I have a pet peeve.
As a writer, I have found my stuff posted on other websites without my permission, and sometimes without so much as a mention that it was MY article... or a link back to the original. This ticks me off, and it is illegal to do so.
I have not come across this on Fanpop with articles yet, but I have seen it numerous times on images.
Some of the people I adore the most are even doing it. I have to assume innocence here and figure some folks just don't know... so I'ma tell ya ;)
Credit. Credit. Credit. The option to add the photo credit when you submit an image is there for a reason. It is to protect Fanpop from massive headaches later on, and you from being sued.
You might search for images on Google, but that is not who to credit. When you find the image you want, there is a url under it when you click on the image. From there it is easy to find the name of who owns that image. If it is not cited, then you need to cite that website in the credit to protect both yourself and Fanpop.
Not citing the copyright owner is theft, pure and simple. Besides, it is just the right thing to do.
As Fanpop grows, more and more people are going to be taking notice. They are going to see their images were taken without citing the owner. We do not want that kind of trouble around here.
In the case of movie and book covers, cite the studio or publisher of the book. That is way-easy to do. In the case of photos of stars and what have you, the photographer is the way to go, unless you can't find that info, then like I said; cite the website you found it on, or the star.
Please please please make the effort to do this. I do not want to see the day that Dave and Papa are forced to waste time removing thousands and thousands of images because we did not take the time to do it right and legally...
Thank you, Drive through.
As a writer, I have found my stuff posted on other websites without my permission, and sometimes without so much as a mention that it was MY article... or a link back to the original. This ticks me off, and it is illegal to do so.
I have not come across this on Fanpop with articles yet, but I have seen it numerous times on images.
Some of the people I adore the most are even doing it. I have to assume innocence here and figure some folks just don't know... so I'ma tell ya ;)
Credit. Credit. Credit. The option to add the photo credit when you submit an image is there for a reason. It is to protect Fanpop from massive headaches later on, and you from being sued.
You might search for images on Google, but that is not who to credit. When you find the image you want, there is a url under it when you click on the image. From there it is easy to find the name of who owns that image. If it is not cited, then you need to cite that website in the credit to protect both yourself and Fanpop.
Not citing the copyright owner is theft, pure and simple. Besides, it is just the right thing to do.
As Fanpop grows, more and more people are going to be taking notice. They are going to see their images were taken without citing the owner. We do not want that kind of trouble around here.
In the case of movie and book covers, cite the studio or publisher of the book. That is way-easy to do. In the case of photos of stars and what have you, the photographer is the way to go, unless you can't find that info, then like I said; cite the website you found it on, or the star.
Please please please make the effort to do this. I do not want to see the day that Dave and Papa are forced to waste time removing thousands and thousands of images because we did not take the time to do it right and legally...
Thank you, Drive through.
Recently I just discovered what the Wiki feature was for. And upon searching, most seem to not know what its purpose is and therefore don't care about it. Never fear, I'm here. It's been approximately never since I wrote an informative article so you are all in for quite the treat!
"It's a glorified article."
I've seen several comments that Wikis are a "glorified article", insinuating that what you can and would put in a Wiki, you can and would put in an article. That is simply not true. See below for example.
Above is what you can do with an article. That is noticeably missing when you...
continue reading...
"It's a glorified article."
I've seen several comments that Wikis are a "glorified article", insinuating that what you can and would put in a Wiki, you can and would put in an article. That is simply not true. See below for example.
Above is what you can do with an article. That is noticeably missing when you...
The little website that can and still is.
The rating of Fanpop
on earth but a new world of the naga
shadow was a hedge-NAGA
what were am I thought shadow
lay in a nest like bed the den like home was in
a cave in a forest full of emeralds glowing
what ever this place is shadow new this was his
new home and he was happy to be a way
from gun the humans or MOBUIES
all shadow new he add change into
a half hedgehog -half snake with long tail
and this place he was in seem full of magic
shadow yawn as he rub his eyes
are you the 1 you BRUNG me to this world ask
shadow yes you forgotten about me sweet
huh said shadow ah lighting but I thought
that I know but now we are together
lighting jolt cyber chaos the hedge-NAGA
alpha omega male ultimate life form
albino white yellow quills like neo sonic
yellow round his emerald blue eyes
peach chest tummy
yellow lighting marks on his arms quills for head
long HEDGE-NAGA tail
end of part 1
Welcome to my Guide!
Don't remain a Fanpop-provided face in the crowd. Upload your own profile image!
