Am 29.01.2014 14:04, schrieb scott:
>>> <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.

No; the law is far, far less technical.

It is up for judges to interpret the laws in how they apply to such 
situations.

If your web page makes any copyrighted material appear on the end user's 
screen that is served by someone else, and doesn't make this fact 
sufficiently clear, it might be argued that you are taking advantage of 
that material without consent of the copyright holder, and are therefore 
"stealing" their work.

If you'd really want to go to the technical level, then it would be the 
end user who would be doing something wrong, because they copy 
copyrighted material to their own computer, without being able to show 
how they obtained the copyright holder's permission for this reproduction.

No matter how you turn it though, /someone/ is doing something wrong 
there, because there /is/ copying involved, and it is - quite obviously 
- /not/ something the copyright holder can be generally presumed to 
approve of.

Post a reply to this message