The whole thorny question of "what images can I post" has arisen (again) and it's worth a refresh of the situation. 

What's the issue?

Basically, people go out and take pictures, or create images using their own skills. They can also create audio (music), moving images (videos), text (including works of fiction, explanation and news).  They can then make that information available in ways which includes putting it onto web sites. But that doesn't mean anyone else can copy and use it - the originator wants, perhaps, to use it to attract people to his web site, or to have people pay if they want a copy or reuse it.  After all, they may have to earn a living / have re-reimbursement for the cost of production. This is copyright

What images can I post?

[advice from an AI engine] You can post images you took yourself (you own the copyright), public domain images, or those with a Creative Commons license allowing reuse. Otherwise, you generally need permission (license) from the owner, though fair use for commentary/education might apply. But it's risky. Even with credit, reposting others' work is often infringement unless licensed. Always check the image's source or license, or create your own.

Who is responsible for Coffee Shop posts?

The person who posts is responsible.  That's part of the forum agreement you checked when you signed up (reference copy ((here))) - it has been like that from post no. 1 on 28th January 2007, and no-one can post without having agreed. The Coffee Shop is what I thing is described as a "common carrier" - we carry content for the poster.  In the same way, a train driver is not an accessory to a theft if he carries a robber leaving the town where he has burgled, even with the items stolen.   Where we do have a responsibility in the admin / moderator team is if something comes to our attention which contravenes certain laws, protecting privacy and vulnerable people for example, and we'll go further where we feel it's appropriate to help protect our members and our forum's  position. 

What if I am concerned as I post?

Please consider what you are about to post against the suggestions above. Our team are not legal experts and if in doubt you should seek advise for an expert - or simply not post. You are also welcome to ask what the admin / moderator team think, but what we say is just to help you work things out for yourself.

What if I am concerned about something already posted?

If it's your recent post you are welcome to go back and edit it if you wish. For some time after you post, you are able to go back and edit your own posts, but in due course it's considered archived and you'll need to seek help from an admin to make changes.  If it's someone else's post that concerns you, please raise the matter by personal message with the original poster or with the admin team.

And finally

We are looking here at concerns over a very few / small proportion of posts, but a single social media (and we are) post can make for problems.  Our team is very much aware of lots of the issues and we have come forward over the years in how they're handled.  We characterise it as "helping you post safely" and we'll continue to give the very occasional nudge if we're worried about something.  We do not want to make a mountain out of a molehill - please carry on posting the 99.9% of content that's AOK!

Yes, Chris - the same applies - "If you source images directly or indirectly from ..." in the original post that stared this thread.

The issue has arisen to be flagged up on the Coffee Shop NOT because of something that's happened here, but because of an article on the Daily Mail website about a rail issue, which was then copied onto a user group web site.  It seems that the Daily Mail had licensed an image for their article which, however, did not allow it to be copied onward by the user group.  The "oy" came not from the Daily Mail, as I understand it, but from the licensing company representing the original photographer who had made in available to them, probably to monetarise his/her picture.

If in doubt, provision of a link is a good idea.

That said Graham, in UK^▸ (United Kingdom) law, there is no implied right of privacy when in a public place - and that includes a railway platform owned by Network Rail behind a ticket barrier. If you are in a public space, man or boy, you can be photographed, and that photograph can be published. If you took the picture, you own the copyright, not the subject in the frame.

The owner of the premises, in my example above - Network Rail, can ask you not to take photos at all, or maybe just not of certain objects, such as safety critical equipment - their land, their rules.

About links to Telegraph articles I occasionally post - you wouldn't normally be able to read them unless you have a subscription. I do (one of those cheap initial offers that I forgot then couldn't be bothered to cancel ), and make use of the "Gift this article free" button to get a link which allows anyone to read it for free; you get 10 of those per month IIRC^▸ ('if I recall/remember/read correctly'). I assume that's ok? I'll stop if not.

I have started a new sticky thread to leave the key elements of this easily available at https://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=31486 and that is where the tags, when you use them, will direct readers.