the pringles golf instructable was featured on gearfuse. here is the link: pringles golf!I had to post this, as the Instuctables Robot head made it on there!
But the site used the picture, and the picture is copywrighted. That was the whole argument on that other thread.
It's great, more traffic, more members, more publicity. All I'm saying is that they used the picture without permission.
Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer
If you publish the image as part of a NCSA license, you also allow the picture to be non-commercially shared-alike. As long as they credit the source, and aren't charging you to look at the picture (or following the instructions and then selling the product), they're in the clear.If, for instance, they published the exact same text and image in a magazine you had to buy to read, that would be breaking the license because the stuff is being used commercially.That's the point of NCSA - it lets people share and hack ideas without the hassle of paying lawyers to track people down and ask nicely. It's open-source hardware.
Okay, I get it now. Thanks for clearing it up Kiteman. *moves kiteman up on list of favorite Instructablers*Wait, you were already number one. I guess I'll just move everyone else down 1 and write kiteman up twice. Now you're in first and second place!
Edges quietly away...
I'm not crazy!
*head turns; ears are completely vertical*
Actually, IF the copyright license was relevant here (and I'd say it's not, because of Fair Use), it's not entirely clear whether gearfuse complied with the "share-alike" part of the license. Gearfuse itself uses the Attribution-No Derivative Works license. However, Instructables' share-alike license states that "you may distribute the resulting work onlyunder the same or similar licenseto this one". So, technically, it wouldn't be quite on the up-and-up. not that anyone is likely to complain, though...
I knew it!
Still, not a big deal, but... Aha, all the same!
Disclaimer: IANAL, but IAANAL.
(Hint: the first one stands for I Am Not A Lawyer; don't make me translate the second one in polite company... ;-)
Again - that would probably be considered "Fair Use". On the same order as posting an excerpt from a book, or a picture of a web page, for the purposes of a review.The question of what is considered Fair Use versus copyright infringement is somewhat subjective. The US Copyright Office outlines some important factors to consider:1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;2. the nature of the copyrighted work;3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.Applied to this particular situation:1. the purpose was to provide a link to a cool website; gearfuse doesn't derive any direct commercial benefit from this, other than perhaps some extra ad revenue due to being known for hosting interesting links2. the copyrighted work itself was non-commercial, and intended to be disseminated - that's really what Instructables is all about3. they only used one of the 18 pictures in the instructable, and none of the text4. it didn't negatively affect the market value of the original work - in fact, it *increased* its "market value" by increasing traffic and thus ad revenue for Instructables
Uh oh. They used it without permission (I presume)
No permission required - that instructable was published under the Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike license, which "lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.".Even *without* that license, linking to an article with a picture and a few lines of commentary is typically considered "Fair Use". That's what places like boingboing, engadget, gizmodo, slashdot, gearfuse etc. do all the time. These kinds of sites drive a lot of new traffic to Instructables, so everybody benefits.