I Made Another Bot

in #bot • 7 years ago

This is simple and easy. I made this bot so that if I see a post that has copyrighted photos or improper attribution it will leave the comment.

I will no longer comment with my account as I feel if all the comments are on a single account (this one) it will be slightly more streamlined to find posts that were commented on to see if they fixed the problem. It is a part of the steemstem guidelines that you reference your photos and to not break copyright laws (or do our best not to)

The comment left is:

One or more of your photos is breaking some form of copyright, whether it be that the photos require proper attribution or are licensed in such a way that they are not free to use. For more information, check out this post here on steemstem copyright standards.

Sincerely,
@kryzsec

And it links to the copyright guidelines post by steemstem. This bot informs you that you have copyrighted works, nothing else. Because all curation is manual through steemstem it will not upvote "incase a mistake was made" like with cheetah. This is being done in an attempt for sake of transparency and because I know a lot of people want feedback.

#steemstem
7 years ago in #bot by
$29.55
  • Past Payouts $29.55
  • - Author $23.37
  • - Curators $6.18
62 votes
Reply 6
Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     7 years ago (edited)

    First of all, thanks for bot :)

    I have 2 questions:

    1. If the Figure from the paper or the photo from the microscope is my, original work, and it's published (*in more or less that form) does it count as the violation? Because it's "original", "parent" photo, but it could be interpreted as the "modification of the published"
    2. In case of a paper like this, licenced as Open Access and with the clear statement that it can be used, can we do screenshots?

    I know from the recent case that the screenshot of copyright protected material is illegal

    $0.07
    • Past Payouts $0.07
    • - Author $0.07
    • - Curators $0.00
    1 vote
    Reply
    [-]
     7 years ago 

    I have a feeling where I doubt you will get comments form this bot, anyways lets jump into this.

    If the Figure from the paper or the photo from the microscope is my, original work, and it's published (*in more or less that form) does it count as the violation? Because it's "original", "parent" photo, but it could be interpreted as the "modification of the published"

    If you are taking a picture of something that is your work then I believe that you hold the copyright to it, even if you are following the directions of someone else. So if you hold the copyright then you would have to state somewhere that you are the copyright holder.

    In case of the paper like this, licenced as Open Access and with the clear statement that it can be used, can we do screenshots?

    If a study is open source then I believe that you may quote or use screenshots from the paper in question though in many (to all) cases a proper attribution is required, which is more than just a link sending you to the original source.

    I hope that makes sense

    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       7 years ago (edited)

      I'm mostly concerned with the Q1, because once I get something published - it's locked even from myself. There are some papers I wrote, but I only have "Proof Version", and I have never seen the final version. In other words, it looks like I gave them all the rights.

      Concerning the Open Access, warning for the authors, although it an Open access, there are still several sub-types:

      • "do whatever you want"
      • "only non-commercial"
      • "ok but don't change it"
      • "ok, but it must stay under the same license"

      And the combinations of all 4 previously mentioned cases

      So, those symbols are ok:

      and I suppose this one, but it's little grey (SA - share-alike):

      This is very grey as SteemIt is sort of commercial:

      I have no idea if it's ND (is direct screenshot a derivative or "original")

      So, what's the final agreement after the post by @mobbs ?

      $0.00
        Reply
        [-]
         7 years ago 

        I, personally, stay away from NC because I see steemit as a form of profit. SA is okay as long as proper attribution is given (many do not do this which is the main reason why this bot is created as many do not do the proper attribution.

        I do not know the proper answer to say for question 1 (mobbs did go through the difference between SA, NC, CC0, etc)

        $0.00
          Reply
          [-]
           7 years ago 

          Noncommercial is specifically related to making money from something, so in our case unless we choose to deny upvotes from our post, we shouldn't use them. UNLESS we ask permission. Email would count as evidence if they for whatever reason changed their minds.

          I've emailed many scientists saying how I expect to make a certain amount of money from it and they've always welcomed it and expressed interest in seeing the final post. This is the best way to bypass the restrictions of law.

          Regarding giving the rights to others, yes it would be like selling your rights to others but unless it's written in contract form with your signature it has little meaning and thus you basically still hold the original form - which is yours.

          There's a lot of in depth answers you can explore in the USA FAQ which should clarify most things

          $0.00
            Reply