Day 1 of injunction watch – nothing to report

anyone tempted to nip in to browse mid ride? Must be pretty muddy up the top of cavedale right now.

I’m interested which specialist forum I’m on now. Should I expect some contact from ‘enthusiasts’?

To be fair it’s not even Noon yet.

Day 1 of injunction watch – nothing to report

Mark, earlier

The picture is from the Guardian website, please don’t sue 🙂

There’s gonna be trouble;

We could set a webcam up pointing at the letterbox

And whilst all of this goes on, the photos are still there on their public FB page and hidden away in the Edale MR page somewhere, hence the hotlinks still work.

I can’t see any good coming of this for either party and hope it just fizzles away. I do find it odd though that you can hotlink images willy and indeed nilly without it having copyright repercussions. Is that a sign of the laws not keeping up with or understanding t’internet??

stilltortoise – imagine hotlinking on here as you holding up a magazine in a pub and showing your friends a picture in it.

They haven’t paid to see it but neither have you copied it so no law is broken.

If you photocopied the picture and gave them each a copy to take home then that would be bad.

As above, the irony is that the bloke makign the fuss still hasn’t either moved the images or stopped hotlinking to them – it’s all entirely in his control.

He could just get an avalanche of free publicity by adding his shop name and address to the original photo. I suspect he’ll be snowed under with trolling from folk now though.

I know Julian and Safariquip well (used to work there back in’t day)

The man is a cretin of the highest order and this kind of behaviour is not out of character in any way. He generally goes away if he doesn’t get any attention.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFtmdorQG-U[/video]

Wwaswas, the very nature of the Internet mean those type of analogies simply don’t hold up though. In your example only your friends see it and only for as long as you can be bothered to hold it up.

imagine hotlinking on here as you holding up a magazine in a pub and showing your friends a picture in it.

But in that scenario your mates still see the magazine. With hotlinking the person seeing the images has no idea where they came from

Julian is legally quite clearly in the wrong but I agree that perhaps the law needs to catch up a little, perhaps by saying that hotlinked images must be accompanied by a link to the original webpage (which in this case isn’t even safriquip though 😕 )

The man is a cretin of the highest order and this kind of behaviour is not out of character in any way.

So I wasn’t far off with my diagnosis of ‘moron’ 😉

But in that scenario your mates still see the magazine. With hotlinking the person seeing the images has no idea where they came from

[stretching the analogy]

cut out a picture from a magazine and take it to the pub?

[/stetching the analogy]

Interesting videos posted on here always have a link underneath them which gives their source.

Also, you can always find where an image has come from by looking at the page source or inspecting its properties so it’s not ‘hidden’ but it could be more transparent, I guess.

I think the point is that courts have also tried to draw analogies to pre-internet days and it simply doesn’t work. As we’ve also seen with the legal action over Twitter postings, for example, the laws were never designed to operate in and around the internet. I think we’d all agree the internet can’t be lawless, but how long can it keep operating within the boundaries of laws that don’t/can’t apply?

</melodrama over>

But in that scenario your mates still see the magazine. With hotlinking the person seeing the images has no idea where they came from

^^ this

right clicking does not tell me where the image came from. When I right click Bill Oddie I see this

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Media/Pix/pictures/2009/01/30/oddie460.jpg

There is no way I know that is from the Guardian.

Links below videos seem fair, why could this not work with photos?

I agree a simple link would be a lot easier.

Well ok, but googling http://static.guim.co.uk

would get you the last step of the way, its the grauniad photo hosting server… or somat…

I concede a link would be easier, and indeed I’ve seen other forums that do that. But is up to the PTB really init.

What proportion of internet users do you think would have a clue how to (a) know what a hot link is (b) identify an image is hot linked (c) know how to identify the source? I’d wager it’s considerably smaller than you think, but if you want to educate them all by posting hot linked pictures of a mouse everywhere, good luck 🙂

Hot links that only lead to the image alone and not the webpage from where the image address was sourced are little more than luke-warm links in my opinion, but that’s another point entirely…

[EDIT – someone beat me to my point. Thanks Franksinatra]

There is no way I know that is from the Guardian.

Other than you soon learn that GUIM is a guardian website which hosts their photos….

Goto http://www.static.guim.co.uk and the Guardian logo appears in the browser tab…

Weird that worked first time I did it…..

OK this works:

http://static.guim.co.uk/

<the Duke>”An hour to noon, pilgrim. Time to get off your horse and drink your milk.”</the Duke>

Another one for the more mature.

Links below videos seem fair, why could this not work with photos?

There are legitimate reasons for hotlinking without there being a link visible underneath, for instance if you run a website and don’t have much bandwith you can host images elsewhere – I’m sure there must be other scenarios too.

I do think the complete free for all there is at the moment isn’t quite right though.

oh who cares?

has mark been shot yet?

The sun is high in the sky.

Do you feel lucky Punk?

Well, do ya?

It’s time:

right clicking does not tell me where the image came from. When I right click Bill Oddie I see this

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Media/Pix/pictures/2009/01/30/oddie460.jpg

There is no way I know that is from the Guardian.

Links below videos seem fair, why could this not work with photos?

Ah, this would be better then you reckon?

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Media/Pix/pictures/2009/01/30/oddie460.jpg

Though I’m not quite sure how you legislate for what you’re allowed to do when hotlinking, even if the law agreed with you and was at all interested. All you’re actually doing is putting a link on a page, a link which isn’t itself copyright (it would break the internet if it was). In any case, getting back to the original images, they’re hotlinked from FB, and FB has no problem with you hotlinking from it (I do it all the time) – the FB privacy terms I linked up there make it clear anything you post on FB is public.

It’s time:

Oh the ironing – www has hotlinked an image on a site which doesn’t allow hotlinking!

Ha! I see it beacuse it’s cached for me 🙂

How about this one;

It’s ironic that the blokes blurb on the site I linked to says how he hates capitalism etc…

In all this, no-one’s asked about the humerous cow or reindeer on the roof of the red and white landrover,

Standards are slipping.

I wonder if he has thought about the ramifications of posting it on FB in the first place (if they are actually his images)

Maybe he plans taking on FB at some stage tpossibly on a quiet bankholiday tuesday

1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (“IP content”), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (“IP License”). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
2. When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).
3. When you use an application, your content and information is shared with the application. We require applications to respect your privacy, and your agreement with that application will control how the application can use, store, and transfer that content and information. (To learn more about Platform, read our Privacy Policy and Platform Page.)
4. When you publish content or information using the “everyone” setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).
5. We always appreciate your feedback or other suggestions about Facebook, but you understand that we may use them without any obligation to compensate you for them (just as you have no obligation to offer them).”