>> <a href="hof.povray.org/someimage.jpg">
>
> jpg might not be legal.

Does the law list then which filetypes I'm allowed to link to and which 
I'm not? Seems odd.

> html or whatever the full page is would seems
> fair and legal (base of the Web).

Of course, but what I struggle with is how this is perfectly legal, yet 
opening a new page at a specific point (eg to show just an image) and 
hide the address bar etc (which is essentially what the iframe tag does) 
is considered illegal. I don't get how the law could possibly 
differentiate between the two cases.

One possibility is that the law requires the http address of all items 
on a page not from the same server as the page itself to be visible. But 
AFAIK such a law does not exist.

>> <img src="hof.povray.org/someimage.jpg">
>
> You're putting yourself at the mercy of a change of content.
> And that does not seems legal without explicit consent of the image
> hosting server.

Isn't that exactly what Google image search does? And yet you don't see 
all copyrighted images being removed from it like you do with youtube 
videos (for example). So can we conclude such use of images is legal (at 
least in countries where Google image search operates)?

>> <iframe src="hof.povray.org/someimage.jpg">
>
> Same as img. Replacing jpg with the full page is not legal either
> (appropriation of the content)

So, it's legal if the user deliberately loads the 2nd page into the 
frame (eg on my phone I can split the view into 2 and load two different 
pages) but illegal if the first page automatically loads a second page 
that is not on the same server? What if the user has to click a "show 
image" button, that loads the 2nd page? Or if the button says "click 
here to see the best POV HOF image (opens new window)"?

Post a reply to this message