I recently saw something that made my blood boil. A Fanpop user criticizing another user for not crediting an image - and then advising that user on how to credit the image in an irresponsible and legally unsound way. Bad stuff there.
Let's forget for a moment that it's just plain rude to troll people's submissions and demand they add credit to them. Credit isn't required sa pamamagitan ng this site and isn't going to be required any time soon, but some people seem to enjoy pagganap like it is. But like I said, we'll forget about that issue for now.
Let's focus on the point of this article: Image Credit, itself.
Who do you credit for an image? I've seen lots of sagot to this tanong - most of them wrong.
So who does get credit for an image? The person or entity who owns the rights to that image. In short, this is the person or group that is responsible for the image's existence. Of course, it's not always that simple.
Let's look at some common kinds of Fanpop content and see who should be credited for them.
Amateur photos: Credit belongs solely to the photographer that took the photo.
Candid/Tabloid mga litrato of celebrities: The photographers who take these mga litrato sell their rights to either their employers or to contractors. These employers/contractors are usually magazines or image out-sourcing companies. In either case, the rights have been sold - and they now belong to the purchaser of those rights. If a litrato is an "exclusive" to a magazine/site (think Brangelina's baby photos), then the rights belong to that pinagmulan alone. However, if an image is seen in several official magazines/sites, then rest assured that the image belongs to the out-sourcing company that provided it. However, most celebrity pictures go viral once they hit the web. It's nearly impossible to trace them back to their original copyright holder.
Professional photographs: These would be those glam mga litrato of celebrities on the covers of magazines, fashion spreads, things like that. You can usually tell the glitz and shine of a professional litrato as compared to a candid shot. Rights for these larawan are a little less tricky, as out-sourcing companies aren't usually involved. Also, since the larawan are part of an established photographers portfolio, they tend to retain the rights to all of their larawan and only license their use elsewhere. In these cases, credit should still go to the photographer. These larawan also tend to go viral and tracing them back to the copyright holders can be hard (though easier than with tabloid shots).
Images of popular characters from anime/cartoons/toys/etc: These larawan almost always belong to whatever company owns the rights to that character. For instance, a picture of the Little Mermaid will always belong to Disney. It might've been licensed out to a company to make a sando or a plate or something - but Disney still holds the rights to that image. Sometimes different companies will own the rights to a character internationally (for instance, in anime) - in which case, it's acceptable to credit whichever rights-holder you're most familiar with.
Wallpapers: The rights to these belong to two parties. A) The person who owns the rights to the image(s) used in the wallpaper. B) The person who made the wallpaper. It's most common (and acceptable) to credit the person who made the wallpaper. Unless the site you've gotten it from is an artist's personal site, crediting the site you found it on is NOT proper crediting. Most wolpeyper sites simply collect mga wolpeyper from artists, slap their own watermark on the images, then provide them for download - often without the approval of the wolpeyper artists, themselves.
Icons: Icons are exactly like mga wolpeyper in terms of crediting - only they tend to be madami viral in nature. Often times, credit gets Nawawala as people use them on forums or collect them on their webpages. But rest assured, the credit belongs to the person who made the icon - not the site you grabbed it off of. For instance, crediting "Livejournal" for an icon is incorrect. Crediting "usernamehere at Livejournal" is the right way to do it.
FanArt: The characters used in the fanart still belong to whoever owns the rights for those characters (see the section for larawan of characters). However, the artist holds the rights to their art. Their usage of the characters is generally considered to be "fair use" and is usually looked over, but not always (ie Anne Rice).
Screencaps: These larawan belong to the company that owns the rights to the movie/show/game that the screencap came from.
Well, that covers just about everything. Hopefully, if you've read all of this, you have some idea of who to credit (and who not to!) for your images. Also, this might help some of you fight back the susunod time you're trolled for not providing proper credit.
But... Just in case that's not enough ammo for you, here's some madami things to consider.
1. Improper credit is WORSE than no credit! Artists HATE to see someone else credited for THEIR work. It's FAR better to admit that you don't know where an image is from and invite the rights-holder to contact you so that you can provide credit than to just guess and end up crediting the wrong person!
2. It's not STEALING if you don't provide credit. Nothing is madami laughable than this one. Essentially, reproducing an image without the prior consent of the rights-holder is stealing. Now answer me this: Can anyone on this site claim that they've gotten permission from the rights-holder for every image they've posted? Of course not. Putting "Image from People.com" under an image doesn't make it any less stealing! In either case, you're still reproducing an image without People's permission.
3. Credit doesn't belong to the site you've taken an image from unless that site actually owns the rights to that image. The susunod time someone faults you for not crediting the site that a picture came from, remind them of this. Then invite them to find the actual copyright holder of the image and tell them you'll gladly add credit once they do.
And finally...
WHAT IF YOU HAVE NO FREAKIN' CLUE WHO AN IMAGE BELONGS TO?
Your best bet? Be honest. Mention in the paglalarawan that you're unsure who to credit. Ask for anyone who does know to comment and let you know, so you can credit properly. As in almost all cases in life, it's better to admit you don't know and you need help than to fake it and end up doing something wrong.
Let's forget for a moment that it's just plain rude to troll people's submissions and demand they add credit to them. Credit isn't required sa pamamagitan ng this site and isn't going to be required any time soon, but some people seem to enjoy pagganap like it is. But like I said, we'll forget about that issue for now.
Let's focus on the point of this article: Image Credit, itself.
Who do you credit for an image? I've seen lots of sagot to this tanong - most of them wrong.
So who does get credit for an image? The person or entity who owns the rights to that image. In short, this is the person or group that is responsible for the image's existence. Of course, it's not always that simple.
Let's look at some common kinds of Fanpop content and see who should be credited for them.
Amateur photos: Credit belongs solely to the photographer that took the photo.
Candid/Tabloid mga litrato of celebrities: The photographers who take these mga litrato sell their rights to either their employers or to contractors. These employers/contractors are usually magazines or image out-sourcing companies. In either case, the rights have been sold - and they now belong to the purchaser of those rights. If a litrato is an "exclusive" to a magazine/site (think Brangelina's baby photos), then the rights belong to that pinagmulan alone. However, if an image is seen in several official magazines/sites, then rest assured that the image belongs to the out-sourcing company that provided it. However, most celebrity pictures go viral once they hit the web. It's nearly impossible to trace them back to their original copyright holder.
Professional photographs: These would be those glam mga litrato of celebrities on the covers of magazines, fashion spreads, things like that. You can usually tell the glitz and shine of a professional litrato as compared to a candid shot. Rights for these larawan are a little less tricky, as out-sourcing companies aren't usually involved. Also, since the larawan are part of an established photographers portfolio, they tend to retain the rights to all of their larawan and only license their use elsewhere. In these cases, credit should still go to the photographer. These larawan also tend to go viral and tracing them back to the copyright holders can be hard (though easier than with tabloid shots).
Images of popular characters from anime/cartoons/toys/etc: These larawan almost always belong to whatever company owns the rights to that character. For instance, a picture of the Little Mermaid will always belong to Disney. It might've been licensed out to a company to make a sando or a plate or something - but Disney still holds the rights to that image. Sometimes different companies will own the rights to a character internationally (for instance, in anime) - in which case, it's acceptable to credit whichever rights-holder you're most familiar with.
Wallpapers: The rights to these belong to two parties. A) The person who owns the rights to the image(s) used in the wallpaper. B) The person who made the wallpaper. It's most common (and acceptable) to credit the person who made the wallpaper. Unless the site you've gotten it from is an artist's personal site, crediting the site you found it on is NOT proper crediting. Most wolpeyper sites simply collect mga wolpeyper from artists, slap their own watermark on the images, then provide them for download - often without the approval of the wolpeyper artists, themselves.
Icons: Icons are exactly like mga wolpeyper in terms of crediting - only they tend to be madami viral in nature. Often times, credit gets Nawawala as people use them on forums or collect them on their webpages. But rest assured, the credit belongs to the person who made the icon - not the site you grabbed it off of. For instance, crediting "Livejournal" for an icon is incorrect. Crediting "usernamehere at Livejournal" is the right way to do it.
FanArt: The characters used in the fanart still belong to whoever owns the rights for those characters (see the section for larawan of characters). However, the artist holds the rights to their art. Their usage of the characters is generally considered to be "fair use" and is usually looked over, but not always (ie Anne Rice).
Screencaps: These larawan belong to the company that owns the rights to the movie/show/game that the screencap came from.
Well, that covers just about everything. Hopefully, if you've read all of this, you have some idea of who to credit (and who not to!) for your images. Also, this might help some of you fight back the susunod time you're trolled for not providing proper credit.
But... Just in case that's not enough ammo for you, here's some madami things to consider.
1. Improper credit is WORSE than no credit! Artists HATE to see someone else credited for THEIR work. It's FAR better to admit that you don't know where an image is from and invite the rights-holder to contact you so that you can provide credit than to just guess and end up crediting the wrong person!
2. It's not STEALING if you don't provide credit. Nothing is madami laughable than this one. Essentially, reproducing an image without the prior consent of the rights-holder is stealing. Now answer me this: Can anyone on this site claim that they've gotten permission from the rights-holder for every image they've posted? Of course not. Putting "Image from People.com" under an image doesn't make it any less stealing! In either case, you're still reproducing an image without People's permission.
3. Credit doesn't belong to the site you've taken an image from unless that site actually owns the rights to that image. The susunod time someone faults you for not crediting the site that a picture came from, remind them of this. Then invite them to find the actual copyright holder of the image and tell them you'll gladly add credit once they do.
And finally...
WHAT IF YOU HAVE NO FREAKIN' CLUE WHO AN IMAGE BELONGS TO?
Your best bet? Be honest. Mention in the paglalarawan that you're unsure who to credit. Ask for anyone who does know to comment and let you know, so you can credit properly. As in almost all cases in life, it's better to admit you don't know and you need help than to fake it and end up doing something wrong.