Copying is not necessary for a "public performance" infringement.
This order from NDTX is instructive.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/21420483/supercrosslivecom-order
Of course, there are some shortcomings with that case: the defendant was pro se and the case settled before trial; but it does show that at least one court has a different opinion about whether links can infringe a copyright.
It's a developing area of law. Just because the Ninth ruled one way does not mean that the rest of the country has to follow. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) the economics of suing someone over linking to a file just don't make sense in most situations, so it will probably be a long time before there are enough cases on point to settle this debate.
Wow. Just wow.
Not that I like the opinion, but here's a recent one close to on point (do you know what that means?):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24472944/Columbia-v-Fung-Summary-Judgment-Order
It is the Ninth, but you don't mind.
My original post was only intended to make people aware that their actions might turn into trouble and to strongly suggest that they look to Creative Commons licensed content instead of grabbing whatever they find, wherever they find it.
I normally advise my clients to minimize their risk or litigation. I certainly didn't think that would be controversial.
Yeah, you run with that. Outside of the Ninth and even in the Ninth with different facts--good luck to you. Please post back with how much you spend in defense costs.
Also, as Copycense pointed out, I did originally say that the image appears to be in the public domain. I have since edited that line to better explain that the image was published in 1906 and can be found at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/bobhope/vaude.html
I was wondering why I had such a sudden jump in visitors. Thanks.
I didn't write the law. If I'm ever asked to, I'll change a lot of copyright law. Statutes change much slower than technology does and copyright law generally does a poor job of dealing with the internet. Sorry, not my fault.
If you want to inline link to other's images and feel completely above the law, I wish you luck. I'll be interested to see what your court thinks and how much you spend in defense fees.
If you want to snatch images and upload them to your own server with the hope that no one will care. Again, I wish you luck and will wait to see what a court says and wonder how much you spend in legal fees.
On the other hand, I'm sure you won't mind if someone takes your image or rides on your bandwidth with an inline link. Actually, perhaps everyone that is ok with that should state so either here or on their website(s) via a CC license. I'm happy to use any images so granted that I can.
Personally I'd prefer if the default was something like a CC license, but it isn't.
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by Steve O'Donnell.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: permission is granted by the webserver as an agent of the rights holder
Copying is not necessary for a "public performance" infringement.
This order from NDTX is instructive.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/21420483/supercrosslivecom-order
Of course, there are some shortcomings with that case: the defendant was pro se and the case settled before trial; but it does show that at least one court has a different opinion about whether links can infringe a copyright.
It's a developing area of law. Just because the Ninth ruled one way does not mean that the rest of the country has to follow. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) the economics of suing someone over linking to a file just don't make sense in most situations, so it will probably be a long time before there are enough cases on point to settle this debate.
Re: Re: Re:
Not quite sure I made that argument. Assuming both are infringements, and one is more rude than the other, doesn't that made one worse than the other?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: inline linking as copyright infringement
Wow. Just wow.
Not that I like the opinion, but here's a recent one close to on point (do you know what that means?):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24472944/Columbia-v-Fung-Summary-Judgment-Order
It is the Ninth, but you don't mind.
Re:
I agree.
My original post was only intended to make people aware that their actions might turn into trouble and to strongly suggest that they look to Creative Commons licensed content instead of grabbing whatever they find, wherever they find it.
I normally advise my clients to minimize their risk or litigation. I certainly didn't think that would be controversial.
Anyway, thanks for the traffic!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Permission
Really? No one hosts their own images?
Re: Re:
So, just to be clear. . . your website(s) are what again?
Also, all your websites' images and contents are CC licensed, right?
Re: Re: Re: Re: inline linking as copyright infringement
Yeah, you run with that. Outside of the Ninth and even in the Ninth with different facts--good luck to you. Please post back with how much you spend in defense costs.
Also, as Copycense pointed out, I did originally say that the image appears to be in the public domain. I have since edited that line to better explain that the image was published in 1906 and can be found at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/bobhope/vaude.html
I was wondering why I had such a sudden jump in visitors. Thanks.
I didn't write the law. If I'm ever asked to, I'll change a lot of copyright law. Statutes change much slower than technology does and copyright law generally does a poor job of dealing with the internet. Sorry, not my fault.
If you want to inline link to other's images and feel completely above the law, I wish you luck. I'll be interested to see what your court thinks and how much you spend in defense fees.
If you want to snatch images and upload them to your own server with the hope that no one will care. Again, I wish you luck and will wait to see what a court says and wonder how much you spend in legal fees.
On the other hand, I'm sure you won't mind if someone takes your image or rides on your bandwidth with an inline link. Actually, perhaps everyone that is ok with that should state so either here or on their website(s) via a CC license. I'm happy to use any images so granted that I can.
Personally I'd prefer if the default was something like a CC license, but it isn't.