JimH is right. None of the worst-case scenarios one might imagine reading those disclaimers are enforceable in court.

[READ MY NOTES IN BRACKETS - moshe]

That's not really true. Most forums don't allow removing your own posts or even editing them after some interval (like 10 minutes, or one hour on UHH).

This is a forum, so it needs to be run like a forum.

It's true that most image collection/portfolio/etc. sites allow you to manage your content (it would be weird if they didn't), but not forums. And I have no intention of turning this website into a portfolio management platform.

On a forum, if you delete one user's topic, you also end up deleting a bunch of replies posted by the other users. So every time a large number of topics is removed because of a "please delete everything I posted here" request made by one person, you end up deleting posts made by hundreds of other people.

[the replies would no longer be relevant when the image is removed. the value is in the image not in the comment. Your argument is ridiculous.]

And then, a lot of those people contact you to ask why their post counts are down or why they can no longer find an answer they've "spent so much time researching and writing."

So it becomes customer service nightmare.

My official position, if you will, is this: if you don't want it shown here indefinitely, then don't post it here in the first place. And the disclaimers are there specifically to support it.

It might sound harsh, but I've been running forums for a long time. And I came to the conclusion that it's better to do things this way for a multitude of long-term reasons. With this being a new forum, some of the reasons might not make sense yet, but I don't expect it to be any different from what I've managed before.

Of course, in cases when there is a legitimate reason for deletion, I usually delete the content. Most of the time, it means deleting just one or two posts.

But if a user wants me to delete "everything" because he is having a bad day or just out of spite, then it will depend solely on how much time and patience I have to deal with the fallout at that particular point it time.

[the above is juvenile reasoning]

Sometimes, I might delete the content right away. Other times, I would delete it within a week or when time permits. Yet, in some instances, I would say I won't do it unless he/she files a complaint in federal court and gets an injunction compelling me to delete the content.

[but if you profited by selling the works of other individuals without notice or an agreement than any action is federal court would also include a demand to return the content and the revenue earned by you without an agreement]

I know how it sounds, but that's how it is.

There is another way to look at it.

In an abstract form, there is an unspoken deal being made between a user and a forum owner. It's true for every forum out there. The deal is: the user supplies the content while the forum owner supplies the audience.

[The above is not "another way to look at it" since you used the same example when you opened this discussion}

It's a one-to-one relationship extrapolated to all users.

["extrapolated" used improperly. it makes no sense as you are using it]

People are social creatures. And as such, we all want our work to be seen, judged, and commended on, our ideas heard, and our opinions voiced.

(Heck, I set this forum up just so that I can talk to others about using my newly bought 7D.)

[But "Heck" when you turned it into a profit center without notifying the owners of the work, you broke the law.]

That's what a forum provides -- an opportunity for any given user to reach others.

At the same time, forums wouldn't exist if nobody posted anything. So a forum gets content, which in turn, helps attract more users, which in turn provides an even greater audience for each individual user's posts.

So if a user posts something, I run it in the digest, host it on the site, and try to give his/her post as much exposure as I can in the normal course of running the forum. I perform my end of the deal.[FOR FREE?]

[And what does the forum provider get for providing the form warm thanks from the posters? Wouldn't that be a real waste of your time?]

But if later on (when the post has faded away) the user wants me to remove the content for which I already supplied the audience, I feel like he/she isn't keeping up with his/her end of the deal. I can't undo all the eyeballs I've sent to that user's content, can I? And if I had a choice, I would much rather send people to some other user's posts, but there is no way to change the past. That's why I keep the content most of the time. It's more of an emotional thing that logical.

Besides, there are two ways to handle copyright issues. The right way and the wrong way. I'll post about it next, and will explain why all the talk about keeping or deleting content is purely emotional.

I'll talk about copyright in the US, as I don't know how it's done elsewhere.

But there is one important point to keep in mind:

While your work is protected the moment it's created, you can't really do anything substantial with that protection until you register your work with the Copyright Office by storing a copy at LOC.

Most people really don't realize it, but you can't actually sue anyone until you've filed for a registration.

Let's say you take a picture, post it online, and someone else grabs it and uses it in a poster which they later sell.

You want to sue, right? Great. But federal judges won't accept your complaint unless it's accompanied by a receipt from the Copyright office. That's in addition to proof that the work is yours.

So in order to sue, you would have to register your work even if it's at a later time, long after you've published it.

Let me repeat that again. You are protected the moment you take a picture. But you can't actually exercise that protection until you've registered your work with the Copyright Office.

For some reason, many people have a hard time grasping it. They either think that unless they register they aren't protected, or they think they can sue without registering. Both of those are false assumptions.

Since you have to register your work anyway (to sue), then you might as well register it while it's still unpublished.

Registering unpublished work has one major benefit aside from statutory damages. Registration of unpublished work is in itself proof of your ownership.

If you register your picture on, say, May 1, 2011, and the other party can't prove that they were in the possession of that picture prior to that date, then the judge would side with you. You won't need any additional proof to accompany the registration receipt.

So if you register your unpublished work, you can safely spread around not just thumbnails, but even original RAW files and not care about them being stolen. (As a matter of fact, you might hope they would get stolen and used by someone, preferably in a commercial way for a large company.)

I haven't filed any registrations in a long time, and when I did, I did it using postal service. But it is my understanding that the Copyright office accepts online registrations, and you can register thousands of images at once. So it's not that expensive.

This is the right way to deal with copyright. Now, let's briefly talk about the wrong way.

Embedding watermarks, EXIF data, printing and mailing envelopes to yourself via certified mail, getting affidavits from relatives, Flickr timestamps, etc. won't help you get your case accepted by a judge. It will be thrown out.

All of those things are nothing more than supporting evidence of your claim that the image is yours. And you will need them only if you register your work as published work at a later time just so that you can proceed with a lawsuit. But if you register your unpublished work, that's your evidence. And it is the strongest evidence a court would consider.

Additionally, if you don't register your work, but post it online, and later decide to sue someone over using it, then the most you could hope for is actual damages. And the burden of proving the amount would be on you. And the attorney fees aren't likely to be awarded. And... well it's as if you didn't really have any copyright protection at all.

Do you know why the cases where photographers get large compensations (with unregistered works) are so widely discussed? That's because they are so rare. Most of the time, authors/photographers don't get anything. And all their watermarks and EXIF data, and whatever else aren't of any help.

So in the context of forums and photography, if you post something that you've already registered with the Copyright office, then you don't need to worry about anyone stealing your pictures. Be glad if they do. But if you didn't register, then you aren't losing anything because, frankly, you didn't have anything to begin with.

I know this is a downer, but that's the reality. Not many people (especially forum owners, especially in the photography niche) would lay it out like that, but that's the honest truth of how things are.

My personal take on this is not to bother with registrations. I simply post my photos. If something gets stolen, I'll be sad about that person/company ripping me off. But that's life.

So everyone needs to make a personal decision whether to register or not. Stick with it. And based on that decision, maintain the attitude towards image theft or even the forum posts.

I'll talk about copyright in the US, as I don't know how it's done elsewhere.

But there is one important point to keep in mind:

While your work is protected the moment it's created, you can't really do anything substantial with that protection until you register your work with the Copyright Office by storing a copy at LOC.

Most people really don't realize it, but you can't actually sue anyone until you've filed for a registration.

Let's say you take a picture, post it online, and someone else grabs it and uses it in a poster which they later sell.

You want to sue, right? Great. But federal judges won't accept your complaint unless it's accompanied by a receipt from the Copyright office. That's in addition to proof that the work is yours.

So in order to sue, you would have to register your work even if it's at a later time, long after you've published it.

Let me repeat that again. You are protected the moment you take a picture. But you can't actually exercise that protection until you've registered your work with the Copyright Office.

For some reason, many people have a hard time grasping it. They either think that unless they register they aren't protected, or they think they can sue without registering. Both of those are false assumptions.

Since you have to register your work anyway (to sue), then you might as well register it while it's still unpublished.

Registering unpublished work has one major benefit aside from statutory damages. Registration of unpublished work is in itself proof of your ownership.

If you register your picture on, say, May 1, 2011, and the other party can't prove that they were in the possession of that picture prior to that date, then the judge would side with you. You won't need any additional proof to accompany the registration receipt.

So if you register your unpublished work, you can safely spread around not just thumbnails, but even original RAW files and not care about them being stolen. (As a matter of fact, you might hope they would get stolen and used by someone, preferably in a commercial way for a large company.)

I haven't filed any registrations in a long time, and when I did, I did it using postal service. But it is my understanding that the Copyright office accepts online registrations, and you can register thousands of images at once. So it's not that expensive.

This is the right way to deal with copyright. Now, let's briefly talk about the wrong way.

Embedding watermarks, EXIF data, printing and mailing envelopes to yourself via certified mail, getting affidavits from relatives, Flickr timestamps, etc. won't help you get your case accepted by a judge. It will be thrown out.

All of those things are nothing more than supporting evidence of your claim that the image is yours. And you will need them only if you register your work as published work at a later time just so that you can proceed with a lawsuit. But if you register your unpublished work, that's your evidence. And it is the strongest evidence a court would consider.

Additionally, if you don't register your work, but post it online, and later decide to sue someone over using it, then the most you could hope for is actual damages. And the burden of proving the amount would be on you. And the attorney fees aren't likely to be awarded. And... well it's as if you didn't really have any copyright protection at all.

Do you know why the cases where photographers get large compensations (with unregistered works) are so widely discussed? That's because they are so rare. Most of the time, authors/photographers don't get anything. And all their watermarks and EXIF data, and whatever else aren't of any help.

So in the context of forums and photography, if you post something that you've already registered with the Copyright office, then you don't need to worry about anyone stealing your pictures. Be glad if they do. But if you didn't register, then you aren't losing anything because, frankly, you didn't have anything to begin with.

I know this is a downer, but that's the reality. Not many people (especially forum owners, especially in the photography niche) would lay it out like that, but that's the honest truth of how things are.

My personal take on this is not to bother with registrations. I simply post my photos. If something gets stolen, I'll be sad about that person/company ripping me off. But that's life.

So everyone needs to make a personal decision whether to register or not. Stick with it. And based on that decision, maintain the attitude towards image theft or even the forum posts.