On 29/01/14 13:04, scott wrote:
>>> <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)"?
> 

There is certainly a principle in English law that covers Earthpix's
activity - reverse passing off. Earthpix has implied (by not crediting
Christoph) that the image is his to do with what he likes. Christoph has
a real chance of suing through the English courts and winning. However,
that would be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. A takedown notice
and request for an apology should be enough.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message