Opinion, I'm not a lawyer, just a photographer who deals with these questions nearly every day.

The website, yours, mine Chipguide (CG) by way of publishing images, in a collection, are protected. At the same time, no, borrowing an image does not create a new copyright, nor does editing, however if someone uploads and grants permission, that means they have allowed the use bt CG. Image I license an image, and use it in a book? The image is now copyrighted in that book, even if the original rights belong to the photographer. So yes, CG and the images are protected. No they don't own the original copyright, only one creator can do that, but they do have their own rights, because it's on the CG website.

Further, if the CG uses an image without permission, as some are and have been, the owner of the image can ask that it is removed, only the owner or a person who has licensed that image, if it's taken from a second source. Fair use is tricky.

As before CG must make a notice of Creative Commons License which requires that anyone using the images, has a free right to, as long as the credit ChipGuide.Com (for example) Then people can use the images.

Also. I don't think you have the graphical or technical background required to make statements like you continuously do.

You do not have to "make copies" this is not 1980. You can make a wesbite template where the original photos sit behind transparent gifs with the Chipguide watermark over them.

Probably a $200 job on FIVERR

I bet to differ. Chatgpt and it's free

/* Style for the watermark */
.watermark {
position: relative;
}
.watermark::after {
content: "";
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
width: 100%;
height: 100%;
background: url('your-watermark-image-url-here') center center no-repeat;
opacity: 0.5; /* Adjust the opacity to your preference */
}

"in this example, we create a CSS class called "watermark" and set its position property to "relative". Then, we use the ::after pseudo-element to create a transparent overlay over the image by setting its content property to an empty string, its position property to "absolute", and its background property to the URL of your watermark image.

To apply this watermark to an image, we simply wrap the image element inside a div element with the "watermark" class.

Note: Replace "your-watermark-image-url-here" with the URL of your watermark image, and "your-image-url-here" with the URL of your actual image."

Yes you are correct, there's easy enough code that will put a transparent watermark on any image on a website. Didn't cost a cent.

Also correct, and Mr. Kaplan as well, watermarks don't protect anything, they are just a notice. Sure they can be removed... locks are just to keep honest people honest. The crooks or anyone who wants to steal an image, can, without much trouble. That's not why CG needs watermarks. Plus is someone links to an image, the watermark will show. As it is now, CG and whoever pays for the website are hosting free images, for anyone in the world to use, simply by linking? Really? The argument against is the cost of extra storage, which is pennies, but hosting for free and all that web usage, isn't an issue? Doesn't the CG pay for bandwidth and usage?

And in case I rambled on:

you please answer the important question at hand. As a due paying member and contributor of my intellectual property to Chipguide I will again ask you -

DOES CHIPGUIDE BELIEVE THEY HAVE CREATED A NEW COPYRIGHTED DERIVATIVE OF A SUBMITTERS PHOTO?

This very belief is the cornerstone of any further progress in an open dialog with those concerned about their IP being loaned to Chipguide.

Emilio Soto

They do not create a new copyright, they create their own, based on the website being protected. They must have permission from the original owner to USE the image.

How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. USCO See Circular 14, Copyright Registration for Derivative Works and Compilations.

No new copyright for images.

CG is a compilation: copyrights are automatically granted to protect material works and expression under the U.S. Copyright Act. That means a website is protected as soon as it is created.

I think CG should protect their assets, but not the way it's being done right now. Add a watermark, which is notice and discourages copying or direct linking. Post a notice on the site, that images are allowed to be used, according to Creative Commons Licensing. (I forget which one, I think it's 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) That credit needs to be given to the original source.

I can't see all the picking at the volunteers that some people are doing, not you Emilio, I mean in general, when CG trusts that someone contributing has uploaded their own image. You can't expect the many volunteers to spend time chasing and verifying, sources of images, for every contribution. There's an understanding that the people who edit the CG trust the contributors to follow the guidelines and the law. I suppose, one more notice (unless it's already there?) "You must be the owner of this image or have permission to contribute the image to the Chip Guide. You cannot use found images or photos from others, or their websites, without their consent."

CG is protected by the way, section 230. Although the general understand is about decency, this also relates to illegal content. So if a user uploads a stolen image, the website is not liable. There's a little more. The website has to monitor and actively remove anything illegal or anything that they get sent a notice. Notice needs to come from the owner, not just anyone stumbling along and seeing something on the website.

Enacted in 1996, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act helps protect online companies from liability arising from what is posted on their platforms.