On 29-1-2014 12:44, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 29/01/2014 10:15, scott a écrit :

>> <img src="hof.povray.org/someimage.jpg">
>
> You're putting yourself at the mercy of a change of content.

Some people have been so fed up with such deep linking that they have 
changed the content to goatse.



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 29/01/2014 01:47 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> I've just found this link:
> http://www.library.dmu.ac.uk/Support/Copyright/index.php?page=425
>
> It's worth reading

That seems to sum it up well.

Of course, the thing that actually caught my eye was the domain name - 
by old university...

Post a reply to this message

On 29/01/2014 09:11 PM, andrel wrote:
> Some people have been so fed up with such deep linking that they have
> changed the content to goatse.

Or worse...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 29/01/2014 09:11 PM, andrel wrote:
> > Some people have been so fed up with such deep linking that they have
> > changed the content to goatse.

> Or worse...

There's something worse? I honestly don't want to know.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> On 29/01/2014 09:11 PM, andrel wrote:
>>> Some people have been so fed up with such deep linking that they have
>>> changed the content to goatse.
>
>> Or worse...
>
> There's something worse? I honestly don't want to know.
>
Your mileage may vary, but personally, I find gore is much worse than 
goatse.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see the appeal of goatse, tubgirl, et al. 
but people blown to bits or cut up in pieces are not something I want to 
see when browsing an otherwise inoffensive website.
-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 28/01/14 17:51, gregjohn wrote:
> 
> https://twitter.com/EarthPix/status/427834272016527360
> 
> Which are in fact, the plagiarized, byline-cropped, (povray?) work of Christoph
> Hormann
> 
> https://twitter.com/PicPedant/status/427837197728092161
> http://earth.imagico.de/large.php?site=everest
> 

It looks like Twitter has finally taken down the image.

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

>> So in my Yahoo example, given that the Yahoo pages and the charts
>> themselves all show the Yahoo name and a copyright notice, in theory I
>> should be free to include these on a web site or app, so long as I make
>> it clear they come from Yahoo.com (or whatever) and I don't deliberately
>> hide or obscure the Yahoo name and copyright notice.
>>
>
> That is my understanding, yes. It might still be wise to get permission.

This seems relevant from the European Court:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26187730

"The owner of a website may, without the authorisation of the copyright 
holders, redirect internet users, via hyperlinks, to protected works 
available on a freely accessible basis on another site."

I checked the website in question, and it seems the hyperlinks used give 
no indication where they are going. The page text does not include the 
link address, and the actual address is a local one to that website (I 
assume it gets redirected to the external site once you click it).

So this seems to indicate that you can hyperlink to any freely available 
content without any requirement to inform the user that what they see 
next is not your content.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2014-02-17 05:37, scott a écrit :
>>> So in my Yahoo example, given that the Yahoo pages and the charts
>>> themselves all show the Yahoo name and a copyright notice, in theory I
>>> should be free to include these on a web site or app, so long as I make
>>> it clear they come from Yahoo.com (or whatever) and I don't deliberately
>>> hide or obscure the Yahoo name and copyright notice.
>>>
>>
>> That is my understanding, yes. It might still be wise to get permission.
>
> This seems relevant from the European Court:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26187730
>
> "The owner of a website may, without the authorisation of the copyright
> holders, redirect internet users, via hyperlinks, to protected works
> available on a freely accessible basis on another site."
>
> I checked the website in question, and it seems the hyperlinks used give
> no indication where they are going. The page text does not include the
> link address, and the actual address is a local one to that website (I
> assume it gets redirected to the external site once you click it).
>
> So this seems to indicate that you can hyperlink to any freely available
> content without any requirement to inform the user that what they see
> next is not your content.
>

This means I do not have to ask Christoph Hormann for his permission 
before linking to images on his website.  (If that wasn't the case, 
Google would have to ask everyone permission to include their stuff in 
their search results)

However, it does not mean I can take Christoph's picture, strip the 
copyright notice and rehost it to make it appear as one of my own.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> So this seems to indicate that you can hyperlink to any freely available 
> content without any requirement to inform the user that what they see 
> next is not your content.

I think that the question that that court decision is dealing with is
about the practice that many websites (especially in the past) had that
prohibited linking to their pages without permission. (It was quite common
for websites to have a usage license where it was stated that it was
forbidden to have links to any page within the website except for the
main page.)

The court decision affirms the logically proper interpretation. In other
words, that trying to stop people from linking to your webpages is idiotic.

However, the question in this thread is about using images of other
people. Certainly the fact that linking to whatever is publicly available
on the internet is completely legal has the side-effect that deep-linking
to images (ie. putting <img src="..."> tags in your web page with an url
to a completely different website you don't own) is also legal.

What is *not* legal is for you to make a *copy* of that image and put it
in your own server and use it like that.

(Also, deep linking images is both being quite an a-hole, plus it's risky.
It's being an a-hole because you are basically abusing someone else's
bandwidth to increase the appeal of your own website. It's risky because
the image in question could disappear or change at any moment.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>>>> So in my Yahoo example, given that the Yahoo pages and the charts
>>>> themselves all show the Yahoo name and a copyright notice, in theory I
>>>> should be free to include these on a web site or app, so long as I make
>>>> it clear they come from Yahoo.com (or whatever) and I don't
>>>> deliberately
>>>> hide or obscure the Yahoo name and copyright notice.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is my understanding, yes. It might still be wise to get permission.
>>
>> This seems relevant from the European Court:
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26187730
>>
>> "The owner of a website may, without the authorisation of the copyright
>> holders, redirect internet users, via hyperlinks, to protected works
>> available on a freely accessible basis on another site."
>>
>> I checked the website in question, and it seems the hyperlinks used give
>> no indication where they are going. The page text does not include the
>> link address, and the actual address is a local one to that website (I
>> assume it gets redirected to the external site once you click it).
>>
>> So this seems to indicate that you can hyperlink to any freely available
>> content without any requirement to inform the user that what they see
>> next is not your content.
>>
>
> This means I do not have to ask Christoph Hormann for his permission
> before linking to images on his website.  (If that wasn't the case,
> Google would have to ask everyone permission to include their stuff in
> their search results)
>
> However, it does not mean I can take Christoph's picture, strip the
> copyright notice and rehost it to make it appear as one of my own.

Sorry I didn't mean that, I meant it was relevant to my question about 
linking to financial charts from Yahoo.

Post a reply to this message