Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this looks like more a case of re-using images that have been used by members in ATS threads.

If you've created those images as original pieces of art, then there may be cause for action.

However, most of these seem to be modifications of public domain imagery... while the ethics are certainly in question, there legal standing is exceptionally tenuous at best.

We have well-established legal recourse when your entire post is taken and reproduced without permission with attribution and often claimed as someone else's work. And that type of plagiarism is indeed where we've focused our efforts in the past. Unfortunately, these images are a much more difficult proposition.

In the future, if you created modifications of public-domain images such as these to illustrate your point in a post, it might make sense to at least watermark them with your ATS username, image source, and date of creation.

Thank you for your answer, SkepticOverlord:
these are two separate cases: one is re-using or images, and that's not a problem at all, (i just wanted to point out how frequently this guy is getting resources from here and posting them elsewhere as if it was a mirror of ATS): the real problem is that some of these are findings of unusual formations on Mars that i've discovered with my researches, and that i decided to publish here on ATS. In particular, images 2, 3 and 7. This guy is passing them as if he is who's discovered them on Mars. Now, this is the problem: the images are being re-used, and i can understand it because not all are able to use Photoshop, but what about the findings? This is the problem. Are the findings to take as "free for use" and is everyone free to claim and/or make the people think that he's the original finder of those formations on Mars? In the field of the research, this is an unfair self attribution of the discovery, imho. Of course i could be wrong, the purpose of this thread is just to clarify Thank you for taking the time to answer.


[edit on 9/1/2008 by internos]

See this is what i'm talking about. I didn't say anything that warrented that graphic. Lets try again...and how bout instead of sending me warnings you just edit my post cause i didnt' see anthing offensive in there. or at least explain to me what you don't like.

Anyway...

I strongly belive you are all over reacting. First off because, nothing you say here (or on any web forum) is copyrighted. Regardless of what they tell you, a post is not protected by any sort of copyright law. Unless you mail a copy of something to yourself, it's not legally copyrighted. Even with a date of post, or proof that you made it before the other person..it's not valid.

Why? Because the post office stamps mail. That stamp is an official government symbol. Because it has an official government symbol..sometimes mailed copys of work are accepted..but they must not be opened prior to trial or else it's invalid. So unless you have paid your 30$ to copyright something..or mailed a copy to yourself via snail mail..sorry but your "work" isn't copyrighted.

Lol this had me dying of laughter:

"All material posted on the AboveTopSecret web site is copyrighted. You will be proceeded with if you do not tender an apology to the author and the web site concerned.

You will also need to mention this apology/clarification as to who the original author actually is on this very forum."

There's a few problems with this. Not ALL material posted here is copyright protected. The majority of what gets posted on this forum is opinions...not copyright protected works. There's a difference..between lets say...the pentacon (just using it as an example..i don't like the film or what it stands for just for the record.) and some guys opinions.

Pentacon uses original footage..and it's presented for a consumer. IT's copyright protected. However someone replying: "i thought the pentacon was really good" is NOT copyright protected..because that's just somebodys opinion of the movie.

So there won't be any apologies issued to this site or the authors...Mostly because of the attitude on this site. From what i've seen, i feel ATS is only filled with the most pompus, arrogant, and snooty of people. Every time i turn around it seems as if someones trying to snub their nose at you. I think these people cloning the threads are just expressing their anger and trying to piss you guys off..obviously it's working.

Plus with the needlessly strict mods clamping down every 5 minutes..this place can get on a persons nerves very quick. I think a big reason people "steal" this stuff from you..is not as a compliment..but as a sign of disrepsect. I don't feel it's because of the site generating "better" content..i think it's a way for some people to get back at the mods and members that just grate each other nerves.

Now it's also my opinion that you guys are spending to much of your time on this. There are better things to worry about, and i'm sure more constructive ways you could be spending your internet time..than searching google to see who "stole" your threads. IS it really that serious? The answer is most definatley no.

This is not a big deal nor is it something to get all whiney about. Just let it go and let them do what they wanna do. There are many more cloned threads of not only alien engineering on mars, but others..on more sites as well...just deal with it, be the "bigger men" and let it go..this is the internet after all. I would think the failure of the RIAA to succsesfully stop free music downloading, would have shown yall that anythings fair game in cyber space. =\

weeee red tape and legal stuff! Thank god I don't possess the guilt or morals needed to follow such trivial suggestions.

As said, it doesn't matter to me if somewhere there's a THIEF that someone is attempting to defend. Both make me laugh, frankly.
This could discourage many people from posting here their findings, but won't discourage me since in these days i received many messages from people who knows what is respect, and who respect what i do here: it's NOT a matter of copyright or of money: it's a matter of respect: and if someone has no clue what is respect, of course is not my bad. There are people who are able to behave in a civil manner, there are other people who are unable at all. As there are people UNABLE to find out something by themselves, there are people unable to use photoshop, there are people unable to give the due credits, and there are even people unable to understand that we put EFFORTS in what we do here: to give the credits to me, does NOT make me rich i hope that at least you get it. To do not give the credits, means only that these people have NO CLUE what is RESPECT for the works and the efforts putted here. Since i always give the credit when i quote someone else's works, i'm sure that no one will come to ask me for his credits, i'm UNTROUBLED at all. Someone else lives with the constant fear to be found to be a thief: i don't think that they are as serene as i am, and anyway it's not a problem for me. I'll keep posting here, no matter if the contents are being STOLEN: i cannot allow a THIEF to impeed me to post on ATS with THE ONLY PURPOSE OF SHARING what i do with the other ATSers.


[edit on 10/1/2008 by internos]

Edit: removed answer to removed post

[edit on 10/1/2008 by internos]

extremely displeasurable behavior? wow. Sorry, will not step out of line ever again. If anyone has a faint interest in what I said, please U2U me and I will say it again privately, it was not offensive or disruptive IMO. If that's the only way I can communicate in a civil manner, so be it.

[edit on 10-1-2008 by scientist]

We seem to be having a number of "different opinions," and a few detractors who seemingly are glomming on the negative side of this issue simply for disruption's sake.


No matter your personal opinion of whether or not the material posted by ATS members is worthy of intellectual property defense, the fact remains, it is indeed legally protected and fully defensible. Rest assured that we have indeed sought professional legal advice that is eminently experienced in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and intellectual property law as it applies to our somewhat unique situation.


We've taken the issue of appropriate use of intellectual property very seriously for years. Our proactive policies of limiting the amount of off-site material members can post and image hot-linking restrictions are proof that we practice what we preach.

While much of the material posted to ATS by members consists of commentary or theorization on items and ideas found elsewhere, a goodly portion consists of original research and/or complex dissertations. These original and/or more-complex contributions are those that are most likely to be used without appropriate attribution... or even outright plagiarized.

When we become aware of non-attribution, improper usage, or plagiarized content, we seek remedy with gusto. Our tactics are fair, legally sound, and strictly comply with DMCA guidelines.

Most often, we ask that those who are violating the intellectual property rights of our members to simply comply with the attribution requirements of our Creative Commons deed. More than ninety-eight percent of the time, the simple attribution request is honored and everyone is happy.


The motivations of those using our content are always revealed in these situations. For example, recently a reasonably active UFO blog was using a highly-popular photo that was unique to ATS. Rather than simply link to the source as specified in our usage guidelines, they removed it. Some time ago, an "up and coming" podcast aggregator literally copied all our podcasts to their servers, and delivered them without attribution, links, or mention of ATS. Rather than provide appropriate links and deliver the podcasts off our servers and feeds, they choose to remove them.


Unfortunately, the waters become "muddy" in the types of situations that inspired this particular "content stealing" thread. While wholesale replication of the words of an entire unique post is easily defensible, replication of an altered public domain image is much more difficult to defend... if not nearly impossible. If you tend to do this, and are concerned this may happen, your best course of action is to uniquely identify your image with good-sized watermark.


We are now the most-trafficked website in our genre of "alternative topics." A major contributing factor is the quality of the material posted by our members. As such, many people of limited ethics and scruples will be inspired to lift content and claim it as their own or use it without attribution. Imitation is indeed a sincere form of flattery, but stealing is stealing and we will continue to defend what you contribute to ATS.

next we know, ATS will be doing all it can to enforce the Patriot Act as well.

I apologize ahead of time if this appears like an excessive quote, but hear me out - I believe it's necessary to provide some insight into my perspective, which is obviously polar to most of ATS, especially the staff.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
recently a reasonably active UFO blog was using a highly-popular photo that was unique to ATS. Rather than simply link to the source as specified in our usage guidelines, they removed it. Some time ago, an "up and coming" podcast aggregator literally copied all our podcasts to their servers, and delivered them without attribution, links, or mention of ATS. Rather than provide appropriate links and deliver the podcasts off our servers and feeds, they choose to remove them.

so now, the question is - what was the biggest offense here? For a conspiracy minded forum, the most common thread is regarding how MSM is suppressing stories, and important messages aren't getting out. The UFO posters say that the internet is full of hoaxes and etc.

So now that some quality content is actually getting out there, those complaints must be silenced... but new ones pop up! Now people demand that they be associated with their comments and opinions, in case it gets so popular, that they can tack on some credit to their voice? Perhaps I am not understanding something.

In many posts we are reminded not to use excessive quoting, and the image restrictions on size are pretty strict on this forum. It seems like having someone copy all the podcasts to their own server and host them would take a huge load off the server, while still getting the message out. Don't the podcasts mention ATS in them at all?

It just seems to counter-intuitive to what a forum is all about! It's about posting ideas, and occasionally convincing someone of your stance, or at least giving light to a new perspective that wasn't there before. It seems the greater harm is in suppressing that information, compared to not giving credit to its "owner" every step of the way.

Originally posted by scientist
So now that some quality content is actually getting out there, those complaints must be silenced... but new ones pop up!

I have no idea what you mean by this.

It seems like having someone copy all the podcasts to their own server and host them would take a huge load off the server, while still getting the message out.

They were playing them in their own player, surround by mostly inappropriate ads from advertisers we'd never allow on ATS.

It just seems to counter-intuitive to what a forum is all about! It's about posting ideas, and occasionally convincing someone of your stance, or at least giving light to a new perspective that wasn't there before.

Indeed. But your stance exhibited in this thread with regard to content ethics is highly counter-intuitive to forums and your statement. No post or page of any thread on ATS exists on it's own in a vacuum. The context of the discussion is vitally important to an understanding of the topic... and that is what a social content community (forum) is all about. It's not about single posts, it's about the context. It's not about photos, it's about the discussion. Regardless of the appropriately defensible intellectual property issues, "giving light to a new perspective" is best-served by the entire context, which means linking to the source thread, or post within the thread.

Anyone who is truly concerned about sharing information, ideas, and a "new perspective" should be enthusiastic about linking to that information in its original context. We certainly are.

Anyone who is reluctant or refuses to link to content in its original context is displaying or otherwise stealing the content for selfish means... there is no other explanation such actions.

It seems the greater harm is in suppressing that information,

We've never attempted to suppress anything.