Can I Link To Coyrighted Images.

[mogadishu]

Can i link to copyrighted images (comics)?

[Adster]

don't think you can

[mogadishu]

Ok good, cus i just did in bookworld.

[Lamsey]

It ain't allowed. Sorry.

[mogadishu]

errr. to bad.

[the_faceman]

would it make it slightly better if you posted a link to the source along with it? and said "copyright "insert name here" 2003 or something.

just wondering.

[vivitron 15]

as the face said, surely as long as you quote the author etc, as you would in a book review, then there is no problem?

and there is plenty of copyright images in music world which need to be cleared up...all the album covers etc.

[J'Pol]

There is a difference between being able to and being allowed to.

If it is against forum rules, which I believe it is, they you may not.

[vivitron 15]

Originally posted by JPaul@2 August 2003 - 14:52
There is a difference between being able to and being allowed to.

If it is against forum rules, which I believe it is, they you may not.
this is true, JP...If it is against the rules, then I feel a need to report a couple of items to have the images taken out of them:

a couple of images here (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/bb/index.php?showtopic=5418)

and some here (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/bb/index.php?showtopic=54258)

go to it mods...

[Lamsey]

To be honest we're not bothered about that kind of thing.

We only really bother about images being posted if you actually have to buy it to see it, eg. a set of scanned pictures from a comic or whatever.


You never know, Crumbcat's posts may actually inspire people to buy the stuff, so I don't think the copyright holders would mind much.

[mogadishu]

But technically, crumbcat's posts are just as illegal as what i wanted to post?

[Lamsey]

Originally posted by mogadishu@3 August 2003 - 00:27
But technically, crumbcat's posts are just as illegal as what i wanted to post?
Technically, i suppose so :unsure:

[3rd gen noob]

yet again...the rules leave members and mods at loggerheads

[Lamsey]

The rules are there to avoid the possibility of the board getting into trouble.

DC Comics might take issue with DDL-links to one of their commercial works, but I don't really imagine anyone complaining about CD covers...

[Adster]

yeah I thought the RIAA f*cked up a few cover sites couldn't they do the same if we psot album covers??

[balamm]

Inline linking to images is not illegal under current US law. This would take care of the problem of posting album covers from American artists at least.


http://www.ipwatchdog.com/images/ipw-banner-50.gif


What is Inline Linking?



This is an example of inline linking. The image below is an image that is available on the United States Copyright Office Web Site. It appears as if I have copied the image to my server, but in reality I have not copied the image at all. The below image is called up directly from the US Copyright Office server and displayed in the location of my choosing on this web page.

In Kelly v. Arriba, 280 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2002), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that this type of linking violates the copyright owner's right to display, which is one of the rights a copyright bestows upon the holder. See 17 USC 106.

The latest in the Kelly v. Arriba linking battle occurred on July 7, 2003, when the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit withdrew its earlier opinion in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp (February 6, 2002). The Court filed this substitute decision holding that Arriba’s reproduction of Kelly’s images for use as thumbnails in Arriba’s search engine is a fair use under the Copyright Act. However, the Court held that the district court should not have reached whether Arriba’s display of Kelly’s full-sized images is a fair use because the parties never moved for summary judgment on this claim and Arriba never conceded the prima facie case as to the full-size images. The district court’s opinion is, therefore, affirmed as to the thumbnails and reversed as to the display of the full-sized images. The Ninth Circuit remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and fees on appeal. The petition for rehearing en banc is now mooted. This is rather significant because the earlier decision of the Ninth Circuit called into question inline linking, and declared that such linking was a copyright infringement. The original opinion was criticized because when one engages in inline linking there is no copy being made by the alleged infringer. Rather, the object inline linked is pulled directly from the host server with no intermediate copy being made by the accused infringer. For more information on this development see Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp (9th Cir. July 7, 2003) and Court backs thumbnail image linking (CNET).

In any event, whatever the law may become, Section 105 of the Copyright Act, states that no work that is created by the Federal Government is copyrightable, therefore, the inline link below could not violate the right to display, because there is no right to display, because there is no copyright in the first place. Had the link below been to a copyrightable image, the display right would be violated under the now withdrawn Ninth Circuit Kelly v. Arriba decision of February 6, 2002. Given that the case has been remanded for trial, the fate of inline linking remains in question.

If you are confused by the above explanation, I suggest that you put your cursor over the image below, right click, go down to properties, and then notice the URL is not to IPWatchdog.com, but rather is to Copyright.gov. If you are still confused, go to the IPWatchdog.com image at the top of this page, right click, go down to properties, and then notice the URL is in fact to an IPWatchdog.com file.

http://www.copyright.gov/images/banner_1.gif

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/inline_linking.html

[Adster]

ok thanks balamm that explains it all I didn't know that

[J'Pol]

There was an interesting discussion with regard to this and your IE cache, which does in fact make a copy.

Basically it was decided, as I recall, that the www would be unworkable without this system in place.

That could all be nonsense tho'

[vivitron 15]

Originally posted by balamm
when one engages in inline linking there is no copy being made by the alleged infringer. Rather, the object inline linked is pulled directly from the host server with no intermediate copy being made

ok, so what if i direct link to an app which is stored on an external server...this way, im not copying it, rather the file is pulled directly from the host server with no intermediate copy being made. this way, Im not doing anything copyright, Im just telling you where there is somethig copyright............

in fact, surely an mp3 is a computer "image" of a music track, since it is not actually music which comes thru my phone line?



and yes, im playing devils advocate

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by vivitron 15+3 August 2003 - 22:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vivitron 15 @ 3 August 2003 - 22:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-balamm
when one engages in inline linking there is no copy being made by the alleged infringer. Rather, the object inline linked is pulled directly from the host server with no intermediate copy being made

ok, so what if i direct link to an app which is stored on an external server...this way, im not copying it, rather the file is pulled directly from the host server with no intermediate copy being made. this way, Im not doing anything copyright, Im just telling you where there is somethig copyright............

in fact, surely an mp3 is a computer "image" of a music track, since it is not actually music which comes thru my phone line?



and yes, im playing devils advocate [/b][/quote]
It&#39;s not an image it&#39;s a compressed version.

A jpg is a compressed version of a bmp, it&#39;s still a copy.

[vivitron 15]

ok, im sorry if i wasnt clear in my point...

what i was trying to say is that an mp3 is in fact the computers interpretation of a song...it is not sound waves which travel through the lines..

so in summary, if we find a comic on another webpage, we may link direct to it?

[J'Pol]

A CD is not music, it is a digital file. Encoded as bumps on a "disc"

An audio tape is not music, it is data contained within an electromagnetic medium.

Old Style records are not music they are groves and bumps within a piece of plastic.

The point is that none of this is music, until you decode it. Therefore your MP3 on the hard drive is the same as anything else.

Anyway, the DPA describes any electronically stored data as a document, with the same copyright rules applying to it as to a book or other type of document.

[vivitron 15]

now im being very faececious (dont try to spell that after a few)


The point is that none of this is music, until you decode it. Therefore your MP3 on the hard drive is the same as anything else.

k, but how do i know that my decoder is decoding it the same as someone elses?

if i dl a film in divX format, without having installed the codec, then i have done nothing wrong, as it is not a film till its decoded?

[J'Pol]

What if you buy a pirate dvd but you don&#39;t have a dvd player.

[vivitron 15]

exactly..or even if you promise not to play it...do they have to prove that the film has been decoded? (i.e. played)

[J'Pol]

No - it&#39;s a balance of probability thing.

The Court would consider the actions of a reasonable man.

Why does a reasonable man spend £10 on a dvd. It&#39;s not for a posh coaster. He intends to watch it.

Remember it&#39;s not a beyond reasonable doubt question. It&#39;s a what would YOU buy it for question.

So why did you download the file. To store it but not listen to it . I think not.

Your argument, though attractive, has no legal basis.

[vivitron 15]

ah, i realise it wouldnt exactly stand up in court, but


how do i know that my decoder is decoding it the same as someone elses?

really though, if i play an avi without the codec, i get one thing; if i decode with i get another....do you see what im sorta saying; i could have a purpose to decode it "improperly" ....anyway, i think ill stop being daft here, cos although i am enjoying the argument i fear the lounge is looming, cos our mate lamsey is gettin annoyed on SS chat :P :D

[J'Pol]

I think Lamey may be in serious tidy-up mode.

That generally means the lounge gets full of detritus in short order.

Hi guys, how are you doing. Hope you all had a look at the viz site.

[Lamsey]

It&#39;s kinda on-topic, so it stays for tonight at least...

[J'Pol]

No, please, don&#39;t let the fact that it is reasonable cogent argument stop your purge.

Lenin would be ashamed of you for wimping out like this.

[J'Pol]

Oh and it may be worth doing a compare and contrast exercise on the words moderate and judge.

At least one of them implies independence of opinion.