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

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's not the first time that this sort of thing has happened. Do these
people not understand the word 'copyright'?

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

Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> It's not the first time that this sort of thing has happened. Do these
> people not understand the word 'copyright'?

Actually there are quite many people who honestly think that if a
picture is found on the internet, it can be freely used. They have
no understanding whatsoever about copyright of images.

(When the concept of copyright is explained to them, reactions vary
wildly. Many of them will refuse to accept it and cling to a personal,
fictitious concept of copyright.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 15:31:40 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Actually there are quite many people who honestly think that if a
> picture is found on the internet, it can be freely used. They have no
> understanding whatsoever about copyright of images.

Usually those who don't understand copyright leave the copyright intact, 
IME; those who knowingly violate copyright take steps to remove the 
original author's copyright notice.

Those people are scum.

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

> Actually there are quite many people who honestly think that if a
> picture is found on the internet, it can be freely used.

I wouldn't say it can be freely used, but it can be freely downloaded 
and viewed by anyone connected to the internet who goes to that address, 
either by typing it in or through a link from another page.

Is it legal for me to put any of the following in the html of my own 
website?

<a href="hof.povray.org/someimage.jpg">

<img src="hof.povray.org/someimage.jpg">

<iframe src="hof.povray.org/someimage.jpg">

<iframe src="hof.povray.org/pagecontainingimage.html">

What about that last one with some javascript to size and scroll the 
page so that only the image is visible?

Post a reply to this message

Le 29/01/2014 10:15, scott a écrit :
>> Actually there are quite many people who honestly think that if a
>> picture is found on the internet, it can be freely used.
> 
> I wouldn't say it can be freely used, but it can be freely downloaded
> and viewed by anyone connected to the internet who goes to that address,
> either by typing it in or through a link from another page.
> 
> Is it legal for me to put any of the following in the html of my own
> website?

Some web servers are tuned to reject serving image when the referrer is
not a local page.
In some web-service contract, it is indeed forbidden to use a
website/url to serve content from other website/url.

> 
> <a href="hof.povray.org/someimage.jpg">

jpg might not be legal. html or whatever the full page is would seems
fair and legal (base of the Web).

> 
> <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.

> 
> <iframe src="hof.povray.org/someimage.jpg">

Same as img. Replacing jpg with the full page is not legal either
(appropriation of the content)

> 
> <iframe src="hof.povray.org/pagecontainingimage.html">
> 
> What about that last one with some javascript to size and scroll the
> page so that only the image is visible?
> 
same as above. My answer would be no, unless explicit consent has been
expressed by the hosting server.

-- 
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Post a reply to this message

IANAL but your comments seem to be right on the nail.

However, leaving aside the question of legality, there is still the
question of politeness. Surely, it is only good etiquette to ask the
owner of the image copyright for permission before publishing - this
goes for copylefted content as well. IME as long as the content is not
to be used in a for-profit context, you will generally get permission -
usually with a proviso or two such as acknowledging original ownership etc.

I don't know about the rest of the world but, as an Englishman, manners
matter to me.

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

>> <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

> However, leaving aside the question of legality, there is still the
> question of politeness. Surely, it is only good etiquette to ask the
> owner of the image copyright for permission before publishing - this
> goes for copylefted content as well.

Agree with you completely John. My queries are more related to doing 
this for profit, when the party you are linking to are trying to force 
you to pay some horrendous fee (which you can't afford) or take you to 
court if you don't stop.

A concrete example, say you are developing a paid-for financial 
application for people to keep track of all their accounts, stocks, 
pensions etc. One operation you would like to incorporate is for the 
user to see the previous performance of any of their investments. To do 
this you allow the user to click a menu option in your app and then get 
taken to the Yahoo finance web page for that particular investment. Do 
Yahoo have any legal standing to force your app to stop doing that 
behaviour?

Post a reply to this message

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