Embedding photo

[poundcoin]

The numerous posts this morning by "Asmya" look a bit spammy but how has he/she managed to get images to show in the post ?
I thought we could only give URLs to external pictures ?
One of his here :
viewtopic.php?f=82&t=2281

[mc2fool]

If you click the "Reply with quote" button (the one with ["] next to the exclamation mark button at the top right of each post) you get to see how the post is constructed, and in the case of the post you link to, yes indeed, it's URLs to external pictures -- and it's interesting that whereas the poster claims that the images are "views from my camera which I captured during my traveling", they are:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/ ... 2jJnT8.jpg
http://cdni.condenast.co.uk/426x284/o_r ... 26x284.jpg
http://www.ucityguides.com/images/top10/london-eye.jpg
http://cdn.wallpapersafari.com/58/15/FAcm23.jpg

[redsturgeon]

If you click the "Reply with quote" button (the one with ["] next to the exclamation mark button at the top right of each post) you get to see how the post is constructed, and in the case of the post you link to, yes indeed, it's URLs to external pictures -- and it's interesting that whereas the poster claims that the images are "views from my camera which I captured during my traveling", they are:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/ ... 2jJnT8.jpg
http://cdni.condenast.co.uk/426x284/o_r ... 26x284.jpg
http://www.ucityguides.com/images/top10/london-eye.jpg
http://cdn.wallpapersafari.com/58/15/FAcm23.jpg

The image embedding has been enabled on most boards now. I have deleted the images from that poster, they were not his own. We are watching him and he will likely be deleted soon.

John

[poundcoin]

The image embedding has been enabled on most boards now. I have deleted the images from that poster, they were not his own. We are watching him and he will likely be deleted soon.

John

So as a point of order (for us non-spammy posters) if you don't own the image , you are only allowed to post the URL link and not embed the image ?

Or was it deleted because he claimed it as his own ?

[redsturgeon]

The image embedding has been enabled on most boards now. I have deleted the images from that poster, they were not his own. We are watching him and he will likely be deleted soon.

John

So as a point of order (for us non-spammy posters) if you don't own the image , you are only allowed to post the URL link and not embed the image ?

Or was it deleted because he claimed it as his own ?

It was deleted because he claimed the work was his own. He was also clearly a spammer.

As to posting an image that you do not own copyright to, that is more complicated.

It is safest if in doubt to post a link to the image.

Here is the relevant section of the copyright act:

Restricted acts

It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of the owner:
Copy the work.
Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.
Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.
Adapt the work.
The author of a work, or a director of a film may also have certain moral rights:
The right to be identified as the author.
Right to object to derogatory treatment.

Acts that are allowed
Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:
Private and research study purposes.
Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
Criticism and news reporting.
Incidental inclusion.
Copies and lending by librarians.
Format shifting or back up of a work you own for personal use.
Caricature, parody or pastiche.
Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes.
Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as time shifting.
Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.

[poundcoin]

Thanks RS for the clarification

[UncleEbenezer]

As in, something lemony?

Moderator Message:
redsturgeon: I am guessing that you do not own the copyright to this image nor have permission to post it.

[mc2fool]

As in, something lemony?

Moderator Message:
redsturgeon: I am guessing that you do not own the copyright to this image nor have permission to post it.

I am guessing that Google doesn't own the copyright nor has permission to display these images either. A whole page of copyright violations? It seems not:

"Google does not...display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user’s computer screen. Because Google’s computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_li ... ing_raises

Looks like the ECJ agrees with that too -- unless it's for commercial gain it seems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright ... pean_Union

However, the area does seem to be contentious and best avoided!

[redsturgeon]

As in, something lemony?

Moderator Message:
redsturgeon: I am guessing that you do not own the copyright to this image nor have permission to post it.

I am guessing that Google doesn't own the copyright nor has permission to display these images either. A whole page of copyright violations? It seems not:

"Google does not...display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user’s computer screen. Because Google’s computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_li ... ing_raises

Looks like the ECJ agrees with that too -- unless it's for commercial gain it seems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright ... pean_Union

However, the area does seem to be contentious and best avoided!

I think Google might have a bigger budget to fight any lawsuit were on to come its way.

We are trying to get a consistent ruling n this, as you say it is a contentious area.

John

[UncleEbenezer]

Oh dear.

Well, I don't own the copyright on any lemons, and after that put-down I can't be [expletive deleted] to go searching for one that's explicitly licensed as public domain or creative commons. So here's a sunset that is mine instead.

[redsturgeon]

Wasn't meant as a put down. Just had to delete a load of images on some other boards.

John

[poundcoin]

Don't want to be a spoil sport and I may be one who would use photo embedding on DAK or the new history board .
To be honest the whole issue is fraught with copyright issues. This is my own photo of waves at Portreath . It's hosted on flickr . So no copyright probs . Fine.



This is another photo on my flickr account that's a screen -grab from a newspaper archive (used elsewhere for some historical research on Lyons tea shops) so it may breach the rules (delete if necessary).

They are both hosted on my account so you wouldn't know if they were breaching some third parties copyright or not .

Also I could have used any photo from someone elses account on Flickr (and maybe other hosting sites) and you would not know whether I had permission to use it.

Altogether a tricky situation that I doubt you have the time to police if there's a sudden escalation of images appearing ?

[redsturgeon]

They are both hosted on my account so you wouldn't know if they were breaching some third parties copyright or not .

Also I could have used any photo from someone elses account on Flickr (and maybe other hosting sites) and you would not know whether I had permission to use it.

Altogether a tricky situation that I doubt you have the time to police if there's a sudden escalation of images appearing ?

Yes this is one of the issues we are currently thrashing out in another place.

John

[melonfool]

Yes this is one of the issues we are currently thrashing out in another place.

John

That makes it sound a lot more fun than it has been!



Mel

[redsturgeon]

Yes this is one of the issues we are currently thrashing out in another place.

John

That makes it sound a lot more fun than it has been!



Mel

I was trying for mysterious rather than fun

John

[mc2fool]

We are trying to get a consistent ruling n this, as you say it is a contentious area.

Yes, but it's only contentious in as much as the folks being the targets of inline linking ("hotlinking") don't agree with the rulings that have come down. From the links in my previous post, AFAICS (and IANAL), both the US and EU courts have ruled that hotlinking to images on other public sites does not infringe any copyright laws, as there is no copy made. I guess the clue is in the name. Although I too find it a bit strange.

There are however other issues, including commercial gain matters, bandwidth "stealing" (because the hotlinker doesn't have it on their site the hosting site gets charged for the bandwidth for serving it) and the just plain honesty issue that brought this topic to the fore.

And there's a danger that I've had first hand experience of -- indeed, of inflicting on someone!

Some time ago I ran a site that had on it (amongst many other things) a photo of a baboon with it's mouth wide open baring fearsome looking teeth. Something like these. I'd taken the photo myself and, in fact, it was the baboon yawning caught mouth fully open, but I didn't let that on, leaving viewers to make the more obvious assumption that it was a frightening display of aggressiveness.

Anyway, some time later, in looking for who was linking to my site, I discovered it was being linked to from a US (pro) gun bulletin board, by a regular poster on that board with a very macho "he-man" type of username (can't remember what), who was hotlinking to my baboon photo for his avatar image. So, with every post he posted my fearsome teeth baring baboon appeared with it, under his he-man username.

You can probably guess what I did then ... Yes, I renamed my .../images/baboon.jpg to something else (and fixed the links on my site so it would still show it), and replaced the original file with an image of a sugary sweet smiling five or six year old girl with pigtails . I checked back a few weeks later and he'd changed his avatar image to another teeth baring baboon, but that only applied to his newer posts, his older posts continued to show the sugary girl with pigtails under his he-man username

So, that demonstrates a danger with hotlinking, that the target may change (and imagine the worst, e.g. that a hotlinked innocent photo changed to a child porn one....). In the end I let "he-man" off, eventually, as after a while I disabled hotlinking to the site, and actually, on thinking about it, I'm a little surprised that the sites in the original complaint in this thread (Telegraph, Conde Nast, City Guides, etc) don't have hotlinking to images on their sites too disabled.

On the topic of the [img] tag and inline linking on these boards overall, while I'd agree it has some value I'd say that the value it adds over-and-above posters just posting a link is small and not worth the potential hassles and risks and policing and monitoring efforts required. I'd say get rid of it and let folks just post links, IMHO.

[redsturgeon]

Thanks mc2fool, very useful.

John

[wickham]

They are both hosted on my account so you wouldn't know if they were breaching some third parties copyright or not .

Also I could have used any photo from someone elses account on Flickr (and maybe other hosting sites) and you would not know whether I had permission to use it.

If someone uses an image search facility (like Google) he can find all uses of the image on the internet, your site and any other website, including his own, and then he can complain, even if you downloaded his image and uploaded it to your own website with a different filename.

[poundcoin]

If someone uses an image search facility (like Google) he can find all uses of the image on the internet, your site and any other website, including his own, and then he can complain, even if you downloaded his image and uploaded it to your own website with a different filename.

Yes I realise that , my point was that it would be a real faff for admin to do an image search on every photo posted , just in case it breached a third parties copyright .

[UncleEbenezer]

They are both hosted on my account so you wouldn't know if they were breaching some third parties copyright or not .

Also I could have used any photo from someone elses account on Flickr (and maybe other hosting sites) and you would not know whether I had permission to use it.

If someone uses an image search facility (like Google) he can find all uses of the image on the internet, your site and any other website, including his own, and then he can complain, even if you downloaded his image and uploaded it to your own website with a different filename.

Apropos of what?

An image search at google won't find any traces of the stuff posted in this thread at lemonfool. 'Cos none of them are here. All you'll find are links to URLs. Like this little winter scene (mine, for the benefit of any zealots):