What kind of light is in this pic?

[Neiby]

If you really want to have a technical dispute about this issue, fine. Anything you put on a webpage is considered to be a part of the content (from viewers point of view and as well from the point of view of a web search (google etc)). If you put a code on your page that displays an image, you're showing it to your viewers, you're presenting it to some audience. Doesn't matter if you have it saved on your hosting, if you're referring to some other server. You have put in on your page, it became part of your website. Got it? It violates copyright rights and rules of this forum.
If you put just a link, you're telling people to go there and look for themselves. It's a completely different thing to put a link and to show an actual image.

I think we're coming at this from entirely different perspectives and just aren't going to agree. Best to leave it for now, I think. I wasn't intending to start any arguments. I'm new to photography, but I'm not new to web technology. I was really only commenting on the difficulty in differentiating between two actions that are fundamentally equivalent technologically and saying that one is okay and one is not, when under the hood they are identical.

I'm not arguing the rightness of either action. I would be quite irritated if someone were to use my images in their website, for example. But if they just link to my images, I'm still in control and can change them at any time. If someone is going to be a bad netizen and use imagery like that then they deserve what happens to them when I replace that image with something a little less appealing to them.

How can you say it's identical, when one situation leads to RENDER the actual image and other just provides a link to a gallery? I do have a business in IT, specifically I create websites for various clients, and it certainly isn't the same. It isn't the same for search engines, nor for web visitors.. No one cares where is the file hosted, but where and how you present it.

You're assuming that the link would link to a gallery. I'm talking about a direct link to the image. In a case like that, there is virtually no difference. In one case, the image is displayed inline and in the other case it opens as a standalone image in a new blank window.

Like I said, I'm not arguing the rightness or wrongness of it. I'm saying that technically they are virtually the same. For some reason, some people here seem to think I'm okay with using other people's content, when I've never said such a thing.

 

[Neiby]

I understand that. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm honestly trying to understand your viewpoint. I also don't think I'm being very clear about what I'm trying to say, either. Based on your replies, I'm not doing a good enough job of explaining myself.

OK, what part of this don't you understand?


Here's a photo I took:

It is mine. I took it, and I can do with it as I please. I have all the legal rights to it as provided by US copyright laws.

Now, this image was provided to another web site, along with permission to post it, and it appears here. They can legally post it because they have my permission to. But they cannot give anyone else permission to post / print / copy / reproduce it. They only have permission to post it on their site.

Now, if you were to post that image online somewhere, you do not have permission to unless I, the creator of that image, specifically tell you it's OK.

The reason I took that image is that I hope to be able to sell it sometime.... either in print form or digital rights. So, legally, for you to do anything with that image (post it here, make a print, copy it to your Photobucket account, etc.) would be violating my rights as the owner of this, which is known as intellectual property.

If you were to ask me permission to post this image on an internet forum, I am well within my rights to do any of the following:

1. Refuse your request.
2. Say it's hunky-dorey, go for it... I don't care.
3. Demand money in return for certain rights.


Should I choose #3, I would then enter into a written agreement allowing you to do one thing and one thing only with the image.... post it on an internet forum. You do not have any other rights to the image. You cannot print it, you cannot sell it, you cannot email it to all your friends..... You only have the right to post it on TPF. Should I find you did more than that, I have grounds for an infringement suit.

From a legal perspective, if someone linked to your image in a forum post for the purposes of commentary or review, wouldn't that fall under fair use? My reading of the Fair Use clause seems to make exceptions for that type of use. It's entirely likely that I'm misunderstanding how Fair Use applies to these sorts of situations.

 

[480sparky]

From a legal perspective, if someone linked to your image in a forum post for the purposes of commentary or review, wouldn't that fall under fair use? My reading of the Fair Use clause seems to make exceptions for that type of use. It's entirely likely that I'm misunderstanding how Fair Use applies to these sorts of situations.

If someone linked to the image, I would say that's fair use. But if you posted the image somewhere else, that is not.

From a legal perspective, it doesn't matter what reason you had to use the image. The fact is, you used it without permission or compensation.

 

[Neiby]

I understand what you're saying, and I *completely* understand why people would want to protect their work! I'm a total beginner and I'm blown away at how difficult photography actually is. Well, good photography is difficult. I'm proving that bad photography is actually pretty easy! I really was commenting on the technical aspect of it with regard to the underlying web technology. Here is a link I just found that discusses inline linking and copyright.

Inline linking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the case referred to in the article, the US Court of Appeals ruled that inline linking of images does not violate copyright for the exact reasons I mentioned earlier. But even though something might technically be legal doesn't mean we should do it, especially if the use of those images harms the originator in any way. I think references in discussion forums would fall under the Fair Use clause anyway, but I am not a lawyer. I certainly wouldn't be harmed if someone referred to an image in a forum with a link to my site. If anything, it would help me.

However, if someone used that same link to use as a background on a commercial website, for example, that no longer falls under Fair Use. And if someone tried to take my work and pretend it was their own, well, that's pretty clear cut. No grey area there!

 

[480sparky]

Oh, and BTW, I didn't consider your posts as argumentative.

 

[Neiby]

Oh, and BTW, I didn't consider your posts as argumentative.

Awesome! I was really hoping that was the case, but I was worried. Sometimes our tone doesn't come across in text very well. I definitely don't want to be seen as a troublemaker. And that's especially true around here. I've learned an absurd amount from here in just the past month. This forum and the people in it are an amazing resource.

 

[480sparky]

........, but I was worried. Sometimes our tone doesn't come across in text very well. I definitely don't want to be seen as a troublemaker...........

No need to worry..... we're cool!