I have a pet peeve.
As a writer, I have found my stuff gepostet on other websites without my permission, and sometimes without so much as a mention that it was MY article... oder 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 Artikel 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 Foto credit when Du Abschicken an image is there for a reason. It is to protect Fanpop from massive headaches later on, and Du from being sued.
Du might Suchen for Bilder on Google, but that is not who to credit. When Du find the image Du want, there is a URL under it when Du click on the image. From there it is easy to find the name of who owns that image. If it is not cited, then Du 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, Mehr and Mehr people are going to be taking notice. They are going to see their Bilder 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 oder publisher of the book. That is way-easy to do. In the case of Fotos of stars and what have you, the photographer is the way to go, unless Du can't find that info, then like I said; cite the website Du found it on, oder the star.
Please please please make the effort to do this. I do not want to see the Tag that Dave and Papa are forced to waste time removing thousands and thousands of Bilder 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 gepostet on other websites without my permission, and sometimes without so much as a mention that it was MY article... oder 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 Artikel 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 Foto credit when Du Abschicken an image is there for a reason. It is to protect Fanpop from massive headaches later on, and Du from being sued.
Du might Suchen for Bilder on Google, but that is not who to credit. When Du find the image Du want, there is a URL under it when Du click on the image. From there it is easy to find the name of who owns that image. If it is not cited, then Du 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, Mehr and Mehr people are going to be taking notice. They are going to see their Bilder 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 oder publisher of the book. That is way-easy to do. In the case of Fotos of stars and what have you, the photographer is the way to go, unless Du can't find that info, then like I said; cite the website Du found it on, oder the star.
Please please please make the effort to do this. I do not want to see the Tag that Dave and Papa are forced to waste time removing thousands and thousands of Bilder 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 Artikel so Du are all in for quite the treat!
"It's a glorified article."
I've seen several Kommentare that Wikis are a "glorified article", insinuating that what Du can and would put in a Wiki, Du can and would put in an article. That is simply not true. See below for example.
Above is what Du can do with an article. That is noticeably missing when you...
continue reading...
"It's a glorified article."
I've seen several Kommentare that Wikis are a "glorified article", insinuating that what Du can and would put in a Wiki, Du can and would put in an article. That is simply not true. See below for example.
Above is what Du 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 bett the höhle, 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 oder 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 Du the 1 Du BRUNG me to this world ask
shadow yes Du forgotten about me sweet
huh sagte 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 smaragd blue eyes
pfirsich 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!
