Guys, you are probably not paying attention to what I wrote earlier about the correspondence with the photos owner.
- Please tell me, can I use them for republication on other resources?
I will need to use the link to your resource as the original source and author?-
yes, please link to the original source www.dietmareckell.com and claim copyright holder: © Dietmar EckellThis was not done!
What else do I need to explain?
You are probably not paying attention to anything that I said, or that LoyceV said—or to common sense. In summary:
- Alleged copyright issues are altogether off-topic in this thread.
- Failure to use and cite sources appropriately is tangential to the topic of this thread. The issues are distinguished in the CWPA Statement of Best Practices that I quoted above; the CWPA is an American academic association, so I think that their standards should suffice for the forum. I myself think that icopress should provide better attribution, if and where feasible. I hereby advise him accordingly, without demanding that he be banned for making a WO pic-post that is no worse for attribution than numerous other such posts. (icopress, if the photographer is known and has a website, or if this information comes to be known, then please take a few moments to verify it, and add a name and link as a matter of custom and courtesy.)
- The Wall Observer, where icopress posted, has numerous images posted to it without attribution, or with inadequate attribution, by people who obviously don’t claim to have produced them. If you want to make sure that these images are all properly attributed, including every cat photo and animated GIF (inasmuch as sources can even be found—as oft they can be, with considerable effort*), please feel free to make a new Meta thread about this. (And if you ever want to harass me over my intentional habit of posting more or less famous public-domain artworks, without too-overt identification for the benefit of lazy rubes, then I will tell you to пoшёл нa xyй.)
- Your motive for bringing a false plagiarism accusation is transparent: 29 hours after icopress credibly accused you of being involved in multi-account abuse of the Default Trust system, you came here and declared:
Formatting is in the original:
For this serious violation, this user should be banned
A valid accusation should be evaluated on its merits, regardless of motivation. But given that your accusation is invalid and meritless on its face, it is obvious that you targeted icopress for revenge, carelessly cast about for something to throw at him, and then abused this thread for your grudge. You are lying when you say this:
I am sure that I do not look at any past merits, it is the user who should suffer the punishment they deserve. The rules are the same for everyone.
That is bad. I suggest that you should stop it.
* I once identified the original source for a photo that I like, after
five hours of persistent searching—and sifting through the numerous blogs and photo sharing sites where it had been re-re-re-posted for years without attribution. Reverse image search engines brought the mountain of re-re-re-posts up to the top, and dropped the original source into an abyss of obscurity. Sometimes, I have given up. :-(