weird.

    Eh... I think this would be extremely off putting for me as a person.



  • feel free to start using something like thispersondoesnotexist.com instead...



  • @Seamus said in Image Attribution & Creative Commons:

    @Ghost said in Image Attribution & Creative Commons:

    @Groth said in Image Attribution & Creative Commons:

    While using someones likeness without their consent is iffy, I consider it a victimless crime unless they happen to know about it.

    We could test this.

    I'll need one person to send me their best picture of themselves. I wont say WHOSE picture that is, but I'll put it on a random game and wriggle into some TS with this person as the PB (using descriptions from PB photo in scene), then post the log.

    If no one feels weird about it, then it's not weird.

    Eh... I think this would be extremely off putting for me as a person.

    It's why I stopped and if I ever MU again I wont use a PB. Just feels wrong to me, especially without their consent.



  • While I don't ever see using actors/models/whatever as PBs going away I do think this brings up a good discussion. It's one we had on Blood Falls not that long ago as well. Someone wanted to use an Instagram "influencer/model" as their PB and wanted to know if it was okay. I told them I wasn't comfortable with it and would rather people keep their PBs to celebrities and use only "pubic" publicity photos(no paparazzi shots or candid shots from Instagram or anything).

    I think it's a thin line but one I justify by saying that celebrities put themselves in the public spotlight. They release photos to publicize themselves and make themselves known. Fan sites have used these photos since the inception of the internet to "fan cast" various things.


  • Pitcrew

    @friarzen said in Image Attribution & Creative Commons:

    feel free to start using something like thispersondoesnotexist.com instead...

    That is excessively cool. I may actually do so...



  • @friarzen said in Image Attribution & Creative Commons:

    feel free to start using something like thispersondoesnotexist.com instead...

    That's amazing. I actually will use that.


  • Pitcrew

    @ZombieGenesis said in Image Attribution & Creative Commons:

    Someone wanted to use an Instagram "influencer/model" as their PB and wanted to know if it was okay.
    I think it's a thin line but one I justify by saying that celebrities put themselves in the public spotlight. They release photos to publicize themselves and make themselves known.

    But so do influencers and models. So if there is a line it might be more on the private individual one.

    I do think the actor thing is an interesting one - for me, I tend to use actor as character in film/tv, rather than actor direct. I know that sounds like a narrow distinction too and I'm turning @Ghost 's points over in my mind for my next character.



  • @JinShei I agree. For me, the decision was made because the "influencer/model" in question had only a few thousand followers and most of the pictures were more candid in nature than "photo opportunity" types. I think in this age where we're seeing more and more "regular people" become pseudo-celebrities it's a line that gets blurrier and blurrier every day.


Log in to reply