Acceptable Use Policy

Dave, Trish, Terry, Baa ... anyone
Referring to contributions to the Plants Database in Section 2 it states: "The contributor does, however, agree to grant StandardOut, Inc. a non-exclusive license to modify, reproduce, and distribute all Plants Database content in the manner that it sees fit." Does this mean photos contributed to the database can be distributed by StandardOut without the copyright holders knowledge? I saw 3 photos in a free garden magazine produced here in San Antonio that has several photos that state under the photo "Photo courtesy of plantsdatabase.com" with no listing of to whom the photo belongs. I found the person's name who had posted one of them by looking up the plant. I was curious as to why the copyright holder's name did not appear. Does that person know that their photo has been used in this publication or did they not desire to have their names used? I guess I should email that person. Did you grant the publisher's of this magazine the right to use the photos? Are you aware they are using the photos?

I have been asked if I would grant permission to have several of my photos that I have posted on the PDB be used in a printed field guide publication, a web-based magazine and a web-based field guide. Do I need permission from StandardOut to give these people the right to use my photos? Do I need to add the PDB to the citation listing my name as the contributer of the photo? The photos being in the San Antonio magazine without naming the photo contributer has me asking some probably dumb questions, but I am not an attorney so I need it spelled out to me. Maybe these questions have been asked before, but I could find a topic about this in the forums.

You have ask some valid questions, I was wondering the same thing and as far as I know it hasn't been discussed here before.
I can answer one of your questions, you do not need permission from StandardOut to use your own photos. They are yours and you own the sole right to share them with anyone you choose. If you decide that you do or don't want your name listed as the owner of the photos that is up to you.

windsurffer, that's what I thought. That is why you can add the copyright to them if you wish. Thanks for clearing this up for me. I appreciate your taking the time and making the effort to assist me.

It's true - you own the picture and you maintain the copyright. Usually when someone writes us and requests to use a picture, we nearly always refer them to the member who contributed the picture in order to gain permission.

At other times, we go ahead and permit them to use it and cite the PlantsDatabase.com, per the AUP.

You still own the picture - you've only granted us a license to use it and distribute it. But, it is still yours (and, most importantly, you also own your original full-size picture, which is what most magazines and books want).

I hope that helps you, htop. Let me know if I left any questions un-answered!

dave

Dave, so that means that any of my photos can be distributed to say this magazine published in San Antonio without my knowledge and without an acknowledgement that the photo belongs to me as long as the publisher just places, for example, "Courtesy of the plantsdatabase.com." So, Floridian may not know that one of his/her photos is being distributed (the magazine is free) by lots of nurseries all over San Antonio. Thanks, Dave for explaining this to me.

Another clarification ... so if I sell a photo, I need to ask for it to be removed from the database since someone else owns the copyright.

Another question, I became a subscriber in March of last year. I need to pay for another year's subscription, but on my page it states I'm paid up until 187 days from now in September. Is this in error? I don't want to deny you your rightful payment. I have enjoyed this sight so much, have had the pleasure of meeting so many nice people and have learned so much, I might just send you a bonus! Is this acceptable?

I appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions. I know that you are a very busy man.

Thanks,
htop

Hi htop,

This has never thoroughly been discussed before, even know the AUP has been this way almost since the very beginning. As far as my memory serves, nobody has ever had a problem with it. So, what we're talking about is nothing new. :)

Dave, so that means that any of my photos can be distributed to say this magazine published in San Antonio without my knowledge and without an acknowledgement that the photo belongs to me as long as the publisher just places, for example, "Courtesy of the plantsdatabase.com." So, Floridian may not know that one of his/her photos is being distributed (the magazine is free) by lots of nurseries all over San Antonio. Thanks, Dave for explaining this to me.

Yes, that's right. Any magazine (or whoever) must first contact us and get permission to re-print the photo. The terms of the Acceptable Use Policy allow us to grant that permission, as we wish.

Another clarification ... so if I sell a photo, I need to ask for it to be removed from the database since someone else owns the copyright.

Re-read the Acceptable Use Policy. You aren't assigning ownership to the PDB. You are granting us a non-exclusive license to use the picture, including redistribution. So the picture is still yours, but you also gave us permission to use it and redistribute it.

I kind of feel like I'm repeating myself, so please let me know specifically where you need clarification.

Regarding your subscription: the system shows that you subscribed on September 30th, 2003 and that the subscription is valid through Sep 30, 2004. :)

dave

Dave, I am not worried about redistibution I have no problem with that. I was not referring to charging another person for permission to use a photo that I have posted. I was referring to selling my copyright ownership to another party. If I do so, I will give up the right to be known as the author of the work (photograph) that I created. If I intend to surrender my copyright ownership to another party, then you would not be able to redistrbute it because you would not have the permission of the new copyright owner. That is what I was worried about.

I will just notify you to ask that the photo be removed from the database before I relinquish my copyright ownership because I will no longer be the "owner" as is implied if it is left on the database. Otherwise, you would not know that I have sold my copyright ownership, you might redistribute the photo and run into problems with the party who purchased my copyright ownership. Perhaps, someone has sold his or her copyright ownership already and did not think to inform you of this fact. I just thought that this discussion could ward off problems down the road. No need to reply. I have taken up enough of your time.

Thanks,
htop

Interesting - yes I understand what you are saying. I'm going to make sure Terry sees this thread and I'll discuss with her what she thinks, too. Thanks for the heads-up!

dave

Hi, Having worked in rights and permissions for a while, I can almost guarantee, htop, that you will never want to sell the copyright to your image. You would only ever sell usage. There are three levels of 'ownership' for an image- 1. the person who owns the original negative, jpg (typically the photographer), 2. anyone who has bought or been given by the level 1 owner a reproduction of the image such as a print sold through a gallery and 3. is someone who has paid the first level for limited usage with a contract of some sort stating 'only for use on the web' or 'all media worldwide'. And that contract would have a time limit of years up until perpetuity. Level 2 only gets credit or pay if someone wants to reproduce that particular edition and the user would still have to get the permission of level 1. (PDB is level 2)

So, you have given the PDB the right to use the photo but not to own it. That is not to say that PDB could not sell the image but frankly, as Dave said, he usually refers the media to the original owner because these are web images- not good for print and ethically it is the right thing to do. You could sell an image to an image service such as Corbis who sells usage rights to ad agencies and publishers and they might require that they own all rights but those services do not typically buy botanical imagery as it can be quite commonplace and not have the abilty to generate revenue in return for their costs of buying out a photogs rights. (for a film roll of 36, this can run $7000 and up) If you do sell an image, you can always state that you have contributed the image already to to the PDB as a service and you maintain rights for it remain there.

At the end of the day, PDB is an amazing site pretty much run by the passion of its volunteers and the only thing to worry about is guerilla-web-designers pulling images off of it for their own gain but that is difficult to monitor.

Best,
Michelle

If the magazine used the images with the "courtesy of" message, there's more than a fair chance that they got permission from us (and from the photographers) first. Usually I try to get the photogrpaher's permission before I tell someone they can use the image. (On a few occasions I haven't: a student wanting to use the image for a science fair project, or a Master Gardener in a bind, needing an image for that evening's one-time presentation, for example.) If it's going to be printed - book, magazine, newspaper, etc.; or if it will be displayed for any length of time, such as in an exhibit or on a website, I defniitely want the photographer to be aware of the request beforehand.

If someone approaches you directly to use your images, we do ask that they also credit the PDB, so please let us know if we need to provide them with wording.

dave, I reread my original posts and see that I did not make myself clear in the copyright questions. Being a fellow Texan, I thought you could read my mind, what little there is left of it. :o) I am grateful that people like you are in charge of the website because all of you have always been quick to respond to any problem I may be having and providing information that I need. I wanted to be sure I am not creating a problem for you as well as myself. Thanks again.

daisy avenue, thanks so much for the information. As you could tell, I know very little about copyright laws. I appreciate your assistance in this matter. I had searched the web for information in the wee hours of this morning. It all became fuzzy after a couple of hours. You explained it to me very well ... by jove, I think I think get it. :o)

Terry, three or four photos of which I gave the first party permission to use with a notation that I donated the usage of them have already been sent to press. That's why I was concerned. Both parties needed them posthaste and I did not think about the copyright topic at the time. I suggested to the second party, who is using one photo, that the PDB be listed along with myself; however, this was just a suggestion. I need to contact her as soon as possible. I desire to do what is right and give credit to you guys for the hard work that you do and for allowing me to post my photos here. As always, you provided me with information I needed to know and thanks for correcting my mistakes with narry an ill word. I had convinced myself white hair was a sign that I had wisdom ... I am starting to think its just a sign that my brain cells are dying. :o) Thanks for your help.

The copyright issue is definitely one to discuss with anyone to whom you sell an image. When I was contacted by a pet food company regarding their purchasing the exclusive rights to four of my photos, we set it up so they have exclusive rights to use the images, but I maintain full copyright. All the images they've used in their ads have my copyright printed on them. I have their permission to publish those same photographs in any book, poster or other project I wish to market -- I just can't use them in any pet food related endeavor. The company also wants rights of first refusal, meaning they would like first dibs on any photos I intend to sell.

It's confusing, all the dealings!

gardenwife, thanks for providing this information. Now I understand that conditions can be placed on the use of the image while maintaining the copyright ownership. For example, you could sell exclusive rights to the same photos to a pet grooming business with the condition that the images could not be used in any endeaver related to pet grooming. This could explain why I have seen the same photos cropping up in several genres. I thought that someone had just "stolen" them (which still could be a possibility). Do you create watermarks for your images? Once they are included, they cannot be removed. An image can contain only one watermark and you cannot embed a new watermark in an image that already contains one. I have not embedded them before because they can't be changed. If I am retaining my copyright ownerships to images, then I think that I am going to start using them. Anyone can download an image and then embed a watermark if the iimage doesn't have one already. Of course, the downloaded image is not as good as the original. Thanks again for your help. :o)

Hmmm, I'm not sure I could again sell exclusive rights to any photos Natura already bought -- I can, however, publish stuff of my own with those photos, for profit.

I have a plug-in available to create digital watermarks like you're talking about, but I have not used them. I really should.

No, after thinking about it, I guess you couln't sell exclusive rights to another party for the ones Natura already bought because that's for what they paid unless it was stipulated that they had only rights to use them for pet food endeavers (if that's possible).

There were a few issues concerning this matter brought up in another site that needs clarification before folks panic and request their photos be removed from the PDB or this site in the various forums. Legal jargon can be subject to misinterpretation, so I am hoping my questions and your response will help clear up some of the concerns.

The main question is that if you have you have the right to distribute a photo and if you receive any type of compensation for it. Is the submitter of the photo going to be compensated for their contribution based upon what you receive as well? As the saying goes "Nothing in life is free".

The next question is that is if folks decide to remove their photos are you still going to use them since they had previously submitted them to the PDB in the past? Or will you respect their request and not use them?

I hate to ask such harsh questions, but there's a bunch of folks very concerned about this matter. Many folks felt the intention of this site was to post pictures and help their fellow gardeners and work together as a team - not to see them posted anywhere else.

I guess I just miss the old days on here when things were not so complicated or so businesslike as they are now.

Just my thoughts, Carol

The Acceptable Use Policy has been the same for a loooooong time - in fact, I don't think there has ever been any change to the portions that deal with the images submitted to the site, so I'm not sure why it's causing any consternation.

Hopefully this plain answer will put people's mind at ease: when an outside source has requsted the of one or more images, in exchange for financial consideration, the entire amount has gone to the photographer; DG has not received a penny from anyone for images used from the PDB or DG.

Edited because I failed to address the second question, pertaining to photo removal. Hopefully my first answer removes any fears that might lead people to request mass removal because - quite frankly - removing images is a manual, time-consuming process that I am loathe to do unless someone has a really good reason for wanting an image removed. We have occasionally removed a member's images upon request. I'm reluctant to deal in hypotheticals, but it's certainly possible we would invoke our right to keep the images if we felt a removal request was baseless and unreasonable.

This message was edited Mar 26, 2004 5:53 PM

When I joined this garden site it was free, there was no mention about giving anyone the right to alter, or remove a copyright from any members photo or allow anyone else to use them to promote this site or any other magazine.
It even stated that it was a christian garden site which is one reasons I joined.
Even to this day Dave has told others that they should ask for permission before using someone else's photos even to post them here and that it would be better to post a link instead.

"You should remove the photos and get permission from the person who owns the copyright before you use them. That's just common courtesy to the copyright holder. Whether the picture is reposted here at DG, or elsewhere, doesn't really matter.

Even better than that, however, is just give a link to the plant in the Plants Database, so that people can view all the pictures and other information about it, which, in my opinion, would be more helpful than a simple picture.

A couple of cents worth of thoughts :)

dave

This was taken from this link http://davesgarden.com/t/421192/

In all fairness I think what Dave said in the above statement is completely right.

Now as for removing photos I do realize that it is a lot of work but that also I think should be the right of the owner of these photos.

I don't know where the misinformation is coming from, but we've never removed a copyright, nor would we (not even sure we could - we stamp them with a copyright as they come in, unless the member has turned off the watermark.) The "right to modify" includes Dave scaling down the images to a standard size for the site, which he does (thankfully - some images would take up an entire page otherwise.)

We've never used members' images to promote/advertise this site in any medium (magazine, web, books, etc.) Truth be told, we've never bought advertising for DG, period. When we ask for the site to be credited in conjunction with a request to use a photo, it's only to indicate permission was given.

At the risk of repeating myself: the ONLY time I haven't/wouldn't necessarily track down a copyright holder for permission is when there is a limited, one-time educational use of an image (gardening class, school science fair project needing an image of a seedling, etc.) For commercial requests (plant tags, newspaper articles, magazines, books, etc.), we put the requesting person in touch with the photographer, and they work out the details.

Originally I was not going to add another looong comment. Maybe it's because I am trying to quit smoking and am having a nicotine fit that has now transferred and transformed itself onto this thread. Maybe I just need to keep typing so I don't pick up another cigarette. For some reason I feel a need to provide a response to explain my motivation for asking the questions I did.

The photos are what help make the PDB so useful and successful. I began visiting the site to view the photos of the plants and look up information before I bought them, find out information about plants I already had and learn about plants I had never seen before. I started contributing photos and information as a "payback" for all that I have learned at this wonderful site, the wonderful people I have met and the joy it has brought me. I research all of the plants that I have added to the database as well as the ones of which I have posted photos. I know that other members do as well. This is very time consuming as everyone knows, but I want the information to be accurate.

Granted ... The Acceptable Use Policy has been here a long time. I did not think that much about it until I saw the PDB photos in the magazine here in San Antonio. At first I thought that maybe the authors had downloaded the photos and just put the PDB credit without asking permission. This plus the fact that people asked to use my photos peaked my curiosity. I am sorry that I did not fully understand it and had to show thousands of people my ignorance by asking dumb questions. I also thought about it because I have worked for 2 school districts for 36 years. At each district, I was involved a portion of my employment in assisting teachers learn how to make webpages for their campuses which included inserting images (clipart, photos, etc.). I was constantly reminded by my immediate and upper level supervisors to be sure to inform the teachers about image copyrights and plagiarism. This is a big deal to school districts, believe me. I never even thought about the PDB being compensated for distributing a photo to another party until Carol7 brought it up. This was not my concern. I was worried about making sure that somebody would not sue the PDB and/or me. Plus, I didn't want to break any PDB rules.

The America Violet Association is using several of my photos in a field guide that people can carry with them as they search for violets and ID them in the wild. They requested them because they did not have suitable photos of their own and the publication date was a couple of weeks away. I provided them without charge. It is a little hard to hook up to the Internet and connect to the PDB when searching the countryside. If anyone is upset that these photos on the PDB are going to be seen and usefully used by other gardeners in a different manner, condemn me if you will and I am sorry that you are upset. However, I thought this was a worthy cause and do not feel a need to apologize for doing so.

I have posted close to 500 photos (only a drop in the bucket to the total posted), assisted many fellow gardeners with information, provided many with seeds and boxes of live plants with my stating that nothing was needed in return ... no trade, no postage and no UPS shipping charges. Some have nicely sent me items in trade; all of the others kindly have offered trades and postage reimbursement, etc. which I have declined. The joy of sharing was enough payment for me. So you see, I am not a moneygrubber trying to use the PDB to make money.

I have notified the site when I saw signs that the server may be going down so that if it was, they could solve the problem before it crashed (I work with computers and its easier to fix something when it is a little problem). I check the Plant Identification Forum everyday to see if there is something there that I can assist with IDing it and have spent many days researching just one plant for someone. Encouraging others to become subscribers to help defray the costs involved in operating the site has been another way I have tried to help. I am not implying that I have done anything special. Many, many others do all of these same things. I mention them only because I thought I was being a team player and contributor to the site. I guess I have been wrong in my thinking this if I have caused a bunch of folks to be concerned. Instead of asking legal questions from an attorney, I asked them here because I thought that others might have the same questions. I did not mean to imply that the PDB was ripping people off ... I may be stupid, but I know they would never do that having read "About Dave's Garden" and "Mission Statement".

Carol I apologize to you if my businesslike questions offended you. In the "About Dave's Garden" it states "Dave's Garden is a software company ... ". I was trying to protect that "company" (business) that we all love from possibly being hurt financially from actions I have taken. None of us in the Dave's Garden family want this to happen.

(This section contains "not politically correct" statements. Warning: God is mentioned)

One of the reasons I grow plants is to provide a tribute to God for His magnificent creations. When someone says that one of my plants in my yard is beautiful, I try to always state that I do not deserve the credit, God does. I suppose one could say that He has the copyright ownership. Sharing the beautiful gifts that God has provided us by sharing photos, contributing information and providing seeds and/or plants to whom I can has been my goal after becoming a member, not selling photos.

(End of "not politically correct” statements)

I do apologize to all of you wonderful people that I have upset by starting this thread. May the seeds of kindness, understanding and love be sown, may these seeds sprout, grow magnificently and then self-seed.

htop - very well said, I commend you for that! This thread has been very interesting and informative reading. Thank you all for your questions and answers.

P.S. I also wholeheartedly agree with your 'not politically correct' statements! God Bless!!

Kooger, thanks you.