 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <van### [at] erols com> 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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Peter Hertel
Subject: SV: Not quite good news about copyrights
Date: 24 Dec 1999 07:52:31
Message: <38636c8f@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Anyway, ditto.com should've asked for permission first.
--
Peter
http://hertel.no/bigone
<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
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have to agree with Pan on this one ("what's the beef?").
Peter's point about permission is sort of valid, but I feel the logistics
are against it.
It looks as though ditto com would increase traffic to the image owner's
site. They are not taking money away from the image owners, nor claiming
ownership.
Personally, I would thank ditto rather than complain if I found a link to my
site on theirs.
Peter Hertel <big### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:38636c8f@news.povray.org...
> Anyway, ditto.com should've asked for permission first.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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
So that's all it does? I guess I misinterpreted. Well AltaVista does the same
thing and I don't see anyone complaining :-)
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 14:23:28 -0600, David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet>
wrote:
>> 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
>
>So that's all it does? I guess I misinterpreted. Well AltaVista does the same
>thing and I don't see anyone complaining :-)
The image search on AltaVista is affiliated with a specific company
which probably has some rights on the image in its database because
one has to pay for a full-res image.
Peter Popov
pet### [at] usanet
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The image search on AltaVista is affiliated with a specific company
> which probably has some rights on the image in its database because
> one has to pay for a full-res image.
-?-
When you click an image it goes to the webpage it's at...
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Chris Spencer
Subject: Re: Not quite good news about copyrights
Date: 28 Dec 1999 10:38:21
Message: <3868d96d@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
<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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Spencer wrote:
>
> 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-
That's also how an art-magazine, for instance, earns its money, isn't
it?
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > 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.
> >
This isn't a very valid point, since they are not taking away a source of
revenue from the artist. They can sell adds because the site is a
comprehensive index of images, not because of the images of one particular
artist.
The artist is losing nothing, just gaining another link to his/her site.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The artist is losing nothing, just gaining another link to his/her site.
The artist loses the right to determine where and how her work will/will not
be displayed.
The artist loses the right to determine the quality of representation her
work will receive. When these services create thumbnail images of an
artist's work, they have modified, duplicated, and bastardized a copyrighted
piece of work without payment and without permission. And judge for
yourself the quality of those thumbnails.
Believe it or not, not all artists are on the web just looking to up their
hit counter. And some artists don't want their work displayed in the midst
of Aunt Gert's Vacation-in-Florida photos or Uncle Henry's "art photos" of
Aunt Gert mowing the lawn in her string bikini.
Claire
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
