3 ms·
He had, shall we say, "protections" in place to prevent his page from being embedded. Daily Mail downloaded his source files, removed the protections, and then
by matheweis 11y ago
He had, shall we say, "protections" in place to prevent his page from being embedded.
Daily Mail downloaded his source files, removed the protections, and then embedded their own iframe referencing the copied files with the protections removed.
I'd say that counts as stealing.
- stevesearer 11y agoThis sort of thing happens all the time with images though. It just sounds worse and different because it is a fancy visualization rather than a .jpg or .gif.
- matheweis 11y ago... and many photographers have successfully sued for various websites using their imagery without permission - regardless of whether or not it was publicly available on the author's website. The fact that copyright is violated on a regular basis does not make this case any more or less excusable.
- stevesearer 11y agoI agree with you but that didn't come across well in my comment. My point was to say that it is indeed the same thing, only it sounds different because it took more steps to accomplish.