Watchtower and the Dishonest Use of Uncredited Images

by jwleaks 8 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  jwleaks

  The below image comes from the following web site page: Commons Wikimedia

  The author of the work has granted licence to use his work providing he is properly credited or attributed as the author.

  
  

  [Credit: Daniel Meyar, Licensed for use under Creative Commons]

  The above image has also also been published on the following website: assets.jw.org/assets albeit without credit or attribution to the author Daniel Meyar.

  The above JW assets web address clearly identifies the image as an asset belonging to Watchtower.

  The following Watch Tower Terms of Use page jw.org/en/terms-of-use contains the below Legal Notice...

  
  

  As there is no indication of the image belonging to anyone other than Watchtower it can be concluded that the image of "Memphis -Ramses Colossus" is the copyrighted "property of Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania".

  Watch Tower's Legal Notice on their Terms of Use page says:

  "You may view, download, and print copyrighted ... photos ... from this website for your own personal and non-commercial purposes, subject to the restrictions set out below and elsewhere in the Terms of Use. Hence you may not:
  

  - Post Content from this website on the Internet (any website, file-sharing site, or social network);
  

  - Republish Content from this website with or as part of any software application;
  

  - Reproduce, duplicate, copy, or otherwise exploit material on this website for a commercial purpose or for money (even if no profit is involved)

  It will be interesting to see if Watch Tower takes down the image or corrects it. Of course that all depends on whether the JW Writing Department or IT department or any others at the JW headquarters read so-called "apostate" websites, such as this one.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  It will be interesting to see if Watch Tower takes down the image or corrects it. Of course that all depends on whether the JW Writing Department or IT department or any others at the JW headquarters read so-called "apostate" websites, such as this one.

  Or, it could depend on whether or not Daniel Meyar, the one who should be attributed with the photograph, ever finds out that his work has not been credited properly by the WTS.

  Theft of creative works, and/or not giving credit to the owner/author of those works, really bothers me. I am pretty sure that it would bother Daniel Meyar too.
• 

  Crazyguy

  I wonder if the Borg is trying to make as many images of things bible related that are just freely roaming the net theirs so they can then try to control who uses them and therefore prevents people from finding out more facts?? Why else would they claim this pic is theirs??
• 

  never a jw

  They are God's people, why should they be accountable to anyone? Aren't they the sole heirs of the planet and anything on it? Daniel Meyar should be happy that he has been granted the temporary right to use a camera that rightfully belongs to Jehovah's people.
• 

  darkspilver

  LOL!

  Did you check out the actual webpage that the image is used on?

  http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201011/egypt-in-bible-history/

  Did you check out the actual print magazine that the image appeared in?

  http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/87/g_E_201011.pdf

  Daniel Meyar would seem to have been properly credited in both instances? Yes?

  But what about the website you used to get the picture from - http://lh5.ggpht.com/ - I don't seem to see any crediting of Daniel Meyar on that website??

  
  

  http://lh5.ggpht.com/u-Glu0hHWRSoPHs36rb6UvMkEoY5LmFGpUt0DUUEpebWSSNM7kk-AF7akH4pIZjr5cSntAWV0ssjKFhMXkRSoAMC
  

  That's all folks!
  
  DarK SpilveR
  
• 

  jwleaks

  darkspilver - "what about the website you used to get the picture from - http://lh5.ggpht.com/ - I don't seem to see any crediting of Daniel Meyar on that website??"

  When I posted the image in the OP the appropriate credit "Daniel Meyar, Licensed for use under Creative Commons" was used.
  

  The subject was the use of the image by Watch Tower without the appropriate credit in the link on the "assets" page [Edit to add>>>] and the claim of intellectual property ownership on the JW website by Watch Tower in relation to images that are not credited, such as the subject image.
• 

  darkspilver

  I'm confused, are you saying that the unpublished image in the assets folder, should have the creditation on the image itself? Because the image you used from the ggpht.com website doesn't either? Having the credition on the webpage adjacent to the image is in order I thought? Isn't that what you did. Sure the jw.org website has the usual generic copyright claim as per most other websites, but the image you referenced doesn't seem to have been actually published on a jw.org webpage? And it's quite clear from the use of the image in the two links that I provided that WT is fully accepting of Daniel Meyar's copyright in the image?
  

  Say what you will about the WT, but Daniel Meyar who says he took the photo and released it under creative commons, is probably very pleased to be able to say on his photography CV that his picture was used in an international magazine with a print run of millions - and that said magazine provided the proper creditation.

  Actually the more onerous issue is the poor way the image has been used - it's meant to have once stood 40 feet high, but you get no real concept of that from its use in the magazine.....
  

  That's all folks!
  
  DarK SpilveR
• 

  leaving_quietly

  I have to agree with Dark SpilveR here. The assets "page" is not a page per se. It's very common for a site to have an assets folder, or for high traffic sites, a whole server dedicated to assets. In web programming, a page is made up of a number of things, such as the html of the page, the text content, scripts, stylesheets, images, videos, etc. "Assets" are the individual pieces of these pages and typically include scripts, stylesheets, images and various other media (e.g. videos). Thus, the image is there on the assets server, just sitting there, waiting to be used on some page somewhere. No credit is necessary for an image at rest.
  

  Also, in looking at the source of the page in the article the image is used in, one can see that the image has different sizes, presumably for different platforms (desktop, tablet, mobile). The one you referenced is the smallest image. There are two other sizes referenced, one medium, and one large. There appears to be some script that they use to place an appropriate sized image on the page for layout purposes, likely depending on the device (desktop, tablet or mobile). Both the medium and the large image have the credit embedded directly in the image. It's completely possible that if the smallest one is used, the credit is made elsewhere outside of the image in the page it's composed on, or it's possible that the smallest image is never used on any page even thought it's in the "small size" script variable.
  

  http://assets.jw.org/assets/m/g10/201011/g10_201011.art/102010407_univ_cnt_3_md.jpg

  http://assets.jw.org/assets/m/g10/201011/g10_201011.art/102010407_univ_cnt_3_lg.jpg

  I believe, in this case, there isn't an issue.
  
• 

  darkspilver

  leaving_quietly 8 minutes ago

  I have to agree with Dark SpilveR here.

  Thank you leaving_quietly - you explained it better than me :)

  That's all folks!
  
  DarK SpilveR