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.'"
I have an image on my site, and someone does a direct link to it, to display it on their site...
and therefore drains my bandwidth....
and deprives me of any ad revenue or anything else as a result....
I have to provide permission first.
Hmmm... is there a problem here?
Note, this doesnt' stop someone from creating a thumbnail and using it to link to my site... where someone can see the whole image.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Based on what they stated, any adjustment to the actual image can be considered enough of a change. One could scale to 99% the width and 99% the height and use that image to link to. Or perhaps just use the img width and height tags to display the linked image in a smaller size; you may be linking to the image but it's displayed in an altered form.
I wonder if that's sufficient to get around the ruling.
---- The geek shall inherit the Earth.
This is a great thing for the most infernal practice on the web - people loading other people's work into their frameset, with their titles and their content on either side of it.
If this isn't allowed, finally we'll be able to have some place where the author of the work has either the rest of his website recognized or has it branched away from the "link-pirate".
Unless I'm misreading, this means that
$WEB_MONKEY[0] at $SITE[0] can't put a
link like this: <img src="http://$SITE[1]/image.jpeg">
without being smacked down by
the admins at $SITE[1]. In the early
days of the Web people who resented such
linking would hack Apache to demand the
right referrer before serving an image.
It's still the better solution in my view,
but the courts are right to intervene.
... but is a serious question.
What effect does this decision have on everyone in the world who isn't in the USA?
Would enforcement rely on a Skylarov effect, or an 'effective place of publication' ruling, or both?
"This is a Hollywood movie: when it comes to the Laws of Physics, they're lucky if they get Gravity!" --- my wife
heh, the ninth court of appeals is reversed constantly. don't be too optimistic about this ruling standing up in higher courts, since the ninth court has a particularly bad record with reversals.
some references:
"Let's say this is a court on the cutting edge of jurisprudence," Richards said of the 9th Circuit court. "It may be the most reversed court."
"Of course, this is the Ninth Circuit, the most reversed court in the country, so the road is likely to be bumpy."
"Our final area of concern is that we are talking about the Ninth Circuit. That Circuit is much too large, which has made it difficult to develop any collegiality. As a result, judges have not developed common legal approaches to their decisions, and they are often even unaware of each other's decisions. The case law that has developed from this situation is often conflicting within the Circuit. Further, as judges have learned to act as laws unto themselves, they have frequently made unconstitutional decisions. It is by far the most reversed court in the country."
jon
-- http://www.cerastes.org
Why is that bad? Why is that "against a free and open Internet"? That protects copyright. That's ALL. A photograph is copyright by the original author. So is a written work. So is source code. In fact, copyright and license is all that's stopping a popular enemy of many of the readers of this site from running off with a lot of source code and using it in proprietary products. This law protects the originators of work. It gives the author the ability to control and decide how that work will be used.
Anyone can still create excerpts of works for research, indexing and review purposes such as short links to stories, quotes of larger works, and now, thumbnails. This law extends the long-respected and venerated copyright law into the realm of digital images, and in what I personally feel is a responsible and very fair way.
For once, the law appears to be creating and extending a statute by case law in a fair way, in line with the intention of the original law, and it's getting slagged by some of the people it protects. How disappointing.
Try to weigh the rights of an author to own their labour vs. a free for all. This law protects and extends the right of each of us to create something, and either give it away, or sell it, or distribute it in some other novel way. Without that, anyone can take anything any of us does and use it in any way they wish, without our permission, and without compensation, and most importantly, without any concerns as to the intent for the use of the work originally.
Thus endeth the rant. Just think.
This is absurd.
Imagine some site has a web page that displays a picture surrounded by adds. Lets keep things simple, and say there is one image for the picture and one image for the ad. A normal web page directs your browser to request the image for the picture, tells you where to display it, tells it to request the ad image, and then where to display it. (actually, the ad probably comes first!).
In this case, you could view the html source yourself, type in the URL for the image you want, and voila, just the image would pop up. No copyright infringement, because they have built their site to provide the image to any anonymous client on demand.
But now if I write a page that instructs your browser to go to the other site and request the original image, then surround it with flowers instead of ads, this is copy right infringement. But they gave it to you on your request.
Its like if I tell you, go to Addison-Welsey, and ask them to give you a free copy of the latest Britney Spears Bio, and they'll give it to you, and they do, and then charge me with copyright infringement.
If they don't want people to access the data anonymously, all they have to do in not give it away anonymously
In our simple exam, the site could post a single gif image that has the adds and the original image combined.
My handle breaks slashcode, what does your handle do?
Note: Reality filter in effect, suggested changes added in parentheses.
On another note, this decision really has nothing to do with hyperlinking, only with embdding other content into a page without attributing it, i.e. either using frames or the SRC of an IMG. The only way it even vaguely relates to hyperlinks is that it's not really clear under this decision whether creating a hyperlink to an image directly instead of linking to the page that contains the image is forbidden. I don't see any language to that effect, but it could be considered unattributed display nonetheless.
The ruling was not against providing links.
The ruling was against linking directly to images. More specifically, it was for linking directly to and displaying images without any of their original context.
People could see Kelly's images without knowing they came from Kelly's site, or without any of the information he might wish to have associated with them.
To add insult to injury, they'd use his bandwidth to serve them up!
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.
:)