Hotlinking images

[Sam5]

Originally Posted by sabianq

hi sam,
what you posted is in fact a URL link, not a "hotlink" as described in this thread.




does this help?

Yes, I know what an embedded photo is.

When I used the term url address "hot link" I mean a link that can be clicked on and it is "hot", it will take you to the photo in the url address. Some message boards I'm on don't have "hot" url linking without the posting of a code being required.

With this message board, I can post the link without posting a "hot" code for it.

It would simplify things for young newbies if rule number 8 read "Do not post photos direclty on any of the threads. Linking to them is ok."

[Sam5]

Originally Posted by timb

I suggest you read the rule and follow it.

I'll ask you again, for the newbies here:

Is posting a "link" to a photo Ok on this board?

[01101001]

Note: These questions come from an article in a topic (Spectrochemical Analysis to search for extrasolar life) where an inline hotlinked image was created by the poster and later converted into a link by a moderator.

Originally Posted by sabianq

in response to 01101001 about the image i hot linked to i did read this in the link you so graciously provided.

please tell me if i am misreading and misunderstanding this and i am not permitted to use the image file, otherwise, from what I had read,

http://www.si.edu/copyright/ [...]

Yes. I think you are misreading and misunderstanding. I don't know what you are permitted to do with an image file from the Smithsonian. If you had asked permission, and gotten it, it would be clear. Otherwise we surmise. Ultimately the permission for what you can do here comes from this forum's administrators and their agents.

Also there, there is:

Unauthorized commercial publication or exploitation of text, images or content of this website is specifically prohibited. Anyone wishing to use any of these files or images for commercial use, publication, or any purpose other than fair use as defined by law, must request and receive prior written permission from the Smithsonian Institution.

BAUT Forum is a commercial site. It has revenue-producing advertising. Fair use of an entire image would be difficult to defend, I think, in a lawsuit. BAUT Forum is not personal. BAUT Forum is not an educational institution -- despite having educational value. BAUT Forum is not journalism. BAUT Forum is a bunch of people putting up messages dealing with a common area of interest. In my reading, your use of an entire image owned by the Smithsonian Institution was not fair use. You may disagree, of course.

By the way, the Smithsonian points out that copiers like yourself -- and BAUT Forum -- may not only be dealing with Smithsonian property and Smithsonian rules:

The Smithsonian Institution does not warrant that use of the text, images and content displayed on the website will not infringe the rights of third parties not owned by or affiliated with the Smithsonian.

Finally, the short FAQ there offers clarification that should have helped your decision.

By the change that was made to your link, you and I can see how a moderator read it. If you think the mod was wrong, and you think it's worth the trouble, appeal the decision. Maybe others will read it differently. These things are unfortunately not black and white.

Bottom line when I think about such is: how do I balance good writing with keeping Phil and Fraser away from the wrong end of a legal threat and/or action.

Originally Posted by sabianq

further more,
from here:
http://www.bautforum.com/about-baut/...ml#post1385445
you said:

i was under the assumption that http://www.si.edu is an .edu and a government site. and i thought i did use the image with "acknowledgement"

am i totally wrong in using this image 01101001?

Yeah. I think so. Not all .edu sites have the same policies. I spoke of the sites I use for images. Check, as you are able, and only use the ones that allow it. And, by the way, the Smithsonian is not 100% US government funded, so it privately owns intellectual property, and therefore has property-use policies, as you've seen.

Originally Posted by sabianq

i am sorry if i offended you in any way.

I wasn't offended. I was sorry a member seemed to be careless -- especially after having gone overboard in the description of the validity of the hotlinked image, as if to make some point about such disclaimers being worthy of ridicule. That's why I commented in public. I don't think the rules need ridicule.

I should acknowledge, now that you have explained more about your diligence, that you seem to have tried to comply with the Smithsonian policy on using their property; I think you just misread and misinterpreted their restrictions.

[sabianq]

so this is interesting,
my neighbor is a copyright lawyer with a specialty in digital copyrights and world wide web usage, i asked her opinion on hotlinking, there seems to be two sides of the fence her, however there is case law that shows that hotlinking is not copyright infringement. The question is at what point the infringement is actually taking place. she pointed out that what is exactly is happening when hotlinking is used is at the root of the argument.
according to the strict scene of the law,

Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized use of material that is covered by copyright law, in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.

when one hotlinks to an image on another persons website, the person who is hotlinking is not copying the image at all nor is the image being distributed from the server where the hot link was initiated, the image is not downloaded and saved on the server.
lets use this server as an example.
when i use a URL to point to an image, say
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1...re_252_jw2.jpg

all i am doing is just pointing to the server and the location in the server that hosts the image, i have to click on the link in order to see the image.

when i type
[ img]http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/106326main_image_feature_252_jw2.jpg[/img]

and the image shows up like below,


the image is still hosted on the original server, i am not downloading the image to this server, nor am i downloading the image to my computer, the image is not being copied and stored or redistributed, as soon as i close this window, the window closes and the image is no longer being shown, it was not reproduced, and stored.
it was only framed through a window through your browser, and until you right click on it and save it to your hard drive, there is no copyright violation occurring.

on the other side of the fence, one argument against it besides the bandwidth issue is that by hot linking to the image, you could be said to be "performing" the the piece of art like playing a song on the radio, however there has yet to be a ruling that says that merely showing a original piece of art work like a photograph or painting is a copyright violation.

in case law Perfect 10 v. Google,

Adult entertainment publisher Perfect 10 sued Google's Image Search service, arguing that Google violates copyright law by indexing Perfect 10 photos posted on unauthorized websites, then making and delivering thumbnail images of those photos in its search results. Perfect 10 also contends that Google should be held liable for any copyright infringement that occurs on sites that Google links to.

In February 2006, the district court ruled in favor of Google on several grounds, but ruled against Google for its creation of thumbnails.

on may 16 2007:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/05...right-showdown

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/Ke...sed_ruling.pdf

Today's decision reversed the lower court's holding [PDF] that Google's thumbnails were not a fair use, following and bolstering an earlier image search engine precedent, Kelly v. Arriba Soft [PDF].

and according to the complaint in Kelly v. Arriba Soft

Arriba received
Kelly’s complaint of copyright infringement, which identified
other images of his that came from third-party web sites.
Arriba subsequently deleted those thumbnails and placed
those third-party sites on a list of sites that it would not crawl
in the future.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of
Arriba. Kelly’s motion for partial summary judgment asserted
that Arriba’s use of the thumbnail images violated his display,
reproduction, and distribution rights. Arriba cross-moved for
summary judgment. For the purposes of the motion, Arriba
conceded that Kelly established a prima facie case of infringement.
However, it limited its concession to the violation of the
display and reproduction rights as to the thumbnail images.
Arriba then argued that its use of the thumbnail images was
a fair use.
The district court did not limit its decision to the thumbnail
images alone. The court granted summary judgment to Arriba,
finding that its use of both the thumbnail images and the fullsize
images was fair. In doing so, the court broadened the
scope of Kelly’s original motion to include a claim for
infringement of the full-size images. The court also broadened
the scope of Arriba’s concession to cover the prima facie case
for both the thumbnail images and the full-size images. The
court determined that two of the fair use factors weighed
heavily in Arriba’s favor. Specifically, the court found that
the character and purpose of Arriba’s use was significantly
transformative and the use did not harm the market for or
value of Kelly’s works. Kelly now appeals this decision.

according to wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...ng_and_framing

When an inline (img slink of an image is used on a Web page, it seems to be present as a part of the Web page that you are viewing. The presence of the image is only virtual, however, in the sense that the image file is not physically present at the server for the Web site being viewed. The actual location of the image file, if the image were that of the PTO seal, would be at the PTO server in Virginia. Use of inline linking has led to contentious litigation (discussed below).

[sabianq]

Originally Posted by 01101001

By the way, the Smithsonian points out that copiers like yourself...

wait wait wait...
what kind of remark is that?
that remark is very offensive to me.

i never actually copied anything
i never downloaded or stored any form of art, and i never re posted or redistributed any picture on this site.
i did not upload a picture that i down loaded.
all i did was write some text to point to a picture that is stored on somebodies else s server.
deep linking is technically not copying.

In Google vs Perfect 10, Google won the ability to use images in their image search through hotlinking.


and even according to rule 8 the only reason that hotlinking should be avoided is because of bandwidth issues.
copyright infringement concerns do not show up in the rule.
does the rule need to be re written?
or were the details describing copyright infringement when hot linking omitted from rule because the authors already knew about the legal standing hot linking?


http://www.bautforum.com/about-baut/...ing-board.html

8. Hotlinking

Try to avoid putting in links to images directly from someone else's website. This can add a lot to their bandwidth, and then the host has to pay for it. In other words, if you see an image you like on an astronomy site, put in a link to that site, but don't use the [IMG] tags so the image loads into your post from their site directly. If you really want an image in your post, put it in a public site someplace and link to it from there. One exception would be from sites like NASA or universities, where bandwidth is not such an issue. If you own the image, then you can upload it to the board yourself.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by sabianq

so this is interesting,
my neighbor is a copyright lawyer

How likely do you think it is that Phil and Fraser would enjoy hiring a lawyer to argue these fascinating and intricate points in front of a judge?

Or, are they better off promoting rules, and directing their agents' behavior, so that such a necessity is discouraged?

[sabianq]

Originally Posted by 01101001

How likely do you think it is that Phil and Fraser would enjoy hiring a lawyer to argue these fascinating and intricate points in front of a judge?

Or, are they better off promoting rules, and directing their agents' behavior, so that such a necessity is discouraged?

it was already argued before a judge
she told me about the case law and i mirrored them.
google vs perfect 10

answer my question please

according to rule 8 the only reason that hotlinking should be avoided is because of bandwidth issues.
copyright infringement concerns do not show up in the rule.
does the rule need to be re written?

or were the details describing copyright infringement when hot linking omitted from rule because the authors already knew about the legal standing of hot linking?


http://www.bautforum.com/about-baut/...ing-board.html
Quote:

8. Hotlinking

Try to avoid putting in links to images directly from someone else's website. This can add a lot to their bandwidth, and then the host has to pay for it. In other words, if you see an image you like on an astronomy site, put in a link to that site, but don't use the [IMG] tags so the image loads into your post from their site directly. If you really want an image in your post, put it in a public site someplace and link to it from there. One exception would be from sites like NASA or universities, where bandwidth is not such an issue. If you own the image, then you can upload it to the board yourself.

[sabianq]

look here
http://images.google.com/images?gbv=...forums&spell=1

is the post above illegal?

it was ruled "no"
otherwise it would not exist

btw, the link is Googles image results of all of our avatars here on bautforums

[Tinaa]

Why cause potential trouble for Fraser or Phil? Don't include the img tags for anything unless you are posting your own work. Just post a link with a brief explanation. I would rather click a link than have it load directly and I have broadband.

It is the polite thing to do.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Sam5

I'll ask you again, for the newbies here:

Is posting a "link" to a photo Ok on this board?

Yes, but only if you do so in an appropriate manner.

Those of you contributing to this thread will be please to note that I will no longer be embedding images in the post itself. I am taking this course of action both for the benefit of those with slow connections, as well as to help avoid an unnecessary burden on the third-party image server which hosts the image.

Instead, I will be using one of three methods available to us all:

1. Providing a URL with others can copy and paste into their own browsers. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aeroforces.svg

2. Providing a URL, with link, that others can click on if they want to follow it. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aeroforces.svg

3. Including it as an attachment, which will produce a thumbnail at the bottom of the post. Example: See bottom of post.

In addtion, I will limit my use of images to those which are either in the public domain, possess a general use license, or those which I myself have taken/created and have uploaded to a server such as PhotoBucket which expressly allows such links.

From what I gather, the terms hotlinking, inline linking, offsite embedded images, and offsite image grabs are all synonomous. Put simply, if a person is viewing a BAUT page and one of the images they see is pulled directly from another site, as an inline part of the post, that's hotlinking.

True, I understand the confusion behind the rapidly changing terminology of the Internet. While Microsoft may be pioneers with the introduction of some terms, they're not the watchdogs to ensure those terms do not morph over time into how people will come to use them.

For those of you with a morbid sense of curiosity, no, I am not doing this in response to a mod's or admin's PM. I am doing this of my own volition, because:

1. I took the time to read through the messages and concerns of others.

2. Am a responsible member of this community and dislike mass confusion or contention.

3. I am hoping that I, as one of the original detractors of this thread, can set an example!

If I can put aside my own way of doing things and find two good reasons (other than the rules) why images should be handled as noted above, while still maintaining 100% useability, then so can the rest of you.

I hope my examples above have reduced the confusion over this topic.

[mahesh]

this is a personal note:

sabianq and 01101001, thank you both for concerns that you so graciously raise and resolve here.
i understand the situation / dilemma better, after yours, sabianq, at #59 and both of yours subsequent expansions / explanations.
i hope that i haven't infringed / stepped on toes / anywhere, with my disarticulated attempts at linking stuff...and if i have, it would have to have been innocuous...no malice or otherwise intended.

thank you

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by sabianq

answer my question please

according to rule 8 the only reason that hotlinking should be avoided is because of bandwidth issues.
copyright infringement concerns do not show up in the rule.
does the rule need to be re written?

OK, since you asked it twice

The rule does not say that is the only reason, but it is the only reason given in the rule. The rules don't have to give any reasons.

or were the details describing copyright infringement when hot linking omitted from rule because the authors already knew about the legal standing of hot linking?

As you've pointed out, the legal standing is murky. And, IIRC, the author of the FAQ did indeed know that there were undecided issues about hotlinking. I might be able to find some of the original discussion somewhere, I'll check. Rule number 4 addresses copyright issues, although it does not specifically address images--but hotlinking is subtly different from copying large sections of text to a BAUT post.

As Tinaa said a few posts back, avoid hotlinking in general, unless it is from your personal webspace. The FAQ specifically mentions that hotlinking to NASA sites and university sites is OK, and leaves open the possibility for others, but for other sites I as a mod will probably replace the image with a link.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by sabianq

it was already argued before a judge
she told me about the case law and i mirrored them.
google vs perfect 10

answer my question please

So, did you read the original decision in Google v. Perfect 10? It's a fair-use defense, full of subtle arguments about the precise nature of the facets of the infringement, a careful balancing of the facts. The 9th Circuit overturned it, deciding on fine balance in the other direction.

It's not as black and white as you seem to think.

Grayness is bad. Grayness can lead to dollars leaving Phil and Fraser and going to Phil and Fraser's lawyer.

For one instance of a potential to go wrong, there is this:

Wikipedia: Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

The court held that Google's use of framing and hyperlinking (deep linking) was a fair use of P10's images, because the use was highly transformative.

One item in Google's fair-use defense was that the images were only thumbnails. Your use of the Smithsonian image, which would become BAUT Forum's use if the owners didn't act to discourage it, was a whole image, not transformed.

The point of an intellectual property policy like BAUT's is not to win in court. It is to avoid being in court. It's good business to be conservative in using other's property. I think BAUT's owners are happy with the policy where it is.

You and your IP neighbor may wish to argue the fine points of this complex issue, in your own case, on your dime. Please don't invite BAUT's owners to join you.

And, please, stop lawyering your case here. It could be another Do you think 0.9999999~ =1 , that is infinite 9s. If you want the policy changed, I suggest you get your lawyer to talk to their lawyer and hash it all out.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

As Tinaa said a few posts back, avoid hotlinking in general, unless it is from your personal webspace. The FAQ specifically mentions that hotlinking to NASA sites and university sites is OK, and leaves open the possibility for others, but for other sites I as a mod will probably replace the image with a link.

Image Shack (sp?) is set up specifically as a hosting service for hotlinking images, so I consider that ok as well.
Note though that copyright does apply in that case as you have to be allowed to put the image on imageshack in the first place.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by Sam5

If you call a photo posted on this thread a “hotlink”, then what do you call this:

http://www.seraphicpress.com/images/Jean-Harlow-.jpg

A “hot link”.

In English it's quite possible for “hotlink” and “hot link” to mean different things.

[Tobin Dax]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

snip

What happened to "not purple"?

hhEb, I'd think that red text would go well with your avatar. Or maybe green for the christmas season.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

Image Shack (sp?) is set up specifically as a hosting service for hotlinking images, so I consider that ok as well.
Note though that copyright does apply in that case as you have to be allowed to put the image on imageshack in the first place.

Good point.

Originally Posted by Tobin Dax

What happened to "not purple"?

hhEb, I'd think that red text would go well with your avatar. Or maybe green for the christmas season.

I almost went with magenta, like Tinaa, since my Ame.Her.Dic. says it is a "moderate to vivid purplish red". I only used "not purple" once (so far). Purple is moderator mode for me, and I used "not purple" to make sure I was understood to be not in moderator mode. If I thought I could get away with it, I'd be a rainbow, like George.

[Sam5]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

A “hot link”.

In English it's quite possible for “hotlink” and “hot link” to mean different things.

Ok, I'll buy that.

[Tobin Dax]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

Purple is moderator mode for me, and I used "not purple" to make sure I was understood to be not be in moderator mode.

So I misread that. It was still amusing.
Purple does seem to have become a default moderator-mode color, and it's probably the best one, IMO. Magenta does sound like a good choice, too.

I'll quit dragging the thread off-topic now.

[Tinaa]

I love the magenta!

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

A “hot link”.

In English it's quite possible for “hotlink” and “hot link” to mean different things.

Absolutely! In a few hours, it'll mean sausages cooking in the pan for breakfast...

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Absolutely! In a few hours, it'll mean sausages cooking in the pan for breakfast...

Try it out on a street vendor in New York, New York. I can about guarantee you they will make a sale.

[timb]

Originally Posted by Tobin Dax

What happened to "not purple"?

hhEb, I'd think that red text would go well with your avatar. Or maybe green for the christmas season.

No, green is my color.

[Sam5]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Absolutely! In a few hours, it'll mean sausages cooking in the pan for breakfast...

Just to clarify this thread a little, I will say that the following is a hot link to hot links, but it’s not a hotlink of hot links.

http://ninecooks.typepad.com/photos/...efhotlinks.jpg

[Tobin Dax]

Originally Posted by Sam5

Just to clarify this thread a little, I will say that the following is a hot link to hot links, but it’s not a hotlink of hot links.

http://ninecooks.typepad.com/photos/...efhotlinks.jpg

Say "goodnight," Gracey.

[mahesh]

aaw...i forgot again...

Is linking to youtube anything, hot-linking?

please.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by mahesh

aaw...i forgot again...

Is linking to youtube anything, hot-linking?

please.

No, unless you have a way of actually running the video in the post itself. But a weblink to a picture or video stored on another website is not hot-linking. Hot-linking is when the picture actually appears in the post, rather than a link to the website with the picture.

[mahesh]

Thank you Swift! You are an ace!

[tdvance]

On the other hand, it's polite (don't think it's mandatory that I know of) to state that its a video for people not expecting a video. Though if it has "youtube" in the url, most people would notice that.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by tdvance

On the other hand, it's polite (don't think it's mandatory that I know of) to state that its a video for people not expecting a video. Though if it has "youtube" in the url, most people would notice that.

Yes. It would also be nice to give some description of it, even if only a few words, such as link to a video of a cat in a flying saucer (no, that's not a real link).