<pan### [at] syixcom> wrote in message news:3862fe5a@news.povray.org...
>
> John VanSickle <van### [at] erolscom> wrote in message
> news:38628B0C.3FD5D834@erols.com...
> > http://7am.com/cgi-bin/twires.cgi?1000_t99122101.htm
> >
> > Methinks the judge is an idiot.
>
> Maybe, maybe not.
>
> I looked at ditto.com using IE and what they have there is thumbnails
> that, when clicked, open two windows.
> 1) a no-menu window with the image *from* the owner's website
> 2) a second window with menus, etc. that shows the web page *at*
> the owner's website showing the image referenced at ditto.com
>
> In both windows the full url of the image's source is in the IE title bar.
>
> No attempt to obscure the ownership and all that seems stored at ditto.com
> is a thumbnail ... exactly like any other image server based search engine
> I have ever seen on the net.
>
> There well may be a legal issue, but it is hardly a black and white case
> of image theft and exploitation.
>
> *AND* any image can be removed from the ditto.com list *AND* ditto.com
> provides a page on how to use meta tags and robots.txt so that their
search
> engine won't index any images at a given site.
>
> So, what's the beef?
>
> Pan
>
>

Point taken...and although I agree that ditto.com is probably in the right,
they are obviously producing a profit from advertisments, ads which wouldn't
be there without the hundreds of referenced images from artists who aren't
receiving a dime.  Granted, it may not be a huge concern but let's look at
this think from all angles first.

-Chris-

Post a reply to this message