Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And that is PRECISELY why they invented this new approach. It allows tracking, credit and control. You are actually arguing both sides of the issue because you haven't bothered to learn what this new program by Getty does.
They will have a merry hard time enforcing it because of the massive amount of photos being stollen already. After they get paid, they could care less where their images end up.
Time will tell, but I seriously doubt we will start seeing an increase in IP law suits after this last little stunt because:
1. Most people don't care to learn and educate themselves better about licensing, and realize just how much money they're really leaving on the table
2. Most photographers don't have that kind of money to afford an IP lawyer
3. Copyright infringement is still tried in federal court, hence costly
4. A photographer will have to spend ample time tracing and finding every single person who stole their photo, and photographers like to photograph, and not chase thief's!
My only hope is that people learn to license their work. With that, we can leave all this behind, and move forward better informed, and start making a change for the betterment of our industry as a whole.
1. IF You happen to steal someone else's image online and use it elsewhere online where the original owner can find it, then they can sue you for copyright infringement.
They can try, but they would very likely lose if the defendant had a lawyer even half-way worth his/her fee.
This is why:
Posting inline HTML links to images has been ruled by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to not constitute copyright infringement. In Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon,com, Inc, the Court ruled that inline (HTML) linking does not violate U.S. copyright law:
Quote:
"Instead of communicating a copy of the image, Google provides HTML instructions that direct a user's browser to a website the publisher's computer that stores the full-size photographic image. Providing these HTML instructions is not equivalent to showing a copy. First, the HTML instructions are lines of text, not a photographic image. Second, HTML instructions do not themselves cause infringing images to appear on the user’s computer screen. The HTML merely gives the address of the image to the user’s browser. The browser then interacts with the computer that stores the infringing image. It is this interaction that causes an infringing image to appear on the user’s computer screen. Google may facilitate the user’s access to infringing images. However, such assistance raised only contributory liability issues and does not constitute direct infringement of the copyright owner’s display rights."
The above should be obvious to anyone who has ever searched for images on Google. Images are displayed in the user's browser via HTML inline link redirects. None of the displayed copyrighted content in a Google Images search result constitutes copyright infringement, and the 9th Circuit Curt explained very clearly why that is so.
More on this:
Quote:
"...a recent case from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that inline linking does not directly infringe copyright because no copy is made on the site providing the link; the link is just HTML code pointing to the image or other material. See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (2007). Other courts may or may not follow this reasoning. However, the Ninth Circuit's decision is consistent with the majority of copyright linking cases which have found that linking, whether simple, deep, or inline, does not give rise to liability for copyright infringement."
On the internet, if you can see it, you can steal it.
It's not stealing if the image, YouTube video, other work, etc., is inline linked via HTML (sometimes referred to as hotlinking or embedding). All that has happened is that another website has text that instructs the viewer's browser to redirect to the original website to view the image, YouTube video, etc. Directing anyone online to the work's owner's website / server, or that of whoever is licensed to display the work, isn't stealing, it's providing a direct path to the legally displayed work.
See my recent post linking the ruling from the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for more info. Also provided is a very short explanation of how easily one can prevent such access to their work if so desired, if they hire an IT professional who knows what they're doing.
Last edited by InformedConsent; 03-17-2014 at 12:48 PM..
It's not stealing if the image, YouTube video, other work, etc., is inline linked via HTML (sometimes referred to as hotlinking or embedding). All that has happened is that another website has text that instructs the viewer's browser to redirect to the original website to view the image, YouTube video, etc. Directing anyone online to the work's owner's website / server, or that of whoever is licensed to display the work, isn't stealing, it's providing a direct path to the legally displayed work.
I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make. People can still steal images by copying them and that is illegal.
Quote:
See my recent post linking the ruling from the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for more info. Also provided is a very short explanation of how easily one can prevent such access to their work if so desired, if they hire an IT professional who knows what they're doing.
Preventing linking is easy. Preventing copying is impossible. If you doubt that, please feel free to post an image somewhere that you think I can't copy. I'll be happy to provide you with a copy of it.
I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make. People can still steal images by copying them and that is illegal.
Yes. Copying a copyrighted image is illegal. However, inline HTML linking (aka embedding, hotlinking, etc.) an image is not illegal. Many viewers of websites and blogs access images via exactly that method and doing so has been ruled by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and other courts as NOT comprising copyright infringement on the part of the websites and blogs that host the text HTML inline link command redirecting viewers' browsers to the work creator's (or licensee's) own website / server.
That means that a work creator will not win a copyright infringement lawsuit merely because viewing a website or blog includes a representation of his/her copyrighted work. The appearance of the work in a viewer's browser if accessed by a text HTML command is legally permissible.
Quote:
Preventing linking is easy.
Yes, it is. That's why there should be NO COMPLAINTS WHATSOEVER from those who allow their images to be accessed by viewers' browsers via a text HTML command.
Why? why do you think it is ok not to give credit where credit is due? why should both loose business because you choose to not appreciate anyone's work?
Why do you think you deserve credit? I'm paying you for a service. I build entire websites and you won't find a single reference to my company on any of them, frankly me plastering my name all over something is classless and cheesy looking. Why would I plaster your name on it?
I don't have to "get used to it" at all. That's like saying: "get used to being ran over by a car!" Why should anyone get used to bad business practices?
You got it backwards, either adjust or you will be run over by the car.
I have always avoided Getty and this is just another reason to continue to avoid Getty. I have total control over all my photos and plan to keep it that way.
I have always avoided Getty and this is just another reason to continue to avoid Getty. I have total control over all my photos and plan to keep it that way.
Exactly. You can restrict external browser access to the photos hosted on your own computer/server. I've already posted a link to simple instructions on how to do so with an htacess file.
Once you license any other server, etc., to host a copy of your work, and if they make that publicly available, you've lost the ability to prevent your work from appearing on websites and blogs via HTML text command that instructs the viewer's browser to retrieve the image from the hosting server/website.
Getty is actually acting within the 9th Court's ruling on this. Creators do indeed have the right to control access to their work but only if they do not license others, like Getty, to host their work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
