Legal dilemma; "I certify that I created this artwork"

[AustrAlien2010]

This may either be a very complicated or a very simple dilemma, and I hate to bother you with it, but:

If I make and save a file from the wallpaper image that's attached to my Steam trading card, and upload the file as an artwork on this Steam profile, checking the checkbox which says: "I certify that I created this artwork" could that be cause for a legit report of this artwork or it´s removal from the game´s artwork hub?

Would I be allowed to send this file to another if it is not?


Thanks in advance to anyone who understands this dilemma, or agrees to share insight on it.

[Black Blade]

Sorry I think went so far I lost some of your points
On any case returning to the main part of the topic, and to the Right to Quote that was the main point I relpy on, to begin with

Corbian a écrit :

Okay, so you're looking for a line in a law that exactly and precisely allows you to "put a [quoted] image on your profile" ?
That's too specific for a law, not the way they're created and written.
Maybe such a line is even too specific to be written in an EULA.
Most of the time being too specific when writing rules creates ambiguities hard to overcome, hence the right to quote seemed me a good tool, balanced and open, but you're thinking it's a closed thing.

Seeing what sort of star people's words tabloids are quoting, seeing we can make diffusions of us playing, it would be ***** ***** ***** ***** we can't upload steam cards imageges. But if the spirit is not here, I'd better have a beer.

What I am saying is that I do not think the Right to Quote is relevant for the case of putting an image on your profile
It does not need to say just that, but it does need to point to it in some way to show it in the group that its allowed

Corbian a écrit :

Clarification needed ! Generally speaking :
"making profile looks better (or worse)" is "expressing" (in its common meaning)
"showing an image on the profile (or no image)" is "communicating" (that's that image and not another)
There are exceptions, mainly when the profile visitor doesn't understand the meaning of this or that for the profile owner, or when the profile owner doesn't choose this or that on purpose : it doesn't mean it cannot be done on purpose and then understood.

Are you trying to say that you think that a user will put a showcase with part of the background to express or communicate something about the art he puts in that showcase?
Because I think there may be some rare cases where that is true, for the most part I think users want it to fit there "theme" not really caring what the image it self is, as in its art it self, but on there profile
The art is to express and so on about them self/there profile, not about the art that is shown on it

Corbian a écrit :

Free to use, yes and no since you need to pay to unlock.
But that's not the point ! Steam profiles (unless set as "private") are publically available to non-Steam users.
That's very different than other sites where you need an account to see other's.
If you don't like the idea or the word "public", you may seem Steam as a house made of glass : you can be inside or outside, it doesn't matter you always see through.
Others sites have walls (when you need an account to see other's), hence less "public".
If the house is made of glass, nothing you can reasonnably see inside from the outside may be seen as "confidential", couldn't it ?

I think you are correct here on this matter
It does answer available to the public and there for can be used when its correct for the right to quote, that as said I yet don't think the profile showcase for fitting with the background or the like is that way

Corbian a écrit :

No, no, no, Valve might not contract on your behalf with a third party. Between you and Valve only exists the agreement between you and Valve.
That's why you need to accept the third party EULA before playing many games.
That's also why all of this is a f*c*king mess... Having even just a few software each with a different EULA, how to remember the specificities of each one ?

I think you have miss understan my view there, you are uploading the content to Steam and Steam shows this content (the server) Steam it self is run and owned by Valve
There for I will a assume to a level that Valve is resposible for the content on it, and there for one of the main reasons to ask if you own it, is if they allow to show it on the public area on there site in your primission on that, and then I do think Valve can get an agreement with the developer for them self, that will roll over to content you roll that is used on Valves end

Corbian a écrit :

So you think it woult be excessive for the OP to use the card image like he said, and that such use would fall under DMCA or even worse he may get sued for that ?
I would like to see a real example of that, with something really equivalent to a steam trading card ! (and the explanations of the whys and the hows)

DMCA I do think is a process to remove content from the site, something that is happening as part or that at the very least reqreires the same abilty from the issuer to sue the "uploader" in are case

I will try to think on possiblitys of things simmiler to it that may have happen, as I do assume such a thing exsist, even that for the most part in the case here I see it unlikely as it is something that developers likely will not want to block anyway if they ever even think aobut it

But il search and see what I find when the idea come to mind, and time will be in hand

[Corbian]

Black Blade a écrit :

Sorry I think went so far I lost some of your points
(...)

Ok, I'll rephrase a little and we'll see if you get back my points.

Relating to the precise applicability of the Right to Quote to the situation we're discussing, there's two pieces of my statements I didn't yet joined together. I were exposing a "T-shirt analogy" you may want to read back in my previous post, and were speaking about physical collectible cards, mainly in the last paragraph of the same. So, imagine I wear a T-shirt with some drawing on it. The drawing was made by someone, its author, and that's a copyrighted content (one may not counterfeit it). With my hand, I hold and show a rare physical collectible card I've just found and bought on the second-hand market (card author got no money from the deal, as uses are). And a big smile on my mouth because it took me ages to obtain that card to add to my collection. Now you take a photo of me, and I post the photo on my profile with some short comment like "happy day". Of course I add on my profile a zoom on the card because I'm using it to exchange about with other collectors. In this deliberately crafted example, I see two graphical/image quotes. The first is the T-shirt drawing, that's an out of topic quote, but the drawing is easily recognizable as being one of a recent movie. The second is the card, that's an on-topic quote. Both quotes seems to me legitimates because reasonnably required by the purpose of my post on my profile : hence I see the point n° 5 of your link, "Your quotation must be no more than is required to achieve your purpose", being what is "pointing it in some way to show it in the group that its allowed". Is there a difference (in law) with the idea of the OP ? If so, I don't see which one.

Concerning the correct way to use the showcases, personal tastes are the first idea to keep in mind, rights comes hereafter. In the midst of all the copyrights regulations, there is a decently sized place for fair re-uses, and even bigger when it's about a non-commercial re-use. However, any fair re-use of a copyrighted content needs to be made with a purpose, whatever it is, one shall not "hijack" the right to quote (nor other fair limitation of copyrights) with the sole intent to shunt a valid copyright claim. You've overinterpreted this idea of a purpose as being alike a genuinely pure artistic one, overlooking bare human behaviours of expressing and communicating (those cannot be explained in a few words), two fundamentals a social network is intrinsically about. On his Steam profile, one may show images in so many different ways, for example there's people selling games with achievements which in turn are only colored letters, and some steamnauts are buying that to write a word on their showcase. This has few to do with the Right to Quote, and more with expression and/or communication. One can do that, why caring (in right) about the motivations that may lead another to show a trading card image ? Expressing something (im-)precise about the card (like a "good game" feeling) ? Just displaying an image that fits the general theme of its profile ? Whatever motivation, to my eyes it would both tie in uses on Steam and tie in the way people are dressing and behaving themselves everyday :-)

About the responsibilities of Valve, you asked the complicated question, mind-locking yourself on the requirement of a permission before an upload. This requirement is of general meaning and applicability, but like I said previously I've seen nothing/nobody explaining if it needs to be explicit, nor witch type of situations may be interpreted as implicit permissions (see #75). I was precisely telling you that having too many differences between EULA make things impossible to remember : imagine this game developper allowing upload of the card images, and this other disallowing it, then multiply by the number of games here, add Steam's competitors and the games of their catalogs, lastly complete those maths with others not-gaming related sites allowing the upload of contents... It would be puzzling anyone (and that's a problem by itself in right), and make them makes mistakes. The Right to Quote would be handy here, because it would fully clear out the requirement of a permission, using other methods to balance each one's rights : hence, if this right is applicable, it would also be cleared out from the agreements texts to clarify them. This wouldn't voids the need to warn/inform people they cannot upload anything anytime like they want, so Valve would inform them : of course they have a responsibilities in running the servers. Here, laws are defining a complex system of a multi-layer levels of responsibilities and rights, depending on what does the company (editor, publisher, creator, ...). Moreover, a company (Valve), owning and running a site (Steam) may fall in multiple categories at the same time, depending on the sections of the said site. This makes the Right to Quote handy a second time here, because one might not get sued for something it has the right to do, wouldn't he ? This also makes the difference when compared to the sandwich-ing of agreements you're talking about.

Do you prefer sandwiches ? ...giving more jobs for lawyers and jurists ; but it can quickly gives hell-ish result from the consumers point of view. A quick glance at the 'cards exchange' forums here, and you'll see gazillons of posts refering to cards by their numbers. Not really the most practical way of telling which cards one holds or want. Having the possibility to post images of thoses cards could become handy, with a little tool to help layouting posts. If such a tool were existing, or even without such a tool, if the Steam forum was allowing to post card's images for direct trading purposes, would you see that as a quote or as something needing the rights owner to provide explicit permissions ? I can extend the question, what if such a 'forum with trading tool with card image' is created outside of Steam community forums ? Would it be 'quoting' or would such idea needing each and every rights owner to give explicit permission for each and every card set ? Well, this is an other story...

[Shidaree]

<3

[Gus the Crocodile]

Corbian a écrit :

That's also where the comparison with physical collectible cards stops to be relevant, because those cards are exchanged since a long time on the second hand market, that is without retributing the original rights owner.

Which has nothing to do with what we’re talking about and doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said. My point all along has been that the card is not the artwork. OP wasn’t asking whether they were allowed to trade their card. We are discussing what you’re allowed to do with someone’s art, not what you’re allowed to do with your card.

It doesn’t matter that people trade cards second hand. They’re allowed to do that, I’m not questioning that at all. They’re not allowed to, separately from that, distribute the artists’ works as their own. They own the cards, not the art. If they want to gove someone else the art, they can give them the card.

Corbian a écrit :

I imagine this is shocking you

Get over yourself.

Corbian a écrit :

I recall you I've said a few days ago cards' images are technically designed to be provided by URL links.

I didn’t say that, no. I wouldn’t blame you for getting me mixed up for someone else in this trainwreck of a thread though.

Corbian a écrit :

Those links are publically accessible in that the steam platform servers are not checking if someone owns the card before delivering the image corresponding to the asked URL. In other words, you don't need to be logged to your account to see the image, you don't need to have an account to see the image ; you only need the URL of the file. It's designed to deliver the content that way. That's also the way any normal and public web server is delivering its content : you ask for an URL with your browser, and the servers gives you what you asked, whithout thinking twice about it.

If you’re actually trying to be concise, consider leaving out basic explanations of how the web works.

Corbian a écrit :

Now, with that context in mind, we can come back to "ripping" and "distributing", and I still don't see how those two words would be relevant, since one cannot "rip" in its common meaning a thing that is already available publically, nor one cannot "distribute" in its common meaning a thing that is already publically distributed

Of course you can. The meaning of the word distribute has absolutely nothing to do with how many other people are also distributing.

The fact that you started bringing up “public URLs” before was a red flag, but I held out hope you weren’t going here. This is a such a tremendous misunderstanding of the nature of copyright.

Something merely being accessible to you doesn’t give you any rights over it. Available in public is not the same as public domain. These images are available via Steam servers because Steam has permission to distribute them as part of their agreement with developers. People who don’t have that permission are not entitled to distribute someone’s work.

I can’t have this discussion anymore. Good luck.

[76561198057658593]

There is no legal dilemma here. It is not your artwork and you did not create it. Modifying it does not grant you any rights over the art piece. Thus you can not legally check that box and accept the terms and upload the artwork and if you do it is illegal. The end.

[AustrAlien2010]

That is correct. I would not be able to do this with a clear conscience. Would you?
If I was to make a pencil-, or hand drawn copy of the artwork. Would I? I would be modifying it, yes?

Can it even be called art, if it is inspired by something else? Doesn´t this concept render all created art unworthy of being called art?

(This is not the end for me. I´m still confused.)

[Black Blade]

@Corbrin
Did not frogot yet need time to answer
Do want to point taking and image of the pysical card to show the card is in the right to quote possible
Unlike using the image on its own even more when its used for the profile not for its own like the case of you photo of the card

AustrAlien2010 a écrit :

That is correct. I would not be able to do this with a clear conscience. Would you?
If I was to make a pencil-, or hand drawn copy of the artwork. Would I? I would be modifying it, yes?

Can it even be called art, if it is inspired by something else? Doesn´t this concept render all created art unworthy of being called art?

(This is not the end for me. I´m still confused.)

Honstly on that I need to say all matter I disscused at least come from the side of law
Much less ethics behind it
On that we have a world of no agreement yet and its yet disscused so will be impossible to give any clear answer

For one exsample I think there is a case in court now about an clied artist that takes outhers art and edit parts of it leaving most of it the same
Its disscused if that is on copyright or not
If its art on its own or something else

So its yet evloving

[Fall]

AustrAlien2010 a écrit :

This may either be a very complicated or a very simple dilemma, and I hate to bother you with it, but:

If I make and save a file from the wallpaper image that's attached to my Steam trading card, and upload the file as an artwork on this Steam profile, checking the checkbox which says: "I certify that I created this artwork" could that be cause for a legit report of this artwork or it´s removal from the game´s artwork hub?

Would I be allowed to send this file to another if it is not?


Thanks in advance to anyone who understands this dilemma, or agrees to share insight on it.

[Black Blade]

Corbian a écrit :

What's the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ difference between the two ?

I do not recommend to bypass the filters, it's against the rules

Because again the way and reason its taken, one is taken to show the card, For its own right, the second is for the profile not for the card

Beside that one is an image of the physical item, the second is the digital item

[Γαῖα]

Corbian

Ive told you already about case by case yet you persist in trying to throw everything into this from games mods,to music. We are talking about a static picture, not a wave length. For a start the latter is way more complicated and vastly difficult to discuss.
The example you gave was merely a single person playing all the same keys as the two. It becomes a different thing when a larger amount of people using different notes achieve the same resonance acoustically. Frequencies can be made up of a multitude of ways, espcially when bouncing off each other, even without instruments being involved.

Regardless what, it boils down to is something the same or is it not and in doing so we must look at what can be permitted like for instance we cant copyright a chord or color but we can a specifc sequence of measure. The copyright owner does not get to decide what that is.
An easy way to see this is imagine a steam background of a mountain range where you can see the foot of the mountain, the peaks and the sky cloudless. Now imagine slapping a dirty great black box covering the drawing 50% in the middle. All of a sudden we have lost context as dirt is dirt and sky is sky of no discernable nature. The indentifying marks like the slope, the peaks are gone so we cant say if there was a mountain.
Now if we add textured clouds, bolders maybe a lizard at the foot of the mountain, even with the 50% blackening we can still clearly say that is that drawing unless of course the second artist either removes/replaces those indentifying markers like adds extra texture and shading to the clouds giving the appearence of light in a different direction to the original and or swaps a lizard for a snake and reshapes and or removes bolders.

Like i said its all case by case basis dependant on the work the second artist puts in. The only reason such alterations are obvious on steam is solely because the background outside of the steam middle box interface is there as if it were possible to upload your own background, the appearance coming from a good artist would be vastly different all over and infact wouldnt even bother using the original. Like i said, take that background out of the equation on both ends, take that 506x928 and dump in onto the net and it wont be obvious what it is because its a tiny indiscriminate piece of the orignal.

Context is everything.

[Corbian]

Gus the Crocodile

Gus the Crocodile a écrit :

Which has nothing to do with what we’re talking about and doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said. My point all along has been that the card is not the artwork. OP wasn’t asking whether they were allowed to trade their card. We are discussing what you’re allowed to do with someone’s art, not what you’re allowed to do with your card.

You're building a wall between the and the artwork on the idea a virtual cannot be equivalent to a real , because "just meh, that's virtual". It's not as easy : you're at first making that strong separation between virtual world and physical one ; on the opposite I'm telling a trading is at first a trading/collectible , and shall be in adequation with usual things a human may want to do with a trading/collectible , then only I look at the question to discriminate between physical and virtual worlds. Your way of starting by the separation is less comfortable for me to think about because humans are not virtuals.

Gus the Crocodile a écrit :

It doesn’t matter that people trade cards second hand. They’re allowed to do that, I’m not questioning that at all. They’re not allowed to, separately from that, distribute the artists’ works as their own. They own the cards, not the art. If they want to gove someone else the art, they can give them the card.

Thinking back about Γαῖα's idea of a poster with stickers :
We're allowed to pin real on our suitcase, bag, clothes, laptop, smartphone... and show it to everyone. Pinning a virtual on a profile is not that different, but you cannot/won't see that. You've decided that showing the virtual is distributing it, and this is neglecting the intent of someone willing to do it, which is only to show something. Why my Steam profile won't be the "bag" in which I put my games ?

Gus the Crocodile a écrit :

The fact that you started bringing up “public URLs” before was a red flag, but I held out hope you weren’t going here. This is a such a tremendous misunderstanding of the nature of copyright. Something merely being accessible to you doesn’t give you any rights over it. Available in public is not the same as public domain.

The Right to Quote does apply on copyrighted content publically available, so it's of importance to make sure a content is publically available before attempting to quote it. You're comfortable with the "basic explanations of how the web works", this is making you quite an unusual(?) person ; many won't see "bases" in that ! I've not used words "public domain" in this topic.

Gus the Crocodile a écrit :

I can’t have this discussion anymore. Good luck.

Of course you can.

AustrAlien2010

AustrAlien2010 a écrit :

Can it even be called art, if it is inspired by something else? Doesn´t this concept render all created art unworthy of being called art?

As I said (but it was in a long post), there's people here on Steam selling/buying colored letters (as acheivements). That's probably not 'art', or it is if the font is 'artistic' enough ? After all, letters looks close to each other ; look at books, magazines, newspapers... fonts are inspired by other fonts. Anyway, a font can be copyrighted (many are), and the alphabet sold...
I was thinking about the monks in the Middle Ages, hand-copying books with no copyrights but full of 'illuminations' and other decorative ideas ; and then if it were copyrights, what would have happened to us ?

Black Blade

Black Blade a écrit :

I do not recommend to bypass the filters, it's against the rules

't was self-censorship, and not because of any forum rule.

Black Blade a écrit :

Because again the way and reason its taken, one is taken to show the card, For its own right, the second is for the profile not for the card
Beside that one is an image of the physical item, the second is the digital item

"one is taken to show the card" is your pure speculation, it can be to show its image, or both. Like a photo of a painted motorbike : is it about the engine or the painting ? whatever...
"the second is for the profile" : yay, and ? what are you meaning here ?
If I shoot my computer's screen, it will be an "image of the physical item" (with the specific colors balances of my screen and my camera, and the specific ambient lightning), so may I post it instead of the original ? Knowing the photo may be of lesser quality, it may show a negative image of the original author, what do you think about that ?

Γαῖα

Γαῖα a écrit :

(...) Context is everything.

It lacks an apple tree and a , but no snake please, I prefer the (small) lizards. What I was saying about modifications is that the percentage is of no meaning ; not only 'the percentage alone is of no meaning', but 'the percentage is of no meaning'. You're agreeing in you example when you say "we have lost context", which is the same as saying that you don't care about the percentage, even if you computed it to be 50%.

[Black Blade]

Corbian a écrit :

't was self-censorship, and not because of any forum rule.

You can say that, but in a way its showing more then the filters will have shown that is bypassing them if you did ****ing it be alright but when you put letters in that, that are censored normally I think that can count as bypassing, but will depend on the mod

Corbian a écrit :

"one is taken to show the card" is your pure speculation, it can be to show its image, or both. Like a photo of a painted motorbike : is it about the engine or the painting ? whatever...
"the second is for the profile" : yay, and ? what are you meaning here ?
If I shoot my computer's screen, it will be an "image of the physical item" (with the specific colors balances of my screen and my camera, and the specific ambient lightning), so may I post it instead of the original ? Knowing the photo may be of lesser quality, it may show a negative image of the original author, what do you think about that ?

The Right to Quote as pointed before is for things related to the Quoted
In other words, you can quote part of the book some book saying "Love the smell of chilly in the morning" if you want to use that in the context of talking about the line, or about the movie that it was in or the book or whatever
But you cant use the Right to Quote to quote that line just because you want (and without saying who is the source)

Just to point its yet possible that it's allowed, but I honestly don't think the Right to Quote is the part that will allow it, I don't think its use fits for what we are talking about

Beside that to be completely honest taking a photo of the card I wonder if its even breaking anything at all, as I am not even sure that is considered the same, but that is really diving into CopyRights, and that I am not sure we should go too much into without a layer

[Autistic Bear | bandit.gg]

hmm

[Γαῖα]

Corbian

My exact words that you first replied to were " All your doing is providing a window so more of that said background can be seen. At this stage it is there artwork however if you begin to add overlays then that definition begins to shift. If you add at the very least 50% (thats includes the transparent parts you cant see), it becomes your artwork to and predominately so when you consider how many overlays you use".

You keep forgeting its only 506x928, 100x928 (theres also the alternative to the 100 thats 3x very small squares) of the orignal thats anything but central. So your not going to have an aweful lot of indentifying marks in that cube cut away from the orignal. 50% is a lot of artwork ontop of that piece, i know, ive done my fair share and its only the outer background that gives any clue what it is which has nothing to do with the question steam ask as you didnt upload the chosen background, steam provided it internally and you arent claiming that to be your artwork, just the 506x928,etc. Its also worth saying artists cut down the transparent as it does not have to sit end to end from top to bottom, just the bare min needed to position the overlay art piece/pieces correctly.

As to whether or not it is a persons artwork in the end on steam as to what a person uploads is only a question i could answer on a case by case basis as ive seen alsorts.

[Corbian]

@ Black Blade

Black Blade a écrit :

Corbian a écrit :

't was self-censorship, and not because of any forum rule.

You can say that, but in a way its showing more then the filters will have shown that is bypassing them if you did ****ing it be alright but when you put letters in that, that are censored normally I think that can count as bypassing, but will depend on the mod

Okay, you clearly don't trust me, even after you read my very long posts, each full of the absence of any profanity... [I'm lacking a smiley with its eyes rolling up to the skies] I've previously used asterisk-ed text "*******" in this topic, but it was to let the reader complete as he thinks appropriate, so I was needing at least one more letter to make the difference, and it's all I was thinking about when I wrote that. But nervermind.

Black Blade a écrit :

The Right to Quote as pointed before is for things related to the Quoted
In other words, you can quote part of the book some book saying "Love the smell of chilly in the morning" if you want to use that in the context of talking about the line, or about the movie that it was in or the book or whatever
But you cant use the Right to Quote to quote that line just because you want (and without saying who is the source)
Just to point its yet possible that it's allowed, but I honestly don't think the Right to Quote is the part that will allow it, I don't think its use fits for what we are talking about

Well, going back to the link[www.copyrightuser.org] you posted some days ago, there's a quoted illustration on the top. That's an off-topic quote, there to illustrate not 'what is a quote', but 'what may be a quote in the situation of a review'. There is no real review (only an explanation of what may be one), so that wouldn't be a quote for you ('coz it's "just because they want"), except they were willing to show a quote to illustrate so they quoted it anyway (but they may had quoted nothing, and still illustrated the same way, so there's really a quote). There's a paradox, isn't it ? They do different from what you say.
Same for "I don't think its use fits" : you already said similar things multiple times, but not why you're thinking that, someone reading you will easily infer you don't plan to do it, but not if there is any 'rational reason' behind your choice. I don't question your choices !
"just because you want" is like when I told you, you cutted the first point of your link at the comma, reading only what is after. I don't think you paid enough attention to the fifth point, and to the concluding quote (which is not giving clues, but still instructive). You found that site (I wasn't knowing it even if a UK one, not a worldwide law, but there's other "fair uses" in other places).
About the cards, I've checked, there are cards with the game logo, so "embodied acknowledgement" ; and there's a comment field to use when uploading for when there's image with no logo. Don't overlook the example they took in the end of point number one ("showing a whole film", disallowed), it may be a relevant comparison in some situations, but irrelevant in others. I've did my best to explain how it can be winding to find what is relevant or not, but no answer about that. ...? (nothing 'against' you)

Black Blade a écrit :

Beside that to be completely honest taking a photo of the card I wonder if its even breaking anything at all, as I am not even sure that is considered the same, but that is really diving into CopyRights, and that I am not sure we should go too much into without a layer :D:

Can you take photos inside all museums in your country ? I don't see the diving ! That's related to the example you explained about (illegitimate) photos of famous people : there's things we're generally allowed to do in the real world that then become very hard, or impossible to do in the virtual one, and among the most common answers are "that's the technic" or "that's the copyright". About the latter, generally there's no explanation of why "that's not" in the real world (like I was saying, exchanging the cards, second-hand market, pinning cards or stickers on your phone which is seen by everyone, and the like...).
I don't remember reading anything forbidding to take photos of my screen (unlike at the entrance of the museums), but it may be written in small letters somewhere I don't remenber... (should I search for it ?) And if it's allowed, what would be the difference between a real photo and a screenshot like AustrAlien2010 was willing to take ? And if it's disallowed, why we can do it with real cards ? I don't understand.

@ Γαῖα

Γαῖα a écrit :

(...)
You keep forgeting its only 506x928, 100x928 (...)

No, even on a small 100px wide image, it is possible to 'create' somothing yo shall not upload because it's content will infringe in the original author's owned rights. Those are possible, doesn't mean widely spread acress the net. Just enoughly do-able to render numeric/percentage estimations worthless. Don't bother to ask : I won't give precise example/explantion about that, nor about how to craft such an infringing image.
The content is to be seen, so the content is to be evaluated, if needs be.