Quick question: Does filmogs require users to post their own photos or get permission first to post an image, say, from an online retail site?

Images from external sites are not allowed and should be user contributed from the item in front of them.

In the following thread at Comicogs, staff member NessFan lays it out by saying

http://www.comicogs.com/forum/1115-A-growing-concern-of-some-images-here

"From the guidelines: "Images should be good quality, face-on, readable, correctly oriented and free of any copyright, watermark, URL, or other marks. Images should be static, no animated GIFs please. They must be of the exact object they are attached to. (13.1.4.)

Copyrighted or illegal images will be removed, and the user may be held accountable for their inclusion. (13.1.7.)"

Please ensure that the images uploaded to Comicogs follow the image guidelines. If anyone is looking to use images from other sites, always be sure to understand that site's copyright rules. If their website's images are protected under a copyright, then sharing them with Comicogs would be in violation of that website's copyright and our own image guidelines. I hope that makes sense. Happy submitting, everyone!"

"As it says in our guidelines, "Copyrighted or illegal images will be removed, and the user may be held accountable for their inclusion. (13.1.7.)""

Also, although i have only seen this on a few rare occasions, sometimes the uploaded image has been altered from the original.

It has crossed my mind in the past to add information of releases from "covers" websites, but after realising some of them had been tampered with or were completely false I decided to not even bother attempting to contribute data from these images.

Best to just keep to the real stuff.

I was just curious about the rules, because I've been seeing a lot of images of actors and the like, and wondered where those pics came from! Plus, I've been thinking about posting images of every single part of a release - cover, spine, back cover, disc images, inserts, etc. without any sort of watermark to prevent someone from downloading and using said images to create a bootleg copy - for themselves or for profit. As I have noticed, some releases are on DVD-R media to begin with; AND some of these releases are listed as limited to 25 copies, or something similar. Just throwing it out there...perhaps I don't believe in the goodness and honesty of people!!

Yeah I've thought of that, and with the fact that 'cogs as a whole now doesn't enforce any size restrictions on images also means that it is easily to duplicate.

I guess that is something the site owners/administrators will have to deal with if/when it may arise as an issue.

We've been submitting scans of complete releases on Discogs for a while now, and it's still going stronger than ever.

Where are people getting these non-copyrighted screen shots and images of actors, etc.?! I understand about the release photos -- but I am confused as to how all these images are being uploaded.

Are people taking photographs of their television sets to get a screen shot?

Where are people getting these non-copyrighted screen shots and images of actors, etc.?! I understand about the release photos -- but I am confused as to how all these images are being uploaded.

Are people taking photographs of their television sets to get a screen shot?

Images of actors are being taken from "publicly available publicity shots" as outlined in the Discogs image guidelines. https://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-images.html#Artist_Images

Still wondering about screen shots from tv episodes - not of actors but like this for example:

http://www.filmo.gs/film/34796-Airplane-a-Wing-and-a-Scare

This is more of an issue now than ever; REQUIRING users to submit images of the actual item in their possession would eliminate many issues.

The guidelines are quite clear. If you see instances of users uploading images that don't adhere to the guidelines you can add a history comment and discuss it with the user in question.

if i see copyright images i usally tell the user and t gets removed soon after.

alao unreadable images are a very big problem / images copied straight from amazon.

It's becomming tge norm on here people copy from stores and think they are helping, how do we stop this.

I'm talking about images around 100×200 pixels which you can't even read the front case.

new user using watermarked images https://www.filmo.gs/users/edcanola

and copying directly from online sources

i disabled like all his images and told him watermarked images is not permitted on any of the ogs sities.

and copying directly from online sources

The LaserDisc Database is used often for this sort of thing.

See also Criterion Collection website and various horror and wrestling VHS/DVD/Blu-ray sites. Let's not forget Amazon.

Nothing can or will be done about this.

It's annoying trying to check for companies, i think it should be required to upload a front and back image of the product.

Otherwise we will have lots of amazon copies.

Another new user using stock online source images.

https://www.filmo.gs/users/c_hallowell?sort=date_added%2Cdesc

Jo_Store it is annoying but like EK_ has mentioned its something that we will struggle to deal with, certainly at this stage of the site. This is a problem that unforunately plagues every single community based website where people are more focused on meaningless points than actually submitting useful data.

If you find the image is not up to the guidelines:
https://www.filmo.gs/guidelines/general#images

You have the right to disable it as a community member of the website, of course explaining why the image has been disabled and refer back to the guidelines.

Of course if you find yourself in a situation where the original submitter is working against you actively then you can submit a support request to the team:
https://support.discogslabs.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

If you come across a sub that has lacking information and you have the release right in front of you then I am always of the understanding that you can take that release and begin to add detail to it. Of course try and make every attempt to make sure the lacking release is likely the same as the release you are adding - which I know is not easy to do when the original submitter hasn't added anything helpful and probably has never (and will never) own the physical item.

An example would be, if you find the release has only one item of identification, say barcode, as yours then you could probably assume that it is the same release. Yes you won't get "the point" for it but that's not the idea, and really what is a point here and there to lose? In the last 6 months of subs this has occured only maybe once or twice, with the rest of the "matches" being to submissions which were already reasonably detailed with images.

An example would be, if you find the release has only one item of identification, say barcode, as yours then you could probably assume that it is the same release.

I wouldn't assume that (using a GTIN as the only identifier). Some titles will have same identifiers with cover/packaging variants - usually later printings. And without front and back images of the actual product the entire release should be DELETED!!!!! In my opinion. :)

EK wrote_:

An example would be, if you find the release has only one item of identification, say barcode, as yours then you could probably assume that it is the same release.

I wouldn't assume that (using a GTIN as the only identifier). Some titles will have same identifiers with cover/packaging variants - usually later printings. And without front and back images of the actual product the entire release should be DELETED!!!!! In my opinion. :)

Yes, if the staff starteddoing that it would help :)

i asked user molten.gold to change images on

https://www.filmo.gs/release/343783-machete-kills/history

due to the watermark and being 240x240 pixels he did though however and he says.

unreadable? i could see it when i listed it - what means unreadable? this is not a book ... just kidding ... do not find a better one and cannot see if it is watermark. please do me a favor and upload an appropriate one for me. unless we do not have a picture until someone else comes along and does it. i'd really appreciate. thank you, norb

and what does a norb mean?

Its a shame how this site is going :(

i contaced staff about how we can resolve around this in best pratices.

cause molten has uploaded a few really bad quality images my gut is telling me to disable them but i know he will just re-upload something from another website.

Staff has been M.I.A.

Now i read up on discogs picture rules.

they say bad quality images should not be used for releases of an item eg dvd bluray cd etc.

This means the use of low quality pictures around 100 x 200 pixels should not be used on any ogs sities.

Now i told molten on this one below but he just reuploaded the same image here.

https://www.filmo.gs/release/344298-morning-of-the-earth

and gonna disable this one being 200 × 300 pixels, which is low quality and i can't see whats in the bottom right corner.

https://www.filmo.gs/release/344516-keoma-melodie-des-sterbens

I will refer molten to here so he can read the reasons and i hope he dosen't ignore me and reupload the same size images.

And this one 200 x 300 ...

https://www.filmo.gs/release/344540-last-days

why are all these bad quality getting uploaded there is no point to even try and catalouge items with not having the item in hand.

well he fixed one but still reuploading bad quality on last days and morning of the earth.

I think the reply from sound.and.vision above covers the best way to tackle these submissions.

  • Do disable low quality and watermarked images
  • Let the original submitters know why you are doing so through history comments or submission notes.
  • Link them to the image guidelines or threads like this
  • Kindly encourage detailed pictures
  • If you have the exact item in your possesion, add a better image yourself.

EK wrote_:

Staff has been M.I.A.

Apologies for slowness in replies. Mostly due to summer holiday season, with people away from their keyboards.

Mostly due to summer holiday season

Summer is the worst. Too warm, too bright, too many children and stupid adults being loud and disturbing me.

kalli wrote:

I think the reply from sound.and.vision above covers the best way to tackle these submissions.

  • Do disable low quality and watermarked images
  • Let the original submitters know why you are doing so through history comments or submission notes.
  • Link them to the image guidelines or threads like this
  • Kindly encourage detailed pictures
  • If you have the exact item in your possesion, add a better image yourself.

Thanks kalli this is what i have been encoraging, on morning of the earth he said "i can't find another image, so no image then"

as i kindle linked him here and to the discogs picture rules and saying low quality pictures are not permitted on the ogs sities.

I also asked if he could add pictures of the item.

Everyone should start disabling ALL the online sourced images that show the release at an angle.

per guidelines:

"Images should be good quality, face-on, readable, correctly oriented..."

Ok thanks eK if i see them from now will do.

What can we do about this user?

https://www.filmo.gs/users/y82ws6

They only add the front of product i have asked this user a few times to add a back of product but they just ignore it.

Jo_Store wrote:

What can we do about this user?

https://www.filmo.gs/users/y82ws6

They only add the front of product i have asked this user a few times to add a back of product but they just ignore it.

Including images of the back cover is good to have but we don't consider it a requirement for a submission

users still uploading low quality images i have been asking most of the new ones to change to better quality.

i can't even read 300 x 500 pixels.

Jo_Store wrote:

users still uploading low quality images i have been asking most of the new ones to change to better quality.

i can't even read 300 x 500 pixels.

Do what I say, not what I do eh?

cough Keith Franke Jr cough

i was not even talking about you Thewho i was talking about other users making FILM RELEASES not CREDITS.

Though yes its a low quality image you uploaded.

and also not face on.

Your image was worse, it was smaller and distorted, why must you insist it stays, even thought now there is a better one?

the better one is the main picture.

the other is a alt picture we got better issues then to argue over pictures leave it as it is we don't need another vandalisim act.

But shouldent the low quality image be removed? Or is this another you can't be wrong so everyone else must accept it scenarios?

I like how everyone agreed on legal name for credits though the rules say "Use correct spelling in this field" Nothing about god damm birth names are required.

For actor role cr** There is currently no agreed role for the general cast members of a film. Many films entered simply refer to these roles as Cast, however for non-fiction film entries it may be more suitable to use Featuring or Presented By. For animated feautres many prefer to use the role Voice or Voice Actor. For music video entries it is preferred to use the role type Performer. that is the rule there is no agreed role.

I am done with the salty pr**** who think they own the fourms useres should check the rules before making new ones.

and yes the lower quality image should be disabled, go right ahead vandalise it like you do most of my credit pages.

Don't even give me a chance to fix it up, or correct spelling as soon as i make a new credit "Wrestling related" its changed unless we get the staff confirming lrgal names and add it too the rules DO NOT CHANGE THEM.

You mean when both ring and legal names were being used intermittently, it was extremly confusing and leads to duplicate pages being made.

I would have felt it simpler and easier to have gone with ring names, but the decision was made BEFORE I made any changes, therefore all I did was made the changes uniform across all credits I could find.

You seem to think I'm, targeting you somehow, all I see was see wrestlers in the recent additions feed and check their names and if they were duplicates, they were in the middle of the list so had been there a while.

I have been under the impression you have been targeting me, following what I add and being overly critical of anything I post on these forums.

NOTE: I feel that the image on the Keith Franke Jr wiki page is much more appropriate.

"Adorable" Adrian Adonis - R.I.P.

Well can we change them all back, if there is no rules its users making new rules which were never made.

The staff never set it in stone, i would prefer if its like IMDB just copy names off there and paste them into the credits, if not i will change them all back "myself"

If they get changed afain i will re change them, EK was the one who jumped up and down about this and created the rule.

EK wrote_:

NOTE: I feel that the image on the Keith Franke Jr wiki page is much more appropriate.

"Adorable" Adrian Adonis - R.I.P.

That was the image I added that was deemed unsuitable.

Jo_Store wrote:

Well can we change them all back, if there is no rules its users making new rules which were never made.

The staff never set it in stone, i would prefer if its like IMDB just copy names off there and paste them into the credits, if not i will change them all back "myself"

If they get changed afain i will re change them, EK was the one who jumped up and down about this and created the rule.

I support this, I'm going through adding source links to credits I've edited so I'll fix any as I go through them, I'd also add if they have wrestled under their legal/birth name, that name takes precident, for example John Cena, Bryan Danielson and Claudio Castagnoli.

I'd also like to apologize for my passive aggressive comment that started this, I tried to sort this out via the notes, however you seemed to be ignoring them after I made the changes.

EK was the one who jumped up and down about this and created the rule.

...???...

I was writing about the IMAGE not the title of the CREDIT page.

I've liked the Adorable Adrian Adonis gimmick since I first saw it as a kid. A bleached blonde, 300+ pound dude in pink spandex wrestling trunks AND leg warmers. Visually very stunning!

<hr/>

So what is it going to be fellows? Actual names or an in-ring persona//gimmick for CREDITS? Whatever you two decided to do, be consistent about it and let us know. OK? :)

EK wrote_:

So what is it going to be fellows? Actual names or an in-ring persona//gimmick for CREDITS? Whatever you two decided to do, be consistent about it and let us know. OK? :)

Since Jo changed a few to ring names and I think it makes more sence to work that way I think that should be the best direction, I was about to hit a load of wrestlers in adding source links to credits from my submissions so I've changed a few of those myself.

I'd suggest for the future for wrestles, only use real names if they move into films/TV/politics after wrestling (Rock, Batista and Kane), if they used their birth/legal name as a ring name (Bryan Danielson and Claudio Castagnoli) or if they have had so many ring names over the years their birth/legal name would be easier (Matt Bloom).

thank you thewho im sorry about before.

I agree with that as well if tge wrestlers move into a film role (Triple H, Batista, Edge, Daniel Bryan, The Miz, Tiger Joe Marsh) among others.

andré was creted as André the Giant in his early films.

What about multiple ring names? Home video from different federations will list/credit an individual differently. Multiple credit pages now? It's a bad idea having credits for certain individuals with legal names and others with one (or more) ring names. It will cause confusion not only for sports entertainers but actors AND creators credited multiple ways. Until there is a searchable alternate name field in the credits, legal name is the way to go.

EK wrote_:

What about multiple ring names? Home video from different federations will list/credit an individual differently. Multiple credit pages now? It's a bad idea having credits for certain individuals with legal names and others with one (or more) ring names. It will cause confusion not only for sports entertainers but actors AND creators credited multiple ways. Until there is a searchable alternate name field in the credits, legal name is the way to go.

I think putting their alternate names in their profile text field would be good for now until alternate name fields are added for credits. Then perhaps in either automated fashion, or more easily one can go through that profile info to create alternate names when they are added. I'm doing that now with many of the Russian name credits, which are harder to immediately notice (with only Russian text credits and not their English text names that are shown on sites in IMDB currently when entering film info) if there are duplicates in the DB, even if one looks at the credit values now. Fortunately the original URL that they are stored under in most cases has the English text name there. I would like to help that would help later in avoiding credit duplicates.

what ever imdb says and then add all there ring names.

As IMDB is the main website which gives you a full read out of the credits.

Shouldn't you consult the ACTUAL ITEM // VIDEO for the credit listings?

IMDb is not the end-all, be-all. It is user generated and edited content. Just like Filmogs.

Wrestling dvds and indie films do not have a credits role out at the end of the film.

For example how am i suppose to know the refree's names in wrestling? or the cameramen?

for bigger films it would take a whole day sitting in front of a dvd copying credits over from the dvd in player to filmogs, even grabing them off the back case does not print all the credts they even miss main credits sometimes.

I only use imdb for the credits, many other users do the same or just add one credit.

Having one credit is very helpful.

EK wrote_:

What about multiple ring names? Home video from different federations will list/credit an individual differently. Multiple credit pages now? It's a bad idea having credits for certain individuals with legal names and others with one (or more) ring names. It will cause confusion not only for sports entertainers but actors AND creators credited multiple ways. Until there is a searchable alternate name field in the credits, legal name is the way to go.

I guess you missed the part where I said "if they have had so many ring names over the years their birth/legal name would be easier (Matt Bloom)".

I would also technically agree to have them all under birth/legal names for simplicity, HOWEVER due tot he basic set up for credits currently, where thereis no place fr alt names, if someone were to add wrestler credits they would most likely add their ring names before real names.

I'd also agree that IMDb is not the best resource as one wrestler I found had two IMDb pages on them, but considering the purpose of this site, IMDb and Wikipedia are the best resources away from the actual source material.

Thank you thewho i agree with that as well.

Now staff lets get it in writing please.

Jo_Store wrote:

Thank you thewho i agree with that as well.

Now staff lets get it in writing please.

I'd rather say "HEY STAFF, FIX CREDITS!!!"

Also another thing I'd strongly suggest doing is to add source links to credits, that way even if there is no image there is something to suggest who that credit should be and can justify main and duplicate credits.

Yes, that is a good idea.

If it is a whole different person we use (2) (3) what ever the next avalible number is it's written in the rules as the system same as companies.

New user.

i have asked on 2 ones he made about the images he first uploaded them at 200 x 200 pixels on

https://www.filmo.gs/release/353708-avengers-infinity-war

and

https://www.filmo.gs/release/353740-strangers-on-a-train-two-disc-special-edition

on the avengers he reactivatecd the same image, i asked him again to add a new one though i hope this dosen't turn into a edit war.

Hi guys, I need your help with a blatant case of image theft. I'm running an online store for LaserDiscs and I have several thousand ones listed. I've optimizing my process to take perfect pictures of the LD's but after a previous case of theft I usually keep a few imperfections in there to be able to identify them

As I have collected thousands of pictures I was about to update the database here when I saw that the user "idefix23" already uploaded more than 3,000 of my cover images. I always leave a white space around the covers but idefix23 cropped the images. But you can still see the exact same light leaks, damages etc. I asked him to remove them all and already started deactivating 300+ entries myself. He said he does not understand why I'm making such a big deal, "it's just pictures". Sigh.

I was speechless and after a few more emails he removed them all. All 3,000. But now, another user with the name "PanchoSancho" started uploading the same pictures again. And this user is new and quite obviously the same person.

Here are a few examples from my shop and from the entries here. Click on the pictures and compare ...

https://www.lasermovies.de/de/drama/5571-laserdisc-casablanca-pal-deutsch.html
https://www.filmo.gs/release/311268-casablanca

https://www.lasermovies.de/de/drama/6403-2918-laserdisc-cadence-pal-deutsch.html#/31-zustand-neu_versiegelt
https://www.filmo.gs/release/329069-cadence-ein-fremder-klang

https://www.lasermovies.de/de/thriller/5705-1885-laserdisc-Black-Rain-PAL-Deutsch.html#/33-zustand-gebraucht_sehr_gut
https://www.filmo.gs/release/301226-black-rain

I could go on forever.

The thing is, I could follow through with the official processes to have them all taken down but for me this is more of a community thing and about standards and morale. And to know this guy is listed as one of the top contributors really p#sses me off.

How can we stop this madness and what's everybody's opinion on that?

Well for 1 its impossible to stop this as users like him and others just take items directly from online stores, though in the rules it states item must be in hand when submitted.

However saying the new user is him how do you have proof? other then both accounts created in 2016?.

However the image rules just say high quality images how are the staff / main users suppose to patrol this when all the images are good quality, if you are allright with them keep them up on here, if not remove them.

Well, the new account is from 2019 and just created a few weeks ago. So shortly after I dealt with him. Ofcourse I don't have proof but he uploads the exact same pictures.

I don't expect the staff to patrol it and frankly I'm certainly the only one to see those rip-offs from a mile away.

And no, it is not alright. If he would at least use the link feature to link to my shop. But no, I made those pictures, it takes me a lof of time and it unacceptable.

And I tried removing them, would you want to remove thousands of pictures? It's insane. There must be another way and there must be people here who acknowledge this as no right!

I'd argue this falls under fair use. The actual copyright is in regards to the original material, which you are breaking by photographing it, however you are allowed to do so and use them under fair use, which is the same purpose it is being used here.

TheWho87 wrote:

I'd argue this falls under fair use. The actual copyright is in regards to the original material, which you are breaking by photographing it, however you are allowed to do so and use them under fair use, which is the same purpose it is being used here.

How can it be fair use when this is a marketplace and sellers and Discogs make money from the entries that use stolen photos?

I would agree if this is a purely educational site. But it's not. It's not Wikipedia, this site is a business. That must have escaped some people here.

Pot/kettle considering all pages you linked include "add to cart".

magniz wrote:

TheWho87 wrote:

I'd argue this falls under fair use. The actual copyright is in regards to the original material, which you are breaking by photographing it, however you are allowed to do so and use them under fair use, which is the same purpose it is being used here.

How can it be fair use when this is a marketplace and sellers and Discogs make money from the entries that use stolen photos?

I would agree if this is a purely educational site. But it's not. It's not Wikipedia, this site is a business. That must have escaped some people here.

Yeah i have to say fair use as well, images under fairuse in rules say they are fine i sugguet contact thr staff you can open a new request about copyright images here.

https://support.discogslabs.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

if you put a clear watermark on the images like most stores then they would not be used in a database like discogs.

No users do not make money submitting data this is a database like wikipedia, users can create stores if they want too but are not required to sell anything.

this explains it in depth https://www.filmo.gs/guidelines/about

along with that each user who creates a store i have seen on discogs is they can submit seprate pictures for the item they are selling, along with that they are selling there copy not yours.

@magniz: thanks for letting us know, we are looking into this matter and the best way to solve it. Will report back asap.

Any update on it Kalli?

Jo_Store wrote:

Any update on it Kalli?

We're in touch with magniz and working with them on figuring out the best way to proceed

Hi this user is removing good quality images replacing tgem with there own even removing dupe warning images

name of user :merseybeat65

i also think it is daniellejackson as they have edited all created by that banned user so far.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.