Go Back  i-Club > i-Club Forums > i-Club Announcements
Vote for the new I club header!!! >

Vote for the new I club header!!!

Notices
i-Club Announcements Discuss our latest site announcements.

Vote for the new I club header!!!

Old 11-07-2010, 04:42 PM
  #136  
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
 
Aeros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kapolei
Posts: 1,023
Car Info: Pasoi!
Name:  MichealJacksonPopcorn.gif
Views: 3
Size:  447.7 KB
Aeros is offline  
Old 11-07-2010, 06:33 PM
  #137  
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
 
VRT MBasile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 22,776
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
Originally Posted by Aeros View Post
Its actually not a drama thing, its a knowing the law thing
VRT MBasile is offline  
Old 11-07-2010, 07:12 PM
  #138  
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
 
Aeros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kapolei
Posts: 1,023
Car Info: Pasoi!
Well if thats the case, did Ransack, Hwob90, or stupidchicken receive approval also? It seems that you are just singling me out for some reason. Is the current banner "approved"?
Aeros is offline  
Old 11-07-2010, 07:21 PM
  #139  
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
 
VRT MBasile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 22,776
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
Originally Posted by Aeros View Post
Well if thats the case, did Ransack, Hwob90, or stupidchicken receive approval also? It seems that you are just singling me out for some reason. Is the current banner "approved"?
Hwob90 and StupidChicken aren't really in the running with such a small number of votes, so it's not really an issue. Ransack's image can easily be traced back to the owner (either LIC or the photographer) to get approval. Yours is most likely owned by SOA, so good luck getting the copyright. And if you had read through all of the info in the "design" thread you would have seen that the photo in the current banner is owned by i-club. Sorry, but sometimes things on the interwebs are real and serious. Its not all fun and photoshop all the time.
VRT MBasile is offline  
Old 11-07-2010, 07:53 PM
  #140  
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
 
Aeros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kapolei
Posts: 1,023
Car Info: Pasoi!
Originally Posted by VRT MBasile View Post
Hwob90 and StupidChicken aren't really in the running with such a small number of votes, so it's not really an issue. Ransack's image can easily be traced back to the owner (either LIC or the photographer) to get approval. Yours is most likely owned by SOA, so good luck getting the copyright. And if you had read through all of the info in the "design" thread you would have seen that the photo in the current banner is owned by i-club. Sorry, but sometimes things on the interwebs are real and serious. Its not all fun and photoshop all the time.
I cant seem to find that thread. Got a link?
Aeros is offline  
Old 11-07-2010, 08:26 PM
  #141  
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
 
Aeros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kapolei
Posts: 1,023
Car Info: Pasoi!
Meh, its not worth the effort. Ill let the mods take care of it if they see it that way. I understand your point in the copyright thing, its just from the get go it seemed like you where after me like I stole the banana out of your lumpia.
Aeros is offline  
Old 11-07-2010, 08:50 PM
  #142  
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
 
BoOm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 3,462
Car Info: 2008 MB C350S Chip/Exhaust 268whp
Originally Posted by VRT MBasile View Post
Ransack's image can easily be traced back to the owner (either LIC or the photographer) to get approval. Yours is most likely owned by SOA, so good luck getting the copyright. And if you had read through all of the info in the "design" thread you would have seen that the photo in the current banner is owned by i-club. Sorry, but sometimes things on the interwebs are real and serious. Its not all fun and photoshop all the time.
Since it's a legal thing, why not pull Ransack's too? Afterall, you did say that it can be traced and yet to get approval("to"). Want to be fair? Pull both until you get the legal permissions.

Subaru promotes love of their brand, therefore, it is not a distant shot to get it approved. The site itself is a free ad for SoA.

Assumption is a funny thing, especially if it is coming from a staff member.

Addenum: Alex got the Cusco car to put the iclub sticker on the car years ago and got permission to use it.
BoOm is offline  
Old 11-07-2010, 08:52 PM
  #143  
Registered User
iTrader: (9)
 
04sleeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Behind you...Waiting
Posts: 2,813
Car Info: about 30 miles a day
Originally Posted by VRT MBasile View Post
Its actually not a drama thing, its a knowing the law thing
and you know cuz you're a lawyer? voters vote. hypocrites say something is wrong for one but is ok for another person. i'll let George Takei tell you what my vote is...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YAFM4ATJiU
04sleeper is offline  
Old 11-07-2010, 09:20 PM
  #144  
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
 
Dolly209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Modesto, CA
Posts: 266
Car Info: 02' Subaru Impreza WRX
my vote goes to ransack
Dolly209 is offline  
Old 11-07-2010, 09:41 PM
  #145  
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
 
VRT MBasile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 22,776
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
Originally Posted by Aeros View Post
Meh, its not worth the effort. Ill let the mods take care of it if they see it that way. I understand your point in the copyright thing, its just from the get go it seemed like you where after me like I stole the banana out of your lumpia.
No, it was never anything personal, just a matter of facts and legalities. Google is not a source for images when designing. Thats what stock photo sites are for, and you have to pay for the copyright.

Originally Posted by BoOm View Post
Since it's a legal thing, why not pull Ransack's too? Afterall, you did say that it can be traced and yet to get approval("to"). Want to be fair? Pull both until you get the legal permissions.

Subaru promotes love of their brand, therefore, it is not a distant shot to get it approved. The site itself is a free ad for SoA.
It was an assumption that the image is owned by SoA, but the actual owner of the image is unknown. You want to find the unknown owner to get permission? That is why I said pull it, otherwise you have a Mt Hammy t-shirt fiasco all over again. People vote a winner, but then it cant be used and we have wasted A LOT of time and gotten nowhere. As of right now I-club is not using the photos for any sort of profit, so a lawsuit is very unlikely. Once they make a copyrighted image their masthead it becomes a big issue.

The stage these things are at right now, in theory, aren't really "final" as evident by slight changes being made. Also, the client (i-club.com) has been told by Ransack "This design contains this image, for which the copyright will have to be "purchased." That is how you do it. You don't say "Oh, yeah, I took this image from google. If you want to use it you can go find the owner and ask.

The Library of Congress will search for the owner of an image for you, for $165/hr with a minimum charge of 2 hours. Or you can search through all of their records yourself.

Originally Posted by 04sleeper View Post
and you know cuz you're a lawyer? voters vote. hypocrites say something is wrong for one but is ok for another person. i'll let George Takei tell you what my vote is...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YAFM4ATJiU
I know this because I grew outside of the internet and recognize that there are certain laws protecting things like images. It's also part of the what I'm going to school for

Last edited by VRT MBasile; 11-07-2010 at 09:47 PM.
VRT MBasile is offline  
Old 11-07-2010, 10:03 PM
  #146  
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
 
BoOm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 3,462
Car Info: 2008 MB C350S Chip/Exhaust 268whp
Originally Posted by VRT MBasile View Post
It was an assumption that the image is owned by SoA, but the actual owner of the image is unknown. You want to find the unknown owner to get permission? That is why I said pull it, otherwise you have a Mt Hammy t-shirt fiasco all over again. People vote a winner, but then it cant be used and we have wasted A LOT of time and gotten nowhere. As of right now I-club is not using the photos for any sort of profit, so a lawsuit is very unlikely. Once they make a copyrighted image their masthead it becomes a big issue.

The stage these things are at right now, in theory, aren't really "final" as evident by slight changes being made. Also, the client (i-club.com) has been told by Ransack "This design contains this image, for which the copyright will have to be "purchased." That is how you do it. You don't say "Oh, yeah, I took this image from google. If you want to use it you can go find the owner and ask.

The Library of Congress will search for the owner of an image for you, for $165/hr with a minimum charge of 2 hours. Or you can search through all of their records yourself.
You miss my point. You insist the fact there needs to be permission for an image to be used and since Aeros' image is made on an assumption that rights could not be obtained it should have been pulled and disqualified. Whereas, Ransack's image source's rights are NOT YET obtained and still be up?

Again, 'assumption' is a funny thing. You are TAUGHT in law school to make sound logical assumptions. You really need to apply it here.

Oh by the way, I do much work with the Creative Commons licenses with my photography. I've sold a whole portfolio to a large gaming firm. I understand there needs to be rights to someone's work, however, if you are to say someone's work should be pulled and yet another person's work, which has an image that rights are not yet obtained, should be still there, that has huge problems in logic.
BoOm is offline  
Old 11-07-2010, 10:27 PM
  #147  
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
 
VRT MBasile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 22,776
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
Originally Posted by BoOm View Post
You miss my point. You insist the fact there needs to be permission for an image to be used and since Aeros' image is made on an assumption that rights could not be obtained it should have been pulled and disqualified. Whereas, Ransack's image source's rights are NOT YET obtained and still be up?
I'm not in law school, I'm on the other side. The creator of images who must protect my own material (not only photographs). And, yes, that is one way to do it, place an image for which you know the copyrights can be obtained. Once the client approves to design, THEN you go through the steps of getting the rights. You don't do it before the design is approved because copyrights usually cost MONEY. You aren't going to spend money on rights before the piece has been 100% finally approved....

Photography and selling your rights is different from gaining rights to something else. Would you have expected the gaming firm to buy your portfolio before they decided if they were even going to use it?

But actually, you're half way right, everyone that used an image should have found out before hand if the rights to it are available, although the rights don't need to be purchased until the design is approved and put in place.

Last edited by VRT MBasile; 11-07-2010 at 10:38 PM.
VRT MBasile is offline  
Old 11-08-2010, 12:01 AM
  #148  
Registered User
iTrader: (7)
 
Dans Rex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 451
Car Info: 2002 WRX (RIP) // 2007 STi "OMGASTI"
i vote Aeros
Dans Rex is offline  
Old 11-08-2010, 12:28 AM
  #149  
It's QQ thankyouverymuch
iTrader: (39)
 
JourdanWithaU's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 19,660
Car Info: 2011 SWP WRX Hatch
Ransack
JourdanWithaU is offline  
Old 11-08-2010, 12:38 AM
  #150  
Registered User
iTrader: (24)
 
hwob90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Walnut Creek/BayArea, CA
Posts: 1,831
Car Info: 2009 WRB WRX Sedan
As for my picture even though I have little votes. I did a little bit of research and couldnt find the actual source of the picture or who originally started with it due to many sites using the same picture for advertisement purposes. www.japanesesportscars.com seems to have one of the best articles containing the picture I used and many others of the 2011 STI but again I am not exactly sure if I should even contact them since like I said there is nothing about where my picture original is from. I know about copyrights and stuff and I absolutely dont want a law suit do to something as simple as the banner. If you guys want to pull mine from voting so be it. No hard feelings I dont want any mishaps happening because of something simple. I have been in the community for a couple years and would like to see it keep on going and not be shut down due to a banner.

Link to the images I am talking about-
http://www.japanesesportcars.com/201...how_11044.html
hwob90 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Vote for the new I club header!!!


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.