Linking Without Permission Violates Copyright, Rules EU Court (reuters.com) 282
BarbaraHudson writes: Reuters is reporting that Playboy has won a lawsuit against a Netherlands news site for linking to photos without permission: "'It is undisputed that GS Media (which owns GreenStijl) provided the hyperlinks to the files containing the photos for profit and that Sanoma had not authorized the publication of those photos on the internet,' the Luxembourg-based Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) said in a statement. 'When hyperlinks are posted for profit, it may be expected that the person who posted such a link should carry out the checks necessary to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published.' The European Commission, the EU executive, is set next week to propose tougher rules on publishing copyrighted content, including a new exclusive right for news publishers to ask search engines like Google to pay to show snippets of their articles."
Neil_Brown adds: The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled today on whether posting, on a website, hyperlinks to copyright infringing works constitutes a "communication to the public" for the purposes of EU copyright law, an act which requires permission of the rights holder or other authorizing basis. The court held that, if the links are provided "without the pursuit of financial gain by a person who did not know or could not reasonably have known the illegal nature of the publication of those works on that other website," the act of posting the hyperlink is not an infringement of copyright. However, if the links are providing in the pursuit of financial gain, the poster of such links is deemed to have known that they were infringing copyright, unless they can prove otherwise. The court has stated that those sites operating "for profit" are expected to have carried out the (impossible?) "necessary checks to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published on the website to which those hyperlinks lead." The court does not clarify what is meant by "the pursuit of financial gain." If previous decisions are followed, any sites which host ads (Papasavvas), or perhaps even just accrue value to a brand (if the Advocate General's opinion in McFadden is followed), might be treated as operating for financial gain.
Goodbye, World Wide Web. (Score:5, Insightful)
Farewell. We hardly knew ye.
Re:Goodbye, World Wide Web. (Score:5, Insightful)
Linking to and embedding data from other documents is the whole reason it's described as a web in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but this ruling only affects links to data which is already in violation of copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
also it mentions "for profit" casual linking for free content is not the end of the worldww.
also who is paying for porn in this day an age anyway?!
Re:Goodbye, World Wide Web. (Score:4, Interesting)
The way I'm reading it is that guilt is based on knowledge that what you're doing is infringement, and that knowledge is presumed if you're doing it for profit.
However, you could still be guilty if you post a link with knowledge that its infringing even if you don't post it for profit.
I'm not sure how they're planning on determining knowledge of infringement. My guess is that its one of those semi-intentional loopholes where they just assume people won't take advantage of the situation because nobody who's big enough to matter would fail to have knowledge of their actions.
Of course TFS isn't as in-depth as the article (never mind the actual ruling) so maybe that's covered but just from what I see there's a huge potential for sites like /. and Reddit to get sued for something vague like "well you know your site could potentially host infringing links and that constitutes knowledge of infringement so you're liable."
Re:Goodbye, World Wide Web. (Score:4, Informative)
Here in Canada, there was this law suite, http://www.michaelgeist.ca/200... [michaelgeist.ca] , the kind of thing that would put the average person in prison for a long time. The slap on the wrist, https://torrentfreak.com/recor... [torrentfreak.com]
Must be nice to infringe for $6 billion and only have to pay $45 million, one hell of a good profit margin.
Right... (Score:3)
So what about those search engines? They were nice while they lasted.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think so. Linking is different from embedding. The web part comes from the linking, not the embedding.
Re: (Score:2)
I realize lawyers may look at it that way, but it's not really true.. Both refer to an external source.. The question is whether referencing the source should be treated the same as hosting the distribution point. Allowing this just enables the kind of witchhunt copyright crusades of the previous decade.
Re:Goodbye, World Wide Web. (Score:5, Funny)
There's a world of difference in having "href=http://blahblahb.jpg" and "img src=http://labhaldfad.jpg".
For starters, they appear to be completely different images.
Re: (Score:3)
For starters, they appear to be completely different images.
Naw, they're the same image, but the name was changed to obscure the copyright violation.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there? both can link to an external violating source. The only difference is that 'img src' is loaded automatically as part of the page and 'href's have to be clicked.
Re:Goodbye, World Wide Web. (Score:4, Interesting)
Not having read the article itself, I don't think anyone gives a flying hoot about the technical details like tags. They care about presentation, and there's a huge difference between "this other site has something cool, go look at it (and their ads)", and "here's something cool, stay here and look at it (and our ads)" In the latter case you're presenting the image/information on your page indistinguishable from content that you own.
Since we're talking about monetizing porn lets consider two porn sites:
- One hires models and creates all kinds of porn, which they pay for by monetizing page views (ads, etc)
- The other simply crawls the first's website and posts all the same porn images but with their own ads so that they're making all the money. But they don't actually copy the images since that would be a clear violation of copyright, instead they just embed the images from the site 1, so that site 1 not only isn't getting the opportunity to monetize page views generated by their content, but is also having to pay for the vast majority of bandwidth consumed by the viewers of site 2, which only has to deliver the comparatively tiny HTML files.
Does that really sound like something that should be allowed all above board and legal?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep. The idea of linking is the very core of the concept of Hypertext. It's stupidly absurd. Clueless judges pontificating on technological matters will lead us to ruin.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't panic just yet. It appears that the issue was that the site linked directly to the images, so users would just see the image and not the Playboy web page. As the summary makes clear, linking is still fine, it's just linking in a way that makes the image appear out of all context for commercial gain that they found issue with.
I expect it will be appealed anyway, it's far from the highest court in the EU.
Re:Goodbye, World Wide Web. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're blurring the line between content and pointers to said content.
COPYright applies to copying the content. Linking to it is free speech.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Goodbye, World Wide Web. (Score:4, Interesting)
And who decides which jurisdiction it falls under, when the links are on a US site, but visible to the world?
They have already tried to force EU law on the entire internet with "right to be forgotten".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When has the right to be forgotten ever been enforced outside the EU? No court has ever tried to apply it outside the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Goodbye, World Wide Web. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't hotlinking Playboy, they are hiding (Score:2)
That analogy might work if they were hotlinking Playboy. They weren't. Instead, they were using unlawfully copied images hosted on some server which they may not own.
Some people (possibly the defendants, possibly not) were illegally uploading the images to imageshare.com or whatever and the defendants built a porn site using the Playboy images from imageshare.com.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so whoever uploaded it to imageshare is guilty of copyright violation.
Putting a link on your WEB page to something (anything) on the web is not.
Publishing a link is akin to mentioning the ISBN number of a book and the address of the library or bookshop it can be found in. When referencing by linking, I can't be expected to know that the library or bookshop engages in printing and offering identical copyright-infringing copies of the book.
Re: (Score:2)
But what it comes down to is that the context/place in which you are creating your page with links is the context/place known as the "WORLD WIDE WEB (of freely interlinked content)".
The onus is on whoever wants to protect copyright to keep their material off their or any other publicly accessible web server.
Admittedly whoever unauthorizedly publishes the actual material (not its address or identifier) on a web server has violated copyright, but a link creator has not.
Once the material is on a publicly acces
Re: (Score:2)
To be more explicit:
1. If you publish your content on the public World Wide Web with no access control mechanism, you have, some would say implicitly, I would say explicitly, made a copyright grant to all people and machines to reference that content with a link. Further, you've made a copyright grant to persons and machines allowing them to transfer a copy of the content and to possess a copy on their devices and to view it etc.
2. Implicit in our wide shared (universal) acceptance and use of the fundamenta
Re:Goodbye, World Wide Web. (Score:5, Insightful)
What's so bad about that?
Ever use a search engine (in particular image searching)?
A string like "https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/JmVq0i-tBJiPxGt5XOrDYDO6lyA=/0x16:1300x883/1280x854/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/48728355/playboy_march_16_cover_wide.0.0.jpg" is just a *fact* and should not be copyrightable. It simply *is not* the information that has been copyrighted.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I wasn't clear, then. I was talking about linking to photos with a link that would embed the photo directly in the displayed page. The search results you describe would not do that, they'd just present a link that you have to follow.
If the search engine presented images directly in the search results page (in anything other than fair-use thumbnail form), then that would be copyright infringement.
I tried reading the ruling, I didn't quite understand whether or not they differentiated between presenting the
Re:Goodbye, World Wide Web. (Score:5, Insightful)
An <img> tag is just a link you have to follow, too. The user agent may or may not do that for you. It is, after all, the agent acting on behalf of the user.
No, it wouldn't. And that is precisely why this EU ruling is pants-on-head retarded. And everyone involved with and/or favoring this decision this is also pants-on-head retarded. Sue me for libel, bitches. I dare you.
Links are not the original work. Period. Facts trump wishes. Deal with it.
Re: (Score:3)
> An tag is just a link you have to follow, too. The user agent may or may not do that for you. It is, after all, the agent acting on behalf of the user.
I think that the expected behaviors of different kinds of HTML is well known. If it's not standardized explicitly, it certainly must be standardized in practice by now. When people author web pages, they're usually pretty certain how they're going to end up looking when the browser renders them. So trying to argue "I linked to that copyrighted image
Re: (Score:2)
An tag is just a link you have to follow, too. The user agent may or may not do that for you. It is, after all, the agent acting on behalf of the user.
Don't be daft. If you don't understand copyright law and the difference between directing someone to content and displaying the content in your own context then please stay out of the discussion.
And that is precisely why this EU ruling is pants-on-head retarded.
Actually the EU ruling is 100% consistent with copyright law already in place in the world and the outcome would be identical in pretty much every court. Just because I published an image freely for people to see on the internet does not entitle you to display it on your profit generating page, and if that picture h
Re: (Score:2)
But is trivially transformable into the information that is. See also, a zipped jpeg.
Now, I disagree with the ruling, but I also disagree with your logic.
Re: (Score:2)
But is trivially transformable into the information that is. See also, a zipped jpeg.
Now, I disagree with the ruling, but I also disagree with your logic.
A URL is not trivially transformable into the the information that is copyrighted and is not equivalent to a zipped jpeg. A URL is a reference to the information, but there is no transformation that you can do to the information contained solely within the typical URL to reproduce the information that it points to. You must use the URL to fetch the actual copyrighted information.
Your logic is bunk.
Re: (Score:2)
What's so bad about that?
Ever use a search engine (in particular image searching)?
A string like "https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/JmVq0i-tBJiPxGt5XOrDYDO6lyA=/0x16:1300x883/1280x854/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/48728355/playboy_march_16_cover_wide.0.0.jpg" is just a *fact* and should not be copyrightable. It simply *is not* the information that has been copyrighted.
To make this point even more clear- A URL is just an address. I can't copyright, for example, the address of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It just happens to be:
Palais de la Cour de Justice
Boulevard Konrad Adenauer
Kirchberg
L-2925 Luxembourg
Luxembourg
That's just a shorthand way of saying N 49.621036, E 6.143116 [google.com] (which is actually posted on the Court's own website [europa.eu] It's where you locate the copyrightable thing, and if an address is copyrightable, then giving directions is a crime. If
Re: (Score:2)
Calling that a crime is unworkable in both the physical and internet world.
I believe you're very wrong there. Digital data can be moved (and removed) in a way that a physical address simply cannot. Sure you can destroy the building at that address and put up a new one or pave it over or do whatever else you want, but that land is still there.
Web addresses are far more malleable. That court website could be taken offline tomorrow and its just gone. Its not like destroying a building where the land still remains -- the website is completely non-existent at that point. And that'
Re: (Score:2)
Woops mangled that URL. It should be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower%23Illumination_copyright [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is the bits representing that link any more of a "fact" than the bits representing the image that link points to?
But never minding that, I don't think anyone says links should be copyrightable -- A link that points to copyrighted information infringes on that information's copyrignt, not on the link's copyright (if there is such a thing.)
For example, if that image link you mentioned above gets changed by Playboy on their end, then the copyright infringement is cleared up without your own involvement at
Re: (Score:2)
You want to show an image or video that someone else owns? You link to the page that they have made that embeds that image/video.
What's so bad about that?
From the ruling, "On 27 October 2011, an article relating to those photos of Ms Dekker, entitled ‘! Nude photos of [Ms] Dekker’, was published on the GeenStijl website, which included part of one of the photos at issue, and which ended with the following words: ‘And now the link with the pics you’ve been waiting for.’ By clicking on a hyperlink accompanying that text, users were directed to the Filefactory website, on which another hyperlink allowed them to download 11 electro
Re:Goodbye, World Wide Web. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, if the links are providing in the pursuit of financial gain, the poster of such links is deemed to have known that they were infringing copyright, unless they can prove otherwise. The court has stated that those sites operating "for profit" are expected to have carried out the (impossible?) "necessary checks to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published on the website to which those hyperlinks lead."
Re: (Score:2)
That page you linked to with the photo is also copyrighted though, just by existing. What's to stop the owner of the target link from suing over that copyright?
It sounds to me like the ruling is about linking to material which is already in violation of copyright - not about linking to copyrighted material.
Someone posts a link to your copyrighted photo on your server? Not a problem (well, possibly, but not in the light of this ruling).
Someone takes your photo, publishes it elsewhere (in violation of copyright), then someone else links to that image? That's what this covers, as far as I can tell.
Re: (Score:2)
This ruling basically says that any for profit entity would have to not only get permission from owner of the linked site, but also validate that that entity has the rights to publish the content you are linking to them for. It's insane.
Re: (Score:2)
It's insane.
No. It's consistent with all normal copyright works. There is an incredible raising of the bar as soon as any commercial use becomes involved with any copyrighted material, not only for the copyright owner but also for the subject of the photo.
Re:Goodbye, World Wide Web. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wasn't this whole "deep linking" battle fought once before?
Re: (Score:2)
I linked to it, I didn't serve it. None of the bits come from my server. I told *you* (in the form of your browser) where to get it. How have I violated copyright. If I told you that you could get a book at the library without the permission of the publisher why should that be illegal? The responsibility should be on the one who holds the content and transfers it. Not the person who tells you where it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the page you're linking to also copyrighted, thus making linking to it a violation?
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, that is some very good analysis. I tried to read the ruling and it's just so verbose and confusing, I really don't understand what it definitively states, but your comment gives me alot to go on.
Well, I thought we had settled this (Score:4, Informative)
I guess other countries have to come to their own conclusions, but at least in the US this has been settled. If you don't want something available publicly, put authentication on it. This isn't hard guys.
You're linking to a party that is legally hosting the content, how is that infringement?
Re: (Score:2)
This does seem like it would have that effect, or at least a chilling effect on for-profit search engines as they now bear the burden of proof that they did not link illegally to the images. I didn't see anything that would lead me to believe there would be an exception for search engines, although I don't know if they have some other protection. I would have thought the article would have underlined a problem for search engines, though.
Even if this doesn't affect them it still looks the EU wants a piece
Re:Well, I thought we had settled this (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see how this burden to search companies is a reason to weaken the rights of copyright holders.
Image thumbnails in search results would probably be covered under fair use no?
Frankly I'm surprised that copyright wasn't already enforced this way. Documents viewed on the world wide web are these ethereal things that are composed on the fly by client browser software as instructed by web server software. If the web server software instructs the client software to present a document which mixes non-copyright-infringing and copyright-infringing content, it seems eminently reasonable to me that this would be copyright infringement.
What if I distributed a bunch of mini printing presses that, when you pressed a button, produced a perfect copy of this year's best selling novel? Sure, I didn't actually distribute the novel, but I enabled a mechanism whereby the user, when using my device as intended, would end up with a copyright infringing document.
I think of the web browser in the same way. The servers tell it what to display. Therefore, if they tell it to display something that violates copyright, then the server has violated copyright.
Here's how I would make the rules if I could:
- Publishing web pages with links to copyrighted content where those links cause the display of the copyrighted content inline in the linking document, would violate copyright
- Publishing web pages with links to copyrighted content where those links do not cause the display of the copyrighted content inline in the linking document, but instead merely lead the user to the content, would not violate copyright
Analog: you can publish instructions on where to go to listen to a copyrighted song. You cannot publish a document which plays the copyrighted song to the user.
Re:Well, I thought we had settled this (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, privileges. Copy"right" is not a natural right (like the right to self-defense), but a privilege granted by society to encourage creation of new works which benefit society. It's a very recent concept, going only back to the 17th/18th centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
Your rules seem to boil down to "embedding is bad, pointing is okay", which doesn't seem unreasonable. But in this case the judge is dinging the news site for pointing to a pointer, so now we're back to "how do we make sure our pointers are safe".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how this burden to search companies is a reason to weaken the rights of copyright holders.
Well then, you are not even trying.
Image thumbnails in search results would probably be covered under fair use no?
No, because there is no fair use provision here. If you own and run a pay-for site and link to someone else, you can be penalized for doing so regardless of the reasoning. This leads to abuse like we see constantly in the US with DCMA take down notices.
Frankly I'm surprised that copyright wasn't already enforced this way. Documents viewed on the world wide web are these ethereal things that are composed on the fly by client browser software as instructed by web server software. If the web server software instructs the client software to present a document which mixes non-copyright-infringing and copyright-infringing content, it seems eminently reasonable to me that this would be copyright infringement.
You are assuming that all copyright claims are valid, are of a valid duration, and benefit the artist. Fact is however, the overwhelming majority of copyrights are owned by big corporations not artists. Further, a measur
Re:Well, I thought we had settled this (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't. It's no different than saying "go to the library to read this book" (although the action of going to the library becomes more automatic, since it's done for the user by the browser). The "linker" isn't involved in either delivering or receiving the content, and they're not a party to any copying. It's entirely up to the content provider if they want to deliver content which is linked from off-site.
This is just a case of a content provider being lazy by not going through the work of denying content linked from off-site, and trying to push their responsibility onto someone else.
The decision is a step towards further Balkanization of the web, which is based on hyperlinks.
Re:Well, I thought we had settled this (Score:4, Informative)
As far as I understand the ruling, the infringement is *not* that GS linked to a site where it is legally hosted, but that they are linking to a site that hosts the pictures illegally, and the GS should have known that it was illegal (and you can be damn sure they knew that the linked site was not authorized by the copyright holder)
So, this case is more akin to pirate bay, which also just hosts links to places where stuff is hosted illegally; and has little to do with linking to something someone intended to distribute on the web.
Now, whether it should be legal to link to something you know is illegal is another matter. I for one am curious whether the court proceedings contain the hyperlink itself. While the central government is not liable for criminal persecution, it is liable for civil suits...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's entirely up to the content provider if they want to deliver content which is linked from off-site.
Off-site is not the criteria here. Commercial use is, and it always has been too. This isn't anything surprising to anyone who's done as much as first year of lawschool. There's a big difference between publishing content, even distributing it widely, and making a profit of the said content. Not the least of which is the subject matter itself may have a problem with it.
e.g. I take a picture of a pretty girl drinking a black drink. I post it on my site. I link to it on forums and generally share it around. S
Re: (Score:2)
It changes nothing. It's up to you whether you serve content referenced through off-site links or not. They're only giving you that choice.
"This has been bashed around the courts for years with a very consistent result."
In many instances, the law has no clothes. There's no copying, and the legal power for copyright only covers exclusivity of works. Linking in no way infringes that, as exclusivity remains a d
wait, i am sure i am missing something here.. (Score:5, Interesting)
ok, so one party puts the pictures onto a public http server, then claims they did not want those pictures publicly available--- and the courts accepted this logic?
there are other ways besides putting them on a public http server, for those images to be shared with purchasing clients and other select audiences.
so, linking to files on a public http server is copyright infringement, if the copyright holder made them available, but is really an idiot and did not mean to?
because that is what i am taking away from this.
Re: (Score:3)
Linking to photos is a means for having them embedded in content you are serving. You are basically serving to clients instructions on how to compose a displayable document. By linking directly to copyrighted images you are instructing the user's computer to produce a document which is a mix of your content, and copyrighted content.
Basically this ruling says that instructing client software to present documents which when examined in sum total are copyright infringing, then you have violated copyright, ev
Re:wait, i am sure i am missing something here.. (Score:4, Informative)
A link isn't "instructions". It's just the address of where to find something.
What you're saying is like prosecuting me for prostitution if I tell you there's a brothel at 411 B street.
Re: (Score:2)
I just went to 411 B Street, and the lady of the house wasn't all that happy with my inquiry about the "services" offered at her fine establishment.
Re: (Score:2)
"hyperlinks to copyright infringing works constitutes a "communication to the public" for the purposes of EU copyright law"
It sounds like there is a clause against merely telling someone where copyrighted work can be found, and because it's part of the copyright law itself, it's a violation of the whole law.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I like the implications of that line of reasoning, because if you create a derivative work in violation of copyright law through instructions to include referenced content then it stands to reason the same would apply to omissions, making ad blockers illegal. Or at the very least only legal through fair use, which it may or may not be as it ruins the copyright holder's business model. And if that's where you draw the line, you're basically relying on the client's decision to show <a href....
Re: (Score:2)
except that a hyperlink is not a reproduction, per se.
it has more in common with a proper periodical literature citation. you know, the kind that can help you find a whole magazine stored on a library shelf?
the significant difference here, is that instead of having to go to a library, locate the periodicals shelf, and then locate the cited periodical all by yourself, you have a fancy software agent that asks another software agent inside the library to find it for you, and check you out a copy automatically
Re: (Score:3)
nope, one party's images were copied illegally onto a server and they're complaining that someone else published a pointer to the server with the illegal copies.
Re: (Score:2)
ok, so one party puts the pictures onto a public http server, then claims they did not want those pictures publicly available--- and the courts accepted this logic?
No. One party puts their pictures onto a public server and then claims that another party showing them had no right to make a profit off the photos. And yes courts have accepted this logic since the camera was first invented, just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's new.
Precedent? (Score:3)
So does that mean speaking, writing or otherwise commenting on a copyrighted subject is now a violation of copyright.
It's the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The courts however - they do take them seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
No more links to the EU? No more quotes... from any EU site? The US and soon the UK will still be ok
Maybe multinational search engines should shop listing all EU sites as legal protection for their users by default?
With the option to risk EU search results sites as a preference setting with a cle
GIT EM (Score:3)
Facebook challenged in 3...2....1....
And search engines (Score:3, Insightful)
are now completely f****'ed....
Conclusion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or allow any of your internet content to be accessible in the EU
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
"The Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) ordered Google in May to apply RTBF removals not only to the company’s European domains such as google.co.uk or google.fr, but to the search engine’s global domain google.com."
Doesn't think oppose the Wi-Fi concept? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that would make sense and be logically consistent.
This ruling comes from the same hard of thinking people that brought you the "right to be forgotten" (right to censor the internet 'because I'm a different person now, honestly').
Unity on Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm genuinely curious:
Is there anyone here who believes that this is not a completely stupid ruling?
If so, please explain to the rest of us how pointing to something that is already publicly available (ie published on a web page) could possibly be a violation of copyright.
Re:Unity on Slashdot? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is there anyone here who believes that this is not a completely stupid ruling?
Yes me, and I'll gladly explain it.
If you post a photo publicly you don't magically give up copyright. You still retain all rights to decide how people may use that photo. You post it on your website, it's still your photo. You embed it in a forum post, still your photo. It remains your photo at all times and in some cases you may provide someone else limited rights to use it. E.g. I upload it to a competition there will likely be a release form allowing them to use the photo on their website.
At no time does making something publicly available give a 3rd party ability to profit from it. Not on the web, not in newspaper publishing, advertising, and not since copyright was first introduced. There's a big difference between commercial use and non commercial use. Had the online newspaper linked to the Playboy site in context rather than directly providing links to photos the ruling would have gone differently. Were the site in question not a news site that makes money from the story about the images where they were publishing the images the ruling would have gone differently.
This sounds like a perfectly ordinary copyright ruling and as Slashdot's favourite meme goes "ON THE INTERNET" doesn't make something new.
Re:Unity on Slashdot? (Score:4, Informative)
You still retain all rights to decide how people may use that photo.
No, you still retain whatever rights you had. You certainly don't have complete authority to decide how other people may use it. So long as other people use it in a manner which doesn't infringe on your copyright, you can't control them at all, in fact.
At no time does making something publicly available give a 3rd party ability to profit from it.
It does for first sale. It does for fair use, if the particular use happens to qualify (commercial uses are fully able to be fair uses). There's a number of other exceptions that can apply as well. For example, if you release a record, other people can record and sell cover versions of it, and the whole intent of this was to allow third parties the ability to profit without the permission of the copyright holder.
This sounds like a perfectly ordinary copyright ruling
In fact, this is an asinine ruling. The court got it right before, when it found that linking to a file which had been put up with authorization was not infringing (which the exact thing you've been claiming was infringing, idiot). Here, the difference was that the underlying files had been put up in an infringing manner. But, rather than tell the rights holder to go after the actual wrong-doer who put them up to begin with, they decided to shift liability to third parties who were not responsible for the underlying infringement. It's very reminiscent of the stupid 'right to be forgotten' cases, in that it tries to sweep things under the carpet by imposing liability on the wrong parties just because they're more convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
Me, I see the tiniest bit of sense in it. Suppose for example, a website links to a full-length, high-rez version of Pirates of the Caribbean on an external website. Whenever it is taken down, they switch the link to another external website hosting the same content. Even though they're just linking to someone else's infringing content and not infringing themselves, I'd consider it to be basically an accomplice to the infringer.
However, there's no good way to prevent that without massive collateral damage -
Re: (Score:2)
Headline seems alarmist (Score:3)
Linking Without Permission Violates Copyright, Rules EU Court
Eh, not quite, as far as I can tell. Linking to files which already violate copyright themselves has now been ruled to be copyright violation.
Linking to a BBC news article or a legitimately copyrighted and published YouTube video aren't going to be considered copyright violations.
Copy rights (Score:5, Insightful)
It would seem copy has more rights than people.
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem copy has more rights than people.
Snide remark right until you realise how royally fucked all parties would be if the person in the photo didn't sign a model release.
Goodbye EU (Score:2)
Goodbye, EU.
Delinked.
EUexit.
Executed.
404
Linking Without Permission Violates Copyright (Score:3)
Linking Without Permission
Linking without permission... Linking without permission? Linking without what? This phrase doesn't even make sense.
Did the ECJ ... (Score:2)
RTFA - photos were illegally posted (Score:5, Interesting)
The comments I read seemed to have missed the point that the link was to illegally posted, pre-publication photos. Not just any old link. Just sayin, puts a different angle on the story, although a little less clickbaity!
Re: (Score:2)
Unless everything on the internet now comes with an "exclusive worldwide copyright license" search engines are officially extinct.
Well maybe 60% of the searches on google just end on wikipedia, or something like that, so its only about the remaining 40%. However about wikipedia, goodbye citations in url forms.
Re:It's not the lack of permission that matters (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem was that they knowingly linked to copyright infringing material
No they didnt. They linked to a file hosting service that had links to the copyrighted material.
You are missing the part where 3 different parties are involved.
(A) The owners of the copyright
(B) The site hosting and linking to the content
(C) The site linking to (B)'s web page that links to and hosts the content.
This can be translated into: "A law was broken, and god damn it someone.. anyone... must pay!"
Re: (Score:2)
Its turtles all the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
It's liberal in the sense that mild socialism falls on the liberal end of the scale.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a marked philosophical difference between the EU and U.S. law. The U.S. is based on the concept that al
Re: (Score:2)
And before that, if you wrote a novel, you didn't just print it and sell copies to the public, where anyone could copy it. You printed one copy, put it behind lock and key and only let someone read it when you could be there to be sure they wouldn't take it away or make a copy of it. Right?
Er, wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that a headline from the past, when Spanish newspapers sued google over news summaries and won?
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the early 2000's, Tribalwar.com, another gamer cesspool of the internet, had a picture posted on the site linked by CNN.com on their front page.
Middle of the day, tribalwar was completly unavailable because their server was overloaded from all the traffic. As in the picture on CNN's front page was loaded directly from their servers.
The forum admin called and called and e-mailed asking them to please stop. This complaining all fell on deaf ears.
So, he switched out the picture with goatse (for those of you not in the know, it's a picture of a guy holding his butthole open).
Several million people saw Goatse in all it's glory, right there on CNN's front page as their feature article, over the course of the next several hours.
Then, like magic, the issue was fixed.
We had a by far better way of settling these things in the old days.
Now that's comedy! [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Extracting a portion and embedding it in your content without quote or citation does not seem like fair use, it actually seems like plagiarism.
Let me add that a link is a citation .
Wrong. The link is not visible to the casual reader, it is buried in the HTML source. Hence it does not count.
A link is not the content, a link is a reference to the content.
In a "programming" sense (to use the word "programming" very loosely), not in a "inform the reader" sense. Hence it does not count.
(Again, read Berners-Lee's document [w3.org]. He is the creator of the hyperlink, and he makes this point very clear.)
Apparently not clear enough, you seem to misunderstand it. Note how he repeatedly refers to linking to a *page*. A link to a complete page is something very different than an embedded link to a fragment of a page's content. It is only the former being discussed here, and