"TMP Policy on Blog Links" Topic

If you post about something you saw on a blog, permission of the blog owner is not required – they have posted in public, anyone can link to it or comment on it.

It would be nice, when you post, to mention the name of the blog as well as giving the link. However, there is no requirement to do so.

If you see a post where a link is given to a blog, and attribution was not given, you are free to add a post giving attribution. This should be done politely and with good will, not attacking the original poster or being snarky.

Bill, I disagree with this respectful. I have asked politely that Tango credit my blog. I think it is a reasonable request and I have been polite about.

By refusing to honour this request some bloggers have been posting notices on their blogs asking Tango to not take their work without proper crediting.

Bill it is a small thing to ask and a reasonable thing to ask. I ask you to please reconsider and please reverse your policy.

Thank you for reading this and please reconsider your policy.

Don't worry … as the few others like you (you forget to mention the number of those who have thanked me)… I will never post anything of your blog again …

Sorry for the inconveniences….

Amicalement
Armand

Feel free to post my blog without credit. I put it out there for the public to see. Once it's out there, not really much I can do to control it.

If the blog owner says "STOP", then one should at least have the common decency to respect their wishes. It is, after all, the owner's blog.

I'll remind, for those that need to be reminded, WillBGoode, among others, have ASKED for another member to NOT post material WITHOUT giving credit from where it was taken.

Not to respect the wishes of the blog owner is churlish, self-centered, and completely disrespectful.

Eric

This has been an ongoing issue. The problem is that the individual, by not giving credit, could be construed by others as being the creator of the material. A guy that used to game with us, woud take pics off my blog and post them on his FB page without giving credit. I did the same thing – told him to stop. The material is out in public, but it isn't Tango's work – or anyone else's – to repost to a public forum. He seems to think that just because it's on the internet, he can do whatever he wants with it.

Ah, a minor storm in a thimble, not rating even the "Tempest is a Teacup" status.

LOL……………….I'm amazed and fascinated by such trivial, 1st World "Problems".

NEXT!

Here's a challenge, let's see if you all can come up with an even more minor one to complain about.

I have faith that CAN be done.

GAH! I can't stand it when people type in all caps when they should type in italics.

@ Thresher01 – you're welcome. :)

A guy that used to game with us, woud take pics off my blog and post them on his FB page without giving credit. I did the same thing – told him to stop.

I don't have FB so I don't really know the mechanics of it, however Tango almost always posts a link to the actual blog site he is referencing. Is that not giving credit?

I don't know, I respect the opinions of others but I don't really get it. I have a blog and could really care less who posted what about it. I never assumed that Tango was trying to take credit for anything. I'm with Thresher on this one but to each their own. Hopefully everyone gets whatever that will make them happy.

This stated position seems to me to be inconsistent with the notice on every page of TMP that it is copyright of the editor. Perhaps this statement should be changed to say that as it has been posted in public anyone can link to it or comment on it.

I, and many others have asked politely that we be given credit when Tango grabs something and posts it here. I do not think this is a unreasonable request. Pictures, articles and such usually in respectable places are giving a credit. When I assisted authors with research material they thanked me in the book or paper. I am sure this would not be a problem to do.

To take something which is not yours without asking or giving credit is wrong.

link

As far as I know whenever Tango or anyone else, has posted photos from my blog he has linked back to the blog, and when I notice he has done so, I have thanked him.

Yes, how does that work, Vintage Wargaming, I was thinking the same thing. If my blog is copyright by me and someone posts photos from it on TMP does the copyright transfer to Bill? If we post on TMP are our works copyright by Bill and we can't use our own postings elsewhere?

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Perhaps this statement should be changed to say that as it has been posted in public anyone can link to it or comment on it.

It's the internet. Anyone can post a link to TMP anywhere they want, anyone can make comments about TMP anywhere they want.

Now, if someone copied an entire article from TMP and placed it on their blog, THAT would be a violation. But that's not what we're talking about here.

If my blog is copyright by me and someone posts photos from it on TMP does the copyright transfer to Bill? If we post on TMP are our works copyright by Bill and we can't use our own postings elsewhere?

What we've had problems with in the past is the case where someone copies an entire forum discussion and reposts it on their blog. So we use the copyright as a tool to persuade people not to do that, or we'll come after them legally.

As for photos, they're not really 'here' – so it wouldn't apply.

So there is such a thing as "Bad Publicity"?

I don't follow Tango. Not because he doesn't post items that I find interesting. He does. Unfortunately the volume of posts drive so many other items I find interesting off the front page. My problem, not Tango's.

If I had a blog, heaven forbid, I would appreciate a link and also a credit but a link would still be a good thing.

If you have a blog, please post a link so I and others will know about it. If by chance I do post something to do with your blog I promise I will give credit for your hard work. I promise.

There is a distinction between posting a link to a blog and posting the contents without attribution. Personally, I am flattered whenever someone finds something on my blog interesting or valuable enough to share a link and welcome all those who do so. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Tango for posting links to my blog here on TMP which is what allowed me to discover this fine forum in the first place!

You are welcome to my blog here: inchhighguy.wordpress.com

This stated position seems to me to be inconsistent with the notice on every page of TMP that it is copyright of the editor.

It is not inconsistent.

If my blog is copyright by me and someone posts photos from it on TMP does the copyright transfer to Bill? If we post on TMP are our works copyright by Bill and we can't use our own postings elsewhere?

No.

No.

These questions reflect a lack of understanding of IP law and how the Internet works These are all basic concepts that you would get in the first 40 hours or so of training on the topic. Possibly sooner. Same goes for how the Internet works.

Am I saying everyone must become an expert in everything they use in life? No. To go back to wargaming – If you want to play the game, play the game. If you want to complain about how the game works, read the rules first.

And the problem with isolated questions is the same type of problem with them in wargaming.

You have someone playing a game they don't know. Fine. I do it all the time. They are asking advice from an expert player. Good idea.

"Can I charge those guys with these guys in cover?"

"Yeah. You will get a +1 when you do that."

Successful charge. Opponents take heavy damage and rout. Novice player plans strategy to lead to another charge in a pincer at another position.

"Uh … you can't charge those guys."

"What? Well, wait, I'll start by charging the other side … rolling with +1 …"

"Uh … you don't get a +1 in that charge."

In the rules, you can charge from anywhere. But you can't charge to anywhere. The intervening terrain (a dozen types) affects the distance of a legal charge. Also, penalties and bonuses for a charge depend on five factors applied to two tables.

That info is not sufficient to plan charges in the game. But it is sufficient to look at the question and answer and see the misalignment of points of view.

I'm pretty sure most of us have seen a situation with that dynamic. I'm also pretty sure we've also seen the other response, which is a a twenty minute lecture on the aspects of charge that gets interrupted (thankfully, to the receiver) because the rest of the players want to play, not teach a class on the rules.

Ok, let me understand this better. Are you saying that anything on the internet is free to take and post on TMP? But, if I take something from TMP and post it only website that is wrong as its copyright?

Not sure I follow this.

If people don't want content from their blogs re-posted without receiving full attribution by name, then Tango should respect that, and not do so. It's just the right thing to do.

For the record, I believe the "From Here" link to the original content is attribution, acting much like a footnote in a written work, but that's just my opinion. However, it's not "by name" attribution, which appears to be the primary issue.

But I also think that third parties – those without a dog in the fight – should not just assume the blog owner is upset by the re-posting, and thus create an issue where none may exist. That should be between Tango and the blog owner.

Tango has always been good about consistently posting a link back to the original source blog. So much so, that if he failed to do so once, I would assume it was in error and not by malicious design.

I don't mind content from my blog being reposted as long as there is a clear link back to my blog.

Mentioning the name of the blog would be good as well.

Are you saying that anything on the internet is free to take and post on TMP? But, if I take something from TMP and post it only website that is wrong as its copyright?

What does Tango post? Links

Links are not protected by copyright.

What about photos? I'm quite sure that they can be copyright protected by the owner (who is usually but not always the person that took it, especially where blogs are concerned).

First world problems.

What about photos?

Nobody is posting photos on TMP. They are posting links to photos, which have been made publicly available by the blog owner.

I'm sorry, I don't understand – there's usually actual photos taken from the blog in the TMP post, together with a link (sometimes several). It's those photos that catch the eye and get me interested in looking at the blog so I hope they won't be banned?

Basha Felika, as the forum software does not allow hosting pictures itself, the photos displayed are linked directly from elsewhere, this is known as hotlinking. The Stackexchange site explains further, why there are pros and cons:

link

Some bloggers and commercial sites may welcome the increased viewers and possible purchases, in which case Tango is doing them a service.

However, Tango's actions to drive up traffic here may impact on other sites' costs, particularly if he hotlinks their pictures regularly. Obviously the impact depends on the amount of views here, but TMP is a commercial site, generating revenue from members and advertisers. Most bloggers seem to fund their sites out of their own pockets. If they do use ads on their site, then hotlinking bypasses that, as well as site visit stats for the blogger to check.

In addition, I've noticed in a number of recent threads that TMP members sometimes don't click on the link (particularly blogs and vlogs) or choose to ignore what is there in order to make their own point or dig at the expense of those creating the content. I'm not sure why, but it seems those comments are not duplicated on the original site, where they can be responded to, (if they wish to).

Whilst I originally assumed that most hobbyists would want their material promoting to a wider audience, I can see why they would not want hotlinking in particular, particularly if they feel if this is just an excuse for other people to pick apart their work from a safe distance.

It therefore seems discourteous at least (and aggressively rude in my eyes) to blame those who don't appreciate their requests being repeatedly ignored or dismissed.

Tango, by all means post a link to my blog.

:)

chalanekstation.blogspot.com

LBR, thanks for explaining in terms that even this dinosaur can understand.

"When is a photo not a photo", eh?

Note also that sites can opt to allow their images to be hotlinkable or not.

Sometimes, a poster will link to an image, but the image will be invisible to other users, or will go away after being viewed a few number of times.

So, if there is a hotlink to a picture, and the picture is consistently visible, it means the source is allowing it.

I came into this late so maybe I missed something. I don't understand why a person would not want his/her blog publicized. And the items that are on it. Isn't a blog an attempt by a person to brag about some activity that they've done? The material is put on the blog for people to see. If a person doesn't want his blog to be viewed isn't it possible to close it? Or if you're so worried about people seeing what you're doing, don't post it at all. I've always thought of the Internet as a source of the free interchange of information and ideas. I wish tango would post things from my blog :-)

Elsewhere, I don't often here, put where the link is from. Clicking on a link and not knowing where it's from can be a risk. Generally safe here but elsewhere not so much.

There is another issue at play here which in some ways is in sync with the IP laws. The Copyright Act is an especially outdated, one sided law. Copyright has some problems and limitations which seem to be widely misunderstood with how it is supposed to be handled and what the remedies are.

In any case, there seems to be a twilight zone area where Internet posters invoke the spirit of the Act hoping to command instant remedies without actually taking the steps required to advance those remedies; if said remedies even exist. Further, I can see a few posters above completely confusing the law and mixing some legal components with some personal and sympathetic control freak preferences. Remember that the flip side to legitimate copyright protection are honey traps where people place content in the public view with the sole hope that someone violates their rights and gives them an "in" to make legal trouble.

There are other unmentioned costs. For instance, there are some awful blogs out there. Bad painting, bad photos and bad writing. However, there seem to be a lot more people on here willing to be generous with those blogs than to take potshots at them. I try to follow suit but some of the content Ive been lured into contemplating falls under the category of "what has been seen cannot be unseen". I bring this up because the assumption that the content creator's rights trump all other parties' rights is a clear victory for the Copyright Act's brainwashed notion that only one viewpoint controls all others.

Additionally, many of these remote wargaming blogs also promote many additional wargaming blogs. Am I to believe this is always done with the remote blog's permission and via negotiation? It would be both inequitable and absurd if blogs could link lists of other blogs but forums could not.

Now I could understand if a link to a blog which lacks context could stigmatize the blogger. Examples include photos of painted SS armor being praised on a white supremacist site or D&D monsters appreciated on a satanic site. In these cases, a removal is in order because you are completely perverting the moral theme of the blogger's expression. However, a wargames forum is completely in comity with the aims of a wargaming blogger and acts more like a platform for content distribution rather than a content interpreter or appropriator.

1/3 Another thread reminded me that I started a response to Bobgnar some time ago, but work has limited my ability to respond fully. I feel dismissing and mocking forum members' valid complaints out of hand harms TMP's reputation and this is not about Tango presenting others' work as his own or whether people can click on a link. Both miss the point entirely and are examples of ‘strawman' arguments.

A number of people in this and other threads (plus those who regularly lament being unable to post their own pictures on the forum without their own blog or photo hosting service) don't really seem to understand the several related issues and potential consequences.

On blogging:
People blog for different reasons but the common denominator is creating content on the internet relating to a hobby we share. We should not assume that all do so to ‘brag' to the world at large. Cursory viewing of many shows small communities of similar themes.

On IP and copying text:
Just because things are on the internet, it *doesn't* mean everything is fair game, as Tango seems to think. Bill has a three paragraph rule when it comes to copying text to avoid potential copyright infringement and regularly enforces it. However, the main issues seem to be that of photos being ‘hotlinked' and/or lack of attribution.

On hotlinking pictures:

a) Hosting pictures on the internet for people to access costs someone money as well as every time a page loads them, because browsers download temporary copies to view, consuming bandwidth.

b) When anyone copies and pastes the address of an image for you to view on the forums, they aren't using Bill's resources, but those of the host (photobucket, flickr, imgur, or one of the blog sites). If you don't believe me, then right click on one of the debated forum blog threads and ‘open image in new tab' and you will see where it is hosted and who pays for it.

c) TMP does not allow users to post their own pictures on the forums as the server cost to host them would be prohibitive. This is a very sensible decision on Bill's part. If people don't want to pay for a cloud photo service/website/blog of their own and don't want to use somewhere like Facebook, then I'm sure he's all ears.

d) if you have a free blog then you may have limited bandwidth and too many views may limit access to the site or pictures.

e) if you pay for your site yourself, you might discover your costs increasing due to hotlinking.

f) if you use adverts on your site to contribute towards costs, people who only view the hotlinked images will cost you money. This is on top of them not visiting your blog, being counted in your site visits, both of which may lead to bloggers creating less content,

g) if a TMP poster hotlinks what they feel are the best pictures anyway, this compounds the issues above.

2/3 Some forum members seem to suggest that if people don't know how to turn off this option then their content and bandwidth is fair game. I would strongly advise against this, for the reasons above.

A number have explained that they would like blogs to be attributed and/or requested that pictures are not hotlinked.
If someone isn't a member here and you take issue with something in their blog, then just DM them or comment on the blog. They might explain their reasoning there (and interactions generally encourage them to create more content), heck, they might even join TMP if they haven't already.

I sympathise, as someone who discovered a podcast gleefully pulling apart some of my personal gaming events (despite their limited experience and speaking on unrelated issues shortly before recording), I would happily have discussed their valid criticisms and misconceptions alike had I been made aware of them.

Therefore Minipigs, you make an excellent argument for the addition of blog titles in the OP, thank you. Not only does this give bloggers some reward for their efforts if people regularly visit them, but if some members here feel compelled to eviscerate those efforts they deem unworthy due to an inability to control their emotions, then putting the name in serves at least three purposes:

- It's good for those bloggers who want their work promoting and means people will click on those they recognise.
- It's good for the blood pressure of those offended by what they see as inferior work.
- TMP avoids being seen as a place which will trash the work of others and avoid some of the consequences which can result from hotlinked images being switched.

This is reputational damage and a commercial site taking resources from members of the hobby whilst rubbing their noses in it, certainly not ‘first world problems', ‘panties in a bunch' or however people try to dismiss an issue they apparently don't understand, so I would be interested in their view on the following fictitious scenario:

- A major wargames company has lots of requests for photos on their site catalogue
- They lack the time/money to do so themselves so start googling for their minis online, finding several great pictures on various sites
- Several copy and paste sessions later, they have a load of hotlinked images to go with their ranges, with no attribution, just a ‘from here' blue hyperlink.
- Happy customers, happy storeman
- Lots of page loading later, some bloggers sees their self-funded site costs have gone up by 50% in a month. They investigate, see which site the traffic is coming from.
- They can ban all hotlinking from their blog (little bit of work), write a script preventing it on the wargaming company's site (bit more work but fills their site with 404 messages and makes them look careless at best) or even substitute the original picture with something unrelated or NSFW. The Guardian has details on the HuffPost/Oatmeal story here link

Most bloggers would be happy with some recognition for their content being used to drive up traffic here, particularly as a couple of pics (even hotlinked) in Ancient Naval Wargaming would probably consume less bandwidth than Huffpost…

It's not just about good manners, but common sense. The vast majority of wargaming blogs I've visited do link to related ones, with the blog name and often some text to explain why they like the other's work.

3/3 In essence:

I sympathise with Bill's position and applaud his recent efforts to provide attribution in a rash of blog threads, as well as not hosting the pictures of others on his site. Copyright/IP is rarely the main issue here and it should be possible to make lemons from lemonade.

Wargames manufacturers, commercial history sites and kickstarters would probably be very happy for the promotion but no advertising is allowed on the forum, according to the current rules.

The issue seems to stem from one poster in particular creating more work for Bill for no apparent reason, but in the interests of moving forward my suggestions are as follows:

- Any links to external sites should state where they're from, whether it's your site or not. If the TMP software can handle it, make sure that pasting a link in a thread automatically prompts you to change the text displayed.

- If it's not your site being linked, then don't cherry-pick a load of large pictures to hotlink. That's benefitting TMP far more than the person creating and paying for the blog.

- An icon for those bloggers who post their own links and provide context, maybe even supporting memberships and encourage them to put their links in a sig block. Bonis – Bill doesn't have to chase and create a load of workbench articles.

- Allow advertisers to post X number of threads per month in the relevant forums, perhaps scaled according to their budget. (Some busy companies might start sending out samples to bloggers and host on their own site).

- Don't let posters add insult to injury by them ignoring requests from the bloggers. Sanction them if they refuse to observe the basic courtesies as these steps cost them nothing.

- Add the following link from Kinsta (or similar) on preventing hotlinking in the TMP FAQ:
kinsta.com/blog/hotlinking

Absolutely spot on LBR.

I've only been Tangoed once.
It didn't bother me.
He posted a picture from my site and said something complimentary about it, and posted the link.
It was nice.
I thanked him.
He was very polite.

Please don't ask him about his accordion playing skills though…they are absolutely atrocious….

I don't have a problem posting the link to serve as credit to the creator of the material. I find a lot of great blogs to follow that way. Although how hard would it be to just copy and past the title of the blog with the link? "Form Joes whatever blog."

What gets me upset is someone taking something from a blog or flicker page, io groups etc. and posting on their blog as if they were the creator. By not giving credit, followers assume the blogger is the guy that put on this great game.

It is really galling reading the comments about the guys great game when he had nothing to do with it.

Now I remember, it was a player who took pictures of my game and then posted them on his blog without crediting me. How do you control that?

For a little money you can hired her… (smile)

Armand

Now I remember, it was a player who took pictures of my game and then posted them on his blog without crediting me. How do you control that?

It depends.

The foundational issue is that IP law (a general term that covers copyright, trademark, patent, and a few other miscelaneous things) is not "ITS MINE! MINE! MINE! NO ONE CAN EVER THINK ABOUT MY STUFF OR I CAN SUE THEM AND THEN SHOOT THEM IN THE HEAD AFTER THEY PAY ME ALL THEIR WORLDY GOODS!" (as some people seem to think). Nor is it Dude, it's public … free to all, nobody owns anything and we all just share and love and everything is cool".

If you ran a game at a con, especially if you advertised it (at least in the program), you have a legitimate argument that you were conducting an entertainment performance, which is in "fixed form" when performed, thus protected by copyright in the US, UK, Australia, NZ, Canada, and tons of other places. No kidding, your performance is copyright you, unless you were being paid to do it, in which case it is copyright to your employer.

So your "performance" is copyright to you. Just like any other copyright performance – a concert, a comedy routine, a sporting event, a play, etc – that doesn't mean that no one can ever reproduce any part of it in any way. "Fair use" (or a few other equivalent terms) means people can quote (indluing video or sill pictures), recount, review, and satirize (which has a lot of lattitude in reproduction).

Technically, you don't have to be cited for that. Of course, most of those things like a review or satire, lose their punch if you don't say where it is from. The rest of the space is also covered by The Law of Not Being a Douchebag (TLoNBaD). Apparently many people consider themselve exempt from this last bit.

While you don't have to be cited, someone carrying out fair use of content is liable for any harm caused you. This is mostly accounted as fiscal harm (e.g., they stole your market) or reputational harm (where liable turns into libel (tee-hee)). Note they don't have to be making money, and you don't have to have been making money, they just have to have interfered with your potential future of making money.

In the case you present, you would have a legitimate argument that you incurred both fiscal and reputational harm (dillution of repuatation by crating interest in the subject matter not attributed to you). This would be a civil tort, not rise to the level of a criminal offense. Probably.

The amount of damages you could recoup would most likely be much, much less than the cost of recouping it unless you live in a jursdiction that allows you to also recoup court costs from someone who loses a tort claim you levy against them. And even then, it's not a lock; it's a possibility.

So basically, there isn't nothing you can do. Pretty much, there is nothing useful for you to do. Remembering TLoNBaD, you could look for compensation in the court of public opinion. In which case, be careful not to cross the line between legitimate discourse and harassment. We live in dangerous times for trying to locate that border.

Bottom Line: IP isn't nearly as simple as many of us would like it to be. Many of us would like it to be like one of my absurd examples when it is our IP and the other when it is someone's elses. TLoNBaD exempt.

And remember how much you paid for this free legal advice. :)