DO NOT POST Copyrighted material

[trottigy]

I know many of you will have had the copyright announcement this week. It goes like this:

 

Posting Material on Websites and Social Media: While we may share information from the organization’s websites by sending a link to individuals, we should not post on the Internet or on social media any artwork, electronic publications, trademarks, music, photos, videos, or articles from our websites. This would include theocratic programs on jw.org or JW Stream, such as monthly broadcasts, congregation meetings, circuit assemblies, and conventions. If you have posted such material on any website or social media without permission, please remove it. More information on this topic can be found in the April 2018 issue of The Watchtower, pages 30-31, and on jw.org under “Terms of Use.”

 

 

You may wonder if you need to have a post removed or edited. We can remove something that you feel violates copyright policy, but you should know - the moderators ALREADY work hard to make sure posts DO NOT violate that policy. This explains why at times – we have removed or edited certain posts OR asked the poster to share directly, like music, rather than through this site - JWTalk. We do not want to violate copyright laws.

 

In fact, we have a copyright policy on our site. It is here -> 

 

If you read that announcement, you’ll see that LINKS are OK. That is the very first sentence in that announcement:

 

“While we may share information from the organization’s websites by sending a link to individuals”.

 

The way many websites work now – IF you link to a picture, the picture or artwork shows BUT it directs to the source. Links are OK and do not violate copyrights. BUT if you download artwork or a song and post it THEN you have violated copyright. Why? Because it appears as if it is yours, but it is not – it belongs to the source/ creator of that work.

 

So, to recap – LINKS to the source are OK, but do not upload as if the artwork or music is your own  IF it is not.

 

Edited Wednesday at 05:39 PM by trottigy

[Brandon]

1 hour ago, trottigy said:

LINKS to the source are OK

You’ll need to clarify this statement: many friends have been copying the download link (which is in fact publicly viewable on JW.org webpages) — but if you paste that link onto many platforms such as Discord or Telegram (probably all the messaging apps?) then it does not direct to jw.org — so is this ok?

 

The announcement to the congregations still did not clarify this at all.

 

Perhaps it’s only permissible if you add a second link to JW.org ?  Or is it wrong to paste links to files which we copied from jw.org download links

Example: 

[Brandon]

Edit; woah, I see this forum software takes it further and hides the link I pasted! So there is no link at all (however the video still show the source at the end of the video)

 

on discord you get the link (the domain is jw-cdn.org) and the playable video 

Edited Wednesday at 06:56 PM by Brandon

[trottigy]

58 minutes ago, Brandon said:

You’ll need to clarify this statement: many friends have been copying the download link (which is in fact publicly viewable on JW.org webpages) — but if you paste that link onto many platforms such as Discord or Telegram (probably all the messaging apps?) then it does not direct to jw.org — so is this ok?

 

The announcement to the congregations still did not clarify this at all.

 

Perhaps it’s only permissible if you add a second link to JW.org ?  Or is it wrong to paste links to files which we copied from jw.org download links

Example: 

 

I can't answer for Discord or Telegram. I don't know why the link doesn't post correctly.

 

All I can say is - they specifically said senidng a link is OK.

 

As to this site "hiding" the video ... Here is an example:

 

You COULD click the option that usually pops up at the bottom of a post after you post a link and select "Display as a link instead". Then the picture doesn't show at all

 

 

OR if you hover a picture you can usually see the link at the bottom of the webpage or right at the cursor or click on the image and look at the page you are at:

 

 

You can see that this link is at jw.org - or exactly jw-cdn.org . This is not jwtalk.

 

I hope that helps.

 

EDIT: note how that is different from the pictures that I made and uploaded. ALSO, as I was doing this I also noted that you could just hit backspace after the picture shows and only the link remains as text.

 

There are lots of options.

 

But - posting the link would be ok. If you don't like that the software automatically grabs the photo to show - you can adjust that.

 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 07:52 PM by trottigy

[trottigy]

 

And as I imagine, some will wonder if the "embedding" feature that many sites use is against copyright or not ...

 

Is Embedding Photos on a Website Copyright Infringement? Ninth Circuit Says No.

https://www.msk.com/newsroom-alerts-embedding-copyright

 

It seems legal people that are way above my pay-grade have already asked this and gotten their answer.

 

And here -> https://natlawreview.com/article/serving-perfect-10-no-protection-embedding

 

Quote

Embedding is a method of displaying images on a website by directing a browser to retrieve an image from the host server. Instead of hosting an image file on a home server, a website merely pulls the image, along with any other content, from an external server and displays it.

.....

The court explained that under the “server test” set forth in Perfect 10, embedding websites that do not store an image or video does not “communicate a copy” of the image or video and therefore does not violate the copyright owner’s exclusive display right. The court explained that because Buzzfeed News and Time do not store images and videos, they do not “fix” the copyrighted work in any “tangible medium of express” (a copy), and therefore when they embed the images and videos on a website, they are not displaying “copies” of the copyrighted work. 

 

Note: if you post a link and the software grabs the photo, it is not stored on our server - it is just diplaying what is at the other end of that link.

 

This is why we don't want anyone to store/ upload a photo here, but instead use a link.  

Edited Wednesday at 07:14 PM by trottigy

[Brandon]

5 minutes ago, trottigy said:

jw.org - or exactly jw-cdn.org 

Those are two totally different domains 

 

5 minutes ago, trottigy said:

I hope that helps. 

It doesn’t at all. But thank you for the attempt, it’s appreciated.

 

To me, pasting a link that doesn’t even take you to jw.org (even though the phrase “jw” and “org” appear somewhere in the url)  seems not in the spirit of the direction, although it is still debatable — I wish the organization would be clearer. 
 

Secondly, there is no real difference between (1) embedding a file by pasting a direct file link; the file is now “posted” vs (2) downloading the file and uploading it again stop

 

in fact, if I’m scenario 2 you include a caption or link to jw.org you can rightfully argue it is better than pasting a file link

[trottigy]

4 minutes ago, Brandon said:

Those are two totally different domains 

 

It doesn’t at all. But thank you for the attempt, it’s appreciated.

 

To me, pasting a link that doesn’t even take you to jw.org (even though the phrase “jw” and “org” appear somewhere in the url)  seems not in the spirit of the direction, although it is still debatable — I wish the organization would be clearer. 
 

Secondly, there is no real difference between (1) embedding a file by pasting a direct file link; the file is now “posted” vs (2) downloading the file and uploading it again stop

 

in fact, if I’m scenario 2 you include a caption or link to jw.org you can rightfully argue it is better than pasting a file link

 

According to the ninth circuit in the US - there is a world of a difference:

 

Quote

Embedding is a method of displaying images on a website by directing a browser to retrieve an image from the host server. Instead of hosting an image file on a home server, a website merely pulls the image, along with any other content, from an external server and displays it.

.....

The court explained that under the “server test” set forth in Perfect 10, embedding websites that do not store an image or video does not “communicate a copy” of the image or video and therefore does not violate the copyright owner’s exclusive display right. The court explained that because Buzzfeed News and Time do not store images and videos, they do not “fix” the copyrighted work in any “tangible medium of express” (a copy), and therefore when they embed the images and videos on a website, they are not displaying “copies” of the copyrighted work. 

https://natlawreview.com/article/serving-perfect-10-no-protection-embedding

 

We don't store the image - the software just displays whats at the other end. The copyright holder can move, edit or change it in any way they wish. It is not stored here.

[Brandon]

5 minutes ago, trottigy said:

It seems legal people that are way above my pay-grade have already asked this and gotten their answer.

Whether it’s legal or not is completely beside the point as my question is what the letter we received meant when it said “posting” — perhaps even the publishing department at WHQ hasn’t considered that pasting a link in fact is “posting an entire copyrighted work” — it’s no different 

[trottigy]

We have not contacted the legal department, and we have not been contacted.

 

We feel we are following the intent of the “terms of use” and even put the policy mentioned above in place to ensure that the site does as well. As noted, we also moderate the site to the best of our ability to ensure it is followed. 

 

There are always numerous opinions about what is right vs wrong, and this is why there are laws and regulations and courts to litigate the exact meaning and intent. We will follow that.

 

That said, if you feel different and it would bother your conscience to even post a link, we are happy to remove whatever you posted that violates your conscience - within reason. You will just need to report each post that is yours and we can handle them one at a time as you report them.

 

This is why the first post I made stated,

 

2 hours ago, trottigy said:

 

You may wonder if you need to have a post removed or edited. We can remove something that you feel violates copyright policy, 

 

 

[Hope]

A brother I've known since I was 15 got after me yesterday on Facebook. He condemned my posting pics of myself and friends working a Metro shift because you could see the literature in the cart. You can't even read the titles... but that's copyright offense, in his opinion.  He also was upset that I posted Adam doing the Bible reading last week. Then posted up the Terms and Conditions from our site.

 

I informed him - for the hundredth time - that I am very well aware of what consists of copyright infringement. That the Bible is public domain and I can post my son reading it at any time I please, and that the mere sight of our literature, in a cart or on a table, does not come under that restriction, either. 😕  This brother rarely speaks to me on FB except to call out what he feels are errors... he's the same one that was upset that my photo of Adam reading the WT a few years ago had a picture from the WT on the screen behind him. And don't let me post a link, heaven forbid!  I asked him to please stop harassing me about this. 😠

 

So many things to be upset about. Even more to be friendly about. The gnat strainers need to get another hobby. In my humble opinion... 

[jdcarlson]

1 hour ago, Hope said:

He condemned my posting pics of myself and friends working a Metro shift because you could see the literature in the cart.

 

Everyone has their own sensibilities. Sometimes even those in Jehovah's organization will have sensibilities that differ from our own.

 

I remember in 1976 a sister waiting in line to go to the restroom at the District Convention berating another sister because her outfit included red, white, and blue items. The one doing the berating said that a sister should not wear "Patriotic Colors" during the "Be-Centennial" celebration in the U.S.

 

Even 49 years later I still cannot comprehend her logic.

 

But, just because we all put our faith in Jehovah and his kingdom, does not mean that we will all view everything the same way.

 

I avoid those problems by not having any social web presence.

 

Thanks,

 

Jim

[Brandon]

1 hour ago, Hope said:

I asked him to please stop harassing me about this. 

Why don’t you just block him

[BlaqueCalalilly]

6 hours ago, trottigy said:

We have not contacted the legal department, and we have not been contacted.

 

We feel we are following the intent of the “terms of use” and even put the policy mentioned above in place to ensure that the site does as well. As noted, we also moderate the site to the best of our ability to ensure it is followed. 

 

There are always numerous opinions about what is right vs wrong, and this is why there are laws and regulations and courts to litigate the exact meaning and intent. We will follow that.

 

 

I have a question...Can someone (admin) contact the legal department....just to be sure? ... I'd rather be safe than sorry so to speak in this regard.

 

[Tortuga]

Here is the announcement that was made in June 2021.

We receive the same announcement every year.

 

Posting Material on Websites and Social Media: While we may share information from the organization’s websites by sending a link to individuals, we should not post on the Internet any artwork, electronic publications, trademarks, music, photos, videos, or articles from our websites. This would include theocratic programs on jw.org or JW Stream, such as monthly broadcasts, congregation meetings, circuit assemblies, and conventions. If you have posted such material on any website or social media without permission, please re-move it. More information on this topic can be found in the April 2018 issue of The Watch-tower, pages 30-31, and on jw.org under “Terms of Use.”

Edited Thursday at 02:40 AM by Tortuga

[Alejandro]

I understand that it is possible because of the WhatsApp status. It is not internet, they are not social networks and they are deleted every 24 hrs.

Edited Thursday at 11:28 AM by Alejandro

[grain of mustard]

How can this website (JW.ORG) be used? Subject to the restrictions set forth below, 

 

👉🏻 *you may:* 

 

[DOWNLOAD FOR PERSONAL USE]

 

View, download, and print Watch Tower copyrighted photographs and prints, music, electronic publications, text, and videos from this site 👉🏻 *for personal, noncommercial use.* 

 

 

[SEND LINKS AND MEDIA FROM THE DOWNLOAD AREA OF THE SITE]

 

👉🏻 *Share links or electronic copies* of publications, videos, or audio that are 👉🏻 *available for download from this site.*

 

 

 

 👉🏻 *You may not:*

 

 

[ *DOES NOT INCLUDE YOUR CONGREGATION’S WHATSAPP GROUP*]

*Posting* photos, pictures, electronic publications, trademarks, music, videos or articles from this website on the Internet (which includes any website, social network and file and video sharing site).

 

[MAKING A SITE SIMILAR TO AND WITH JW PUBLICATIONS]

 

*Distributing* photos, pictures, electronic publications, trademarks, music, text or videos from this website 👉🏻 *as part of any software or application* (which includes uploading such content to a server that is used by a software or application).

 

 [COMMERCIALIZE]

 

Reproduce, duplicate, copy, distribute or otherwise use photos, pictures, electronic publications, trademarks, music, text or videos from this website 👉🏻 *for commercial purposes or in exchange for money (even if there is no profit involved).*

 

 

 

[CREATE MEANS OF DISTRIBUTING FILES THAT ARE NOT FOR DOWNLOAD]

 

Create, for the purpose of *distributing, any software, application, tool or technique* that serves specifically to collect, copy, download, extract or track data, HTML, images or text from this website. 👉🏻( *This does not prohibit the free, non-commercial distribution of applications designed to download electronic files such as EPUB, PDF, MP3 and MP4 files from 👉🏻 public areas of this website.)*

 

 

Improperly use this website or its services. For example, *interfering with it or accessing the website and its services by methods other than those clearly provided.*

 

 

Using this website in a way that causes, or may *cause, damage to it or impair the availability and accessibility of it.* It must also not be used in any unlawful, illegal, fraudulent or harmful way, or for any unlawful, illegal, fraudulent or harmful activities or purposes.

 

 

 

Using this website or any photos, pictures, electronic publications, trademarks, music, text or videos contained in it *for advertising purposes.*

 

 

This website uses the services of *Google Maps, which is a third-party service* over which we have no control. By using Google Maps on this website, you will be subject to the then-current Google Maps/Google Earth Additional Terms of Service. We are not notified of updates to these Terms of Service, so *please check these terms before using Google Maps services.* Do not use Google Maps services if you do not agree to the Terms of Service. Google Maps does not forward any user information to jw.org.

Edited Thursday at 03:24 PM by trottigy

[Michał]

2 hours ago, grain of mustard said:

 

 👉🏻 *You may not:*

 

 

[ *DOES NOT INCLUDE YOUR CONGREGATION’S WHATSAPP GROUP*]

*Posting* photos, pictures, electronic publications, trademarks, music, videos or articles from this website on the Internet (which includes any website, social network and file and video sharing site).

Where is it written in Terms of use that it doesn’t include WhatsApp groups?

 

 

[Hope]

15 hours ago, Brandon said:

Why don’t you just block him

I really detest blocking fellow brothers and sisters. It feels cold to me.

 

They're welcome to block me, if I'm so offensive. But all I ask is for people to scroll on if they don't like something. It's super easy. 😒😑

[trottigy]

1 hour ago, Michał said:

Where is it written in Terms of use that it doesn’t include WhatsApp groups?

 

 

 

It isn't in the terms of use. That was just a personal opinion by the poster.

 

Edit: to me this would be a good opportunity to use a link rather than downloading material and attaching it to a message. This would especially be true if these are our brothers and sisters - they know JW.org. 

Edited Thursday at 06:30 PM by trottigy

[grain of mustard]

3 horas atrás, Michał disse:

Onde está escrito nos Termos de Uso que não inclui grupos do WhatsApp?

 

 

O grupo de WhatsApp da sua congregação não é uma rede social pública, mas sim privada, com pessoas que você conhece e com a participação dos anciãos. Leia a Sentinela de abril de 2018 na seção de perguntas dos leitores. Ela explica que você deve ter cuidado ao postar em redes sociais abertas ao público. Além disso, pode haver apóstatas presentes. Você também pode postar mídias disponíveis na seção de downloads do site jw.org, conforme descrito nos termos de uso. 

 

private WhatsApp group, not a file sharing site  

Edited Thursday at 07:51 PM by grain of mustard
Adicional

[Ostria]

Most of the time when i see our stuff out in the wild it's because of the anti JW's doing commentary videos and stuff to just make us look bad, but are we REALLY expecting them to follow instructions?

[Cool.As.Ice]

2 hours ago, grain of mustard said:

O grupo de WhatsApp da sua congregação não é uma rede social pública, mas sim privada, com pessoas que você conhece e com a participação dos anciãos. Leia a Sentinela de abril de 2018 na seção de perguntas dos leitores. Ela explica que você deve ter cuidado ao postar em redes sociais abertas ao público. Além disso, pode haver apóstatas presentes. Você também pode postar mídias disponíveis na seção de downloads do site jw.org, conforme descrito nos termos de uso. 

 

private WhatsApp group, not a file sharing site  

Paul, you forgot to translate into English, brah  lol

 

Here is what Paul said:
 

Your congregation's WhatsApp group is not a public social network, but a private one, with people you know and with the participation of the elders. Read the April 2018 Watchtower in the readers' questions section. It explains that you should be careful when posting on social networks that are open to the public. Also, there may be apostates present. You can also post media available in the downloads section of the jw.org website, as described in the terms of use.

 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 09:54 PM by Cool.As.Ice

[daydream]

3 hours ago, Cool.As.Ice said:

April 2018 Watchtower

*** w18 April p. 31 par. 2 Questions From Readers ***
Furthermore, posting our publications on websites that allow comments provides a place for apostates and other critics to sow distrust of Jehovah’s organization. Some brothers have been drawn into online debates and thus have brought added reproach on Jehovah’s name. An online forum is not an appropriate setting for “instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed.”  It has also been observed that fraudulent social media accounts and websites have been created in the name of the organization, the Governing Body, and its individual members. However, no member of the Governing Body maintains a personal Web page or a presence on any social media site.
https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&docid=2018364&srctype=wol&srcid=share&par=6

 

@grain of mustardBrother, is your name Raul?

Edited yesterday at 01:27 AM by daydream

[grain of mustard]

1 hour ago, daydream said:

*** w18 abril p. 31 par. 2 Perguntas dos Leitores ***
Além disso, publicar nossas publicações em sites que permitem comentários fornece um espaço para apóstatas e outros críticos semearem a desconfiança na organização de Jeová . Alguns irmãos foram atraídos para debates online e, assim, trouxeram ainda mais vitupério ao nome de Jeová. Um fórum online não é um ambiente apropriado para “instruir com brandura os que não têm disposição favorável”. Também foi observado que contas e sites fraudulentos em redes sociais foram criados em nome da organização, do Corpo Governante e de seus membros individuais. No entanto, nenhum membro do Corpo Governante mantém uma página pessoal na web ou presença em qualquer site de mídia social.
https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&docid=2018364&srctype=wol&srcid=share&par=6

 

@grão de mostardaIrmão, seu nome é Raul?

Yes, my name is Raul 

[BlaqueCalalilly]

21 hours ago, Hope said:

I really detest blocking fellow brothers and sisters. It feels cold to me.

I understand where you are coming from.... I feel that way too....I would just mute him to give me some peace though...and/ or unfriend him.... I generally only block if ones start speaking against the Brothers...then you get blocked.... Note: I don't care If you are an admin of a group that I am in you do that then that is an automatic block...