Newspaper using link to image

[SShep]

Has anybody else had this?

 

About half-way down this Guardian article there is a link reading 'As the Left howls for resignations over Met's £50 Covid fines ... Don't they know there's a war on?".  This links directly to the Alamy site with the zoomed version of my photograph of that newspaper.  So the photograph isn't directly used by The Guardian but is linked to on the Alamy site.

 

Surely this would just mean that anyone could simply link to a photograph without licencing it?

 

Steve

[Nodvandigtid]

Never noted it before SShep.

I understand the linking to it in the context of having a pop at right wing papers - i.e your image has the headline - but it has all sorts of connotations in terms of licensing, fees, no-fees, public domain etc

I don't think it would be common but could be the start of something - I would contact CR now and ask for their observations/comments and implications.

[spacecadet]

There's CJEU case law on this- linking in the course of business may be infringing

https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/08/europes-top-court-rules-linking-can-infringe-copyright-if-done-for-profit/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGUBjCbIRVIxiZELSJcDynKdGSqmIoYEYuzev72TFu4w7IY8j1PamIdYfwhPj2y78mA0YGnJJDK334ImtupFUIlrC_SKbQI0NJuvwLCHXf4H7gGwnI9mUArE9K2G8Qo6_cQRi9LGxppiqN9u1r1GJoGVNBn_eEKUd5gaRBwQAQaL

 

Since the current government fashion seems to be to try cut out every vestige of the cancer of EU membership. how long this will remain part of UK law is anybody's guess.

[geogphotos]

This is hot-linking and as far as I am aware not a copyright infringement.  Not so sure what the Mail will make of it though.

 

It happens ALL THE TIME but I haven't seen it done like this before mu a UK newspapers. 

Edited May 10, 2022 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

Duplicate deleted.

Edited May 10, 2022 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

Copyright issues raised by inline linking[edit]

The most significant legal fact about inline linking, relative to copyright law considerations, is that the inline linker does not place a copy of the image file on its own Internet server. Rather, the inline linker places a pointer on its Internet server that points to the server on which the proprietor of the image has placed the image file. This pointer causes a user's browser to jump to the proprietor's server and fetch the image file to the user's computer. US courts have considered this a decisive fact in copyright analysis. Thus, in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,^[6] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained why inline linking did not violate US copyright law:

Google does not...display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user’s computer screen. Because Google’s computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any “material objects...in which a work is fixed...and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated” and thus cannot communicate a copy. Instead of communicating a copy of the image, Google provides HTML instructions that direct a user’s browser to a website 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. ...While in-line linking and framing may cause some computer users to believe they are viewing a single Google webpage, the Copyright Act...does not protect a copyright holder against [such] acts....

[Betty LaRue]

That stinks. Just a way to avoid paying a photographer.

[geogphotos]

5 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

That stinks. Just a way to avoid paying a photographer.

 

 

It is so widespread to be scary. When I get reports on Matches from Pixsy I scroll through a huge long list that I have to identify as 'Ignore' because it is a hot link.

 

For example, the hot-linker can link to Alamy/other agencies or to the legitimate licence holder. 

 

Pages, and pages, and pages of this. Most of the potential infringements are of this type.

 

I don't know if Alamy can do anything to stop it but presumably that would also mean Google not listing our images.

Edited May 10, 2022 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

What you are asked to do when you find a possible infringement is supply the image address.

 

Right click on the image and you will see it.

 

When the image address does not match with the website addres of the site you are on it is likely to be a hot-link. 

 

[Inchiquin]

In the old days, when netiquette reigned, linking to an image on another server without permission was frowned on because it was effectively theft of that server's precious bandwidth. Those days are long gone, of course. In theory it's possible to stop this happening, but to do it effectively really requires having control of the server. I'm sure Alamy could do it if they wanted. Don't hold your breath.

 

Alan

 

[meanderingemu]

5 minutes ago, Inchiquin said:

In the old days, when netiquette reigned, linking to an image on another server without permission was frowned on because it was effectively theft of that server's precious bandwidth. Those days are long gone, of course. In theory it's possible to stop this happening, but to do it effectively really requires having control of the server. I'm sure Alamy could do it if they wanted. Don't hold your breath.

 

Alan

 

 

If Alamy sees it as a potential source of money, I assume they would pursue it.  If it means cost, sending take downs with no $$ then yes they likely wouldn't.  If anything they probably think these links back are "publicity" and would send the infringer "affiliate bonus".    

[SShep]

Thanks for the views everyone.  I've contacted Alamy and they are investigating and hope to get back to me soon.  I'll let you know the outcome.

 

Steve

[Nigel Kirby]

Cheers Steve

 

Best Nigel

[spacecadet]

I'd have thought it was a bit rainy for the Red Arrows to fly today.

[geogphotos]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

I'd have thought it was a bit rainy for the Red Arrows to fly today.

 

Hot link to Steve Bell Guardian cartoon.

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by geogphotos

[spacecadet]

33 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Hot link to Steve Bell Guardian cartoon.

 

Indeed. They were grounded apparently.

Oddly enough that works very well at phone size but is hard to read on PC. I saw it on a phone first.

Edited May 11, 2022 by spacecadet