Slashdot Mirror
9th Circuit: Thumbnails Are Big Enough For Fair Use
An anonymous reader submits: "According to an article from law.com, yesterday's decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (U.S.) will have far-reaching effects on web publishing. From the article: '... The court found that reproducing photographs to create thumbnail images is a fair use of the material, but displaying full-sized images violates the copyright owner's exclusive right to publicly display his works....But the court found that displaying the full-sized images through linking and framing was not transformative and harmed the market for the original photographs.' One lawyer is quoted as saying, 'It's basically going to do away with linking or framing without permission.'"
What more do you want? Armed thumbnail police breaking down doors and demanding to search your html for
---
Oregon
SetEnvIfNoCase Referer www\.yourdomain\.com good_referer
Order Deny,Allow
Deny from all
Allow from env=good_referer
ErrorDocument 403 http://goatse.cx/hello.jpg
</FilesMatch>
STOP ME BEFORE I POST AGAIN!
Excuse me, sir. You appear to have posted a legitimate argument to Slashdot.org. Perhaps you weren't aware, but this site is primarily for Linux zealots who are unable to comprehend legitimate arguments because they like things for free. They do not distinguish between so-called "open source" free things and theft of copyrighted material. Hence, your seemingly sensible argument is not welcome here.
I'm going to have to ask you to leave now.
The goatse guy for president. Win one for the gaper!
Thanks Slashdot. When I get back from work today I can shout to her "Hey! Size does matter after all."
No wait.....
What happens if someone has really big thumbs?
The next thing you know, they're going to start saying that downloading an mp3 of someone's song and then having a link on your site to the song is illegal!
If you don't want your picture to be linked/copied STAY THE HELL CLEAR OF THE 'NET! .ca, .ru or any other free country.
The Internet as has its own legislation in the RFC's and any other attempt at regulation is an infringement on people's rights. The only acceptable way of internet regulation is the submission of an RFC -- governments are perfectly welcome to do that. However, when they are trying to impose their bloody-handed corrupt and retarded ways on our self-regulating progressive community, it sounds like a call to arms.
Anyway, we're stronger than they are. It doesn't take too much of an effort to move to
If you've ever "accidentally" been directed to a "leisure" site then, like me, you were probably convinced that only thumbnail images exist.
This case is a landmark for me because it provides evidence that non-thumbnail pr0n is actually out there somewhere.
:)
removal of the offender's thumbnails..
Only if you enjoy amusing yourself to images of very very pixelated women :)
"Wow, take a look at that...blurry pink thing??"
The same situation could apply to music or any other media. You can right now tell a browser to play a music clip when it loads a page, that clip can be on any server. So if a band puts up a web page with clips of their copyrighted music on it so people can listen to it, I can embed a link to those music files on my web page. When people come to my web page they hear them, and even if I offer a link to the bands site in attribution it's still not fair use... it's not copying either in the true sense of the word, but it's violating the spirit of the copyright laws -- What it comes down to is that you're not allowed to profit from other people's copyrighted work without permission.
Tell me how inlining copyrighted images is different than inlining copyrighted text or music? And what makes one fair use and the others not?
Dude, if someone is dumb enough to go to the trouble of photocopying an entire John Grisham novel, they've already got trouble. Double that for anything by Tom Clancy. Do these guys get paid by the pound, or what?
That is all.