[Steemit] Spam, Plagiarism and Flagging
I came across the following post, which was claiming to be attacked by @abusereports, a false flagging campaign you could say. The comment on the post left by @abusereports merely said that the user had been blacklisted and that they were a spammer. Confused, I scrolled through their comments and although some comments maybe weren't exactly what you'd call quality, they also weren't necessarily spam.
I then noticed that under source for the image, they merely put instagram. To me, that would suggest your own instagram, but no they just found it on instagram and decided to post it here. The problem is, this was someone's work. I found the original creator with this amazing, CSI-style technology known as a reverse image search. It took me a whole minute to find the image and the original blog post by Paul Reiffer. This was the earliest post of the image I could find, so I'm going to presume they are the original creator.
If you are posting other people's images you must state the original source, and link to it (in my opinion). To make Steemit a great platform, we the users must stop being so damn lazy. State your sources, always. It doesn't matter that the instagram user may have stolen the image to gain some likes, but if you are trying to gain financially, you're what's wrong with Steemit. You are the problem if you behave like this. There are exceptions to this, known as "fair use", however that only applies to "transformative" works, for example for the purpose of news reporting or review. It's still just good manners to link to the original source however.
The image in question is the very one I have used for this post, as a bit of an experiment. This is not my image, it is Paul Reiffer's and all credit goes to him (it is a beautiful shot after all). Scroll down a bit, and there is the link to his original post. This, in my eyes at least, is how it's done. It's not hard guys, seriously. Well what are your thoughts and feelings on this subject? I have to say, it seems to be becoming a bigger and bigger problem, and I don't want to see this great experiment fail because of the selfishness of a few. This was a bit more off-the-cuff than usual, but if you enjoyed it you might like some of my other posts, so go ahead and tap that Follow button to stay up to date. Until next time guys, CITE YOUR SOURCES!
Sources:
Photographing London - The capital city of home by Paul Reiffer (https://www.paulreiffer.com/2014/05/photographing-london-capital-city-home-tower-bridge-st-pauls-cathedral/)
Marvelous picture of the Tower Bridge at London! (https://steemit.com/cityscapephotography/@camillesteemer/marvelous-picture-of-the-tower-bridge-at-london-this-post-will-be-flagged-by-the-f-g-abuser-flagger-https-steemit-com)
Excellent points made and good use of the google? Reverse image search. I use all my own images thankfully but ill remeber your words if i ever use external sources thanks 👍
Thank you bud! Yeah it was Google/Chrome reverse image search.
Re-reading the post I've come across a bit harsh, it was more aimed at the author of the original post. Images that are in the public domain or are licensed for free reuse are fine to use, but it's just about giving credit where credit is due.
Thanks again for your comment! It means alot =]
Im overly cautious when it comes to using images and just end up using pixabay etc to be safe.
Ive read up about fair use and its so complicate to understand. I agree that if you use an image you should definitely state its not yours and reference the source
As with most matters of law, it's an absolute rabbit hole. I follow a lot of YouTubers, and fair use is something that comes up an awful lot so I've kinda got familiar with it as a concept over the years.
The main two points to keep in mind is; does it affect the market for the original work? Is the amount of that work used appropriate and reasonable? So for example, if I'm doing a review on a TV show, I'm perfectly entitled to use a couple of screencaps of the programme in my review. It's more interesting with YouTube, where some users would just reupload the original work, with their face in the bottom corner "reacting" which is obviously abusing the system.
The other point about affecting the market for the original work, I see people just reposting instagram posts for example as again crossing that line of fair use. There's no transformative element to it, it's just clearly theft.
A good tool is the "Usage Rights" feature on Google Images, if you toggle that on it'll only show images that have been specifically labeled as fine for reuse (sometimes there might be limitations, such as using them for "commercial" work).
Yeah I figured I tried to understand it all and got a headache lol. I have the idea that on Youtube as you said as long as its 'appropriate and reasonable' then its fine. Yeah I hate those reacting videos, and there are so many of them.
Yeah well I know people talk about plagarism on Steemit but I havent found it to be to much of a problem...
Yeah Ive looked into the usage rights on Google and otherwise just use Wikicommons or any of the other free image sites
I really try to site my sources too. As well as being the right thing to do it adds credibility to writing. Sources give me an idea about a writer's bias. Everyone has a bias and it's important to remember that when reading information on the web. Having a bias isn't a "bad" thing either but being aware of it helps frame context and assist with decision making. The online theft of digital works has long been an irritation to me. To be honest I do not think most people do it thinking in their mind they are stealing or doing something wrong. In my opinion it is more just ignorance and not thinking things through so I'm glad you posted about it to help further education.
Some excellent points there, especially that including sources gives your writing a certain credibility. We all have our biases, even if you try to challenge them they still come through at times. But like you say, that's certainly not a bad thing.
Yeah that's the feeling I get, it's not necessarily done maliciously, however laziness and ignorance aren't a good defense. Especially with this case, they'd clearly been warned before about their posts, and eventually got blacklisted. I was ready to jump to their defense, but I ended up agreeing with @abusereports
You just planted 0.36 tree(s)!
Thanks to @johngreenfield
We have planted already 5699.62 trees
out of 1,000,000
Let's save and restore Abongphen Highland Forest
in Cameroonian village Kedjom-Keku!
Plant trees with @treeplanter and get paid for it!
My Steem Power = 18690.86
Thanks a lot!
@martin.mikes coordinator of @kedjom-keku
Your Post Has Been Featured on @Resteemable!
Feature any Steemit post using resteemit.com!
How It Works:
1. Take Any Steemit URL
2. Erase
https://3. Type
reGet Featured Instantly & Featured Posts are voted every 2.4hrs
Join the Curation Team Here | Vote Resteemable for Witness
Apologize for the delay, been managing and speaking about Steem at the Steem Creators Conference in Las Vegas, NV all weekend. Expect to be within the the 24-48 hour upvote window in the next 48 hours.
As a friendly reminder, the upvote fee is $0.08 SBD ($0.081 for incognito). Current 300%+ upvote is now $0.24+ SBD.
That being said…
Investors who delegate SP to @thundercurator are entitled to 75% of @thundercurator income after curation. Get on-board early and grow with us!