3 ms·
Legal, not ethical question: in US, is it a copyright infringement to hot-link an image that resides on another server and belongs to another site? Let me expl
by gioele 15y ago
Legal, not ethical question: in US, is it a copyright infringement to hot-link an image that resides on another server and belongs to another site?
Let me explain better: the file at `http://example.com/background.jpeg` http://example.com/background.jpeg` is a wonderful image and indeed it is used on `http://example.com/index.html` http://example.com/index.html`. I run another site, example.net. I have my own `http://example.net/index.html` http://example.net/index.html` page and I decide to add a `<img src="http://example.com/background.jpeg http://example.com/background.jpeg alt="A wonderful landscape">` to it. Is this an infringement?
If it is, why? Because it has been "contextualised" in another site? Please note that I did not copy the file, nor I distributed it, I just made a reference to it. You did use it, you did download it, your browser on your computer did all the composition.
If hot-linking an is an infringement, then also distributing a bittorrent file is, the mechanism is very similar, just with one more level of indirection. And it is common option (mine as well) that the distribution of a bittorrent file does not constitute any kind of infringement by itself.
Do you know how US copyright law deals with this?
- dctoedt 15y agoI just did a quick search and couldn't find any court cases directly on point. Three possible arguments come to mind: Alternative 1: By making your file available via the Web, you implicitly consented to having anyone download it who wants to do so, even via hot-linking, therefore there's no infringement. Alternative 2: It's established custom that the implicit consent applies only to people who are downloading the whole page, not individual images --- therefore you didn't implicitly consent to hot-linking, therefore whoever downloads your content that way is an infringer, therefore the hot-linker is liable for contributory infringement or perhaps inducement of infringement. Alternative 3: The person who created a page including hot-linked images, etc., has thereby created an unauthorized, and therefore infringing, derivative work [1]. (This assumes the hot-linked content is copyrightable.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#Definition
- walexander 15y agoI believe this is still contested in some respects, but there has already been one case which decide it was not copyright infringement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,.... "The court held that Google's framing and hyperlinking as part of an image search engine constituted a fair use of Perfect 10's images because the use was highly transformative"