Question for the forum re copyright

[+ Twinkluvr]

A provider recently contacted me about an inquiry thread that generated some poor reviews for him (calling him out for age shaving, mediocre service, some flakiness, bad communication, and some other foibles).  I won’t go into the whole saga, but he FINALLY made a somewhat reasonable claim that the hyperlink to his RM page and imbedded ancient picture was a “copyright violation “.  Laying aside that he did not provide much convincing evidence that the material is both copyrighted and that he is indeed the owner of said copyright, and his ulterior motives of silencing bad reviews, wondering if any of you see any potential for infringement?  I thought it was an interesting point that this forum must have had to deal with in the past and would be good to know for future posts.

*as a solution, I did request that the moderator edit the post so that only the link display without the inlining display of his profile picture.  I felt that was sufficient as I think you guys are entitled to his poor reviews, even if he was able to ‘convince’ most of the posters to take them down.

Edited June 11 by Twinkluvr

[MikeThomas]

I'm not a lawyer, but what the heck...

I don't see any copyright infringement as you are simply providing a publicly available link to a site that he pays to advertise on.  I think it might be different when someone screen prints photos, reviews, etc. from an ad and then uploads the screen prints.

[+ Twinkluvr]

That was my thought as well, but assume he owns the copyright to his profile picture or his RM name “JesTwink” (c?)   Would the display of his RM name or the picture (which seems to happen automatically on this site when u post a link) be unfair use?

Edited June 11 by Twinkluvr

[+ azdr0710]

Just now, Twinkluvr said:

 (which seems to happen automatically on this site when u post a link) 

As an aside, there is a small "link only" option visible when posting a link

[+ Twinkluvr]

Just now, azdr0710 said:

As an aside, there is a small "link only" option visible when posting a link

I’ve never noticed that!

[SirBillybob]

Copyright is predicated on original, usually creative or invention, etc, work. Most things put out there in the public domain do not fall under copyright. That the author, poster, etc within social media or business platforms says it’s under strict copyright is an empty assertion, etiquette framed as imperative.

The advertiser would not have objected to positive commentary associated with his linked ad. The complaint is his assertion of misrepresentation of his person and work and this leans towards defamation, not breech of image ownership.

That he may view it as libellous is unrelated to copyright. Think of reviews of restaurants, hotels on Tripadviser. He should be grateful that Rentmen is set up to skew ratings for its own profit margins but not that he is spared the need to critically appraise how he might improve his services. 

Edited June 11 by SirBillybob

[SirBillybob]

These taste artificially chemical.

503 - Service Unavailable Error

WWW.AMAZON.CA

 

[+ JamesB]

Let’s break it down:

Including a hyperlink to a provider’s RentMen profile (e.g., rentmen.eu/username) that leads to publicly accessible content does not constitute copyright infringement under current U.S. law. Hyperlinking simply directs users to the original source and does not reproduce any protected material.

The embedded image, however, could be a different matter. Embedding the provider’s profile photo could potentially constitute infringement, IF the provider actually owns the copyright. I emphasize “if” because platforms like RentMen typically have terms of service that grant them a license or even ownership over uploaded content, which complicates individual ownership claims. Additionally, the forum could argue fair use (17 U.S.C. § 107) if the image was used for criticism, commentary, or review (e.g., discussing the provider’s services). Factors favoring fair use include: Non-commercial, critical review (if the forum is non-profit or user-driven) and the amount used. A single profile picture is a small portion of the provider’s profile.

As you mentioned, the real motivation behind the claim seems to be suppressing negative feedback. This makes the copyright argument appear more like a pressure tactic than a solid legal claim, especially without proof of ownership.

Requesting that the forum moderator edit the post to remove the embedded image while keeping the hyperlink to the RentMen profile is a reasonable and sufficient response.

[+ José Soplanucas]

What a ridiculous claim. I am even more surprised that anyone would take it seriously.

One more trait to add besides the ones reported in his reviews. He is a bull shitter with no talent for bull shitting. 

[LA90046]

1 hour ago, JamesB said:

Additionally, the forum could argue fair use (17 U.S.C. § 107) if the image was used for criticism, commentary, or review (e.g., discussing the provider’s services). Factors favoring fair use include: Non-commercial, critical review (if the forum is non-profit or user-driven) and the amount used. A single profile picture is a small portion of the provider’s profile.

This.

The provider's 'claim' would not hold up under legal scrutiny.

[+ 7829V]

This is what AI says:

Fair use applies strongly here — the context was criticism, non-commercial use.

Proof of ownership would be required. If the photo was uploaded to RentMen, he likely granted them a license or doesn’t hold exclusive rights.

Courts often lean toward protecting criticism and review under First Amendment and fair use, particularly in forums.

Motivation Behind the Claim. It’s transparent: he’s trying to silence criticism, not protect IP. That undermines any legal claim and casts doubt on his sincerity.

----

In other words: yep, he can go pound sand. 🧂🪨

 

 

 

 

 

[+ 7829V]

The provider relinquished significant control over their uploaded content to RentMen and cannot credibly claim copyright infringement.

This is what RM says about content uploaded... 

SUMMARY Licensing Terms:

• User grants the Company a royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual license to use, reproduce, modify, and distribute their content.

• License is transferable, sub-licensable, and continues after account closure.

• Content may be used for promotion or commercial purposes.

• The Company can represent the User in DMCA matters.

 

Edited June 11 by 7829V

[Trick]

No disrespect to providers but how is this different from posting links to Amazon products. The providers are RentMen’s “products,” are they not?

[+ Twinkluvr]

32 minutes ago, 7829V said:

The provider relinquished significant control over their uploaded content to RentMen and cannot credibly claim copyright infringement.

This is what RM says about content uploaded... 

SUMMARY Licensing Terms:

• User grants the Company a royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual license to use, reproduce, modify, and distribute their content.

• License is transferable, sub-licensable, and continues after account closure.

• Content may be used for promotion or commercial purposes.

• The Company can represent the User in DMCA matters.

 

Wow! So RM could use a provider’s xxx videos without any further permission however they want?  That’s a bit shocking

[+ 7829V]

8 minutes ago, Twinkluvr said:

Wow! So RM could use a provider’s xxx videos without any further permission however they want?  That’s a bit shocking

Yes—those rights are granted forever. Until the end of times! 😅

Even if RentMen is sold to another company, the new owner could legally use all the videos and content. They could release them for free, place them behind a paywall, or even monetize them in other ways.

Edited June 11 by 7829V

[+ 7829V]

9 minutes ago, Twinkluvr said:

Wow! So RM could use a provider’s xxx videos without any further permission however they want?  That’s a bit shocking

If you use Facebook or Instagram, it’s probably the same or even worse. They can use your content however they want.

[Trick]

51 minutes ago, 7829V said:

If you use Facebook or Instagram, it’s probably the same or even worse. They can use your content however they want.

I have never believed the spam posts that show up in waves on Facebook saying “I don’t give permission to use my pictures yada yada.”

[Asterisk]

1 hour ago, 7829V said:

If you use Facebook or Instagram, it’s probably the same or even worse. They can use your content however they want.

Not dissimilar from Meta TOS at all.  

The Daily Pennsylvanian has nothing to fear from this guy:

 

[soloyo215]

8 hours ago, Twinkluvr said:

A provider recently contacted me about an inquiry thread that generated some poor reviews for him (calling him out for age shaving, mediocre service, some flakiness, bad communication, and some other foibles).  I won’t go into the whole saga, but he FINALLY made a somewhat reasonable claim that the hyperlink to his RM page and imbedded ancient picture was a “copyright violation “.  Laying aside that he did not provide much convincing evidence that the material is both copyrighted and that he is indeed the owner of said copyright, and his ulterior motives of silencing bad reviews, wondering if any of you see any potential for infringement?  I thought it was an interesting point that this forum must have had to deal with in the past and would be good to know for future posts.

*as a solution, I did request that the moderator edit the post so that only the link display without the inlining display of his profile picture.  I felt that was sufficient as I think you guys are entitled to his poor reviews, even if he was able to ‘convince’ most of the posters to take them down.

Posting the link doesn't violate copyright. That has been discussed and decided in courts for decades, mostly around sites that provided links for downloading pirate copies of software and media, but it applies to most-to-all posted links. Case closed.

About the picture, I don't know. Probably. I haven't read the fine print of the sites where they post them. It is a private site, and the user agreement might involved acceptable use of the images used, though it might be around releasing responsibility from the site if people use them for other purposes.

Edited June 12 by soloyo215

[mike carey]

In the case concerned, the image is still posted on his RM ad, so he is apparently not concerned about it being there, only when it is posted here. So yeah nah.

[Walt]

7 hours ago, 7829V said:

This is what AI says:

Just what me need: AI, the biggest copyright infringer in history, offers its opinion on copyright infringement. 

 

[+ Twinkluvr]

4 hours ago, mike carey said:

In the case concerned, the image is still posted on his RM ad, so he is apparently not concerned about it being there, only when it is posted here. So yeah nah.

Which is what I told Jestwink about his “privacy” concerns as well.  You don’t get to put yourself out there without allowing for criticism.  That’s not privacy or copyright infringement anymore than posting your ad on Rentmen.  In this case, to protect the public from a sheister. Although, advertising services that may be illegal in certain parts of the country kinda blows the whole case anyways.  Anyways, thanks for helping me debunk this providers claims everyone! Happy hunting!

[Thelatin]

I’d love to see him enforce his copyright on judge Judy lol.  Watch that story unfold as she rolls her eyes.  Sir - sir who are you fooling.  And you sir, with this younger man, shame on you. 

[+ Twinkluvr]

54 minutes ago, Thelatin said:

I’d love to see him enforce his copyright on judge Judy lol.  Watch that story unfold as she rolls her eyes.  Sir - sir who are you fooling.  And you sir, with this younger man, shame on you. 

ROFL!!  Not that much younger as it turns out!

[Peter Eater]

A hyperlink is not subject to copyright.

It ain’t rocket science…