Posted by Els on 12/15/05 01:38

Toby Inkster wrote:

> Els wrote:
>
>> Sounds like we're talking about two different things. A direct link
>> with an href to an image is one thing, but I thought we were
>> discussing placing someone else's images in a page through an <img>
>> element,
>
> So this is fine in your books?
>
> <a href="http://yoursite.example.com/image.jpeg">Image</a>
>
> But this is not?
>
> <img src="http://yoursite.example.com/image.jpeg" alt="Image">

Yup.
In the former example, people see my URL in the addressbar, and might
check out the rest of my site as well. In the latter example, there is
no indication at all that the picture is mine, and no one will visit
my site after seeing the image.

Must say that there is one exception that I know of, and I have made
an exception for that blogger - she doesn't get my substitute message.
She got a picture from my site, but included the original <a href> the
image was in. People see the image on her blog, notice it's clickable,
and when clicking it, they go straight to a bigger version of the
image on my site, page and all.

> (The two are rendered almost identically in Lynx, given the right
> options.)

Well, most of the people looking at my images don't use Lynx ;-)

> How about this?
>
> <a id="foo" href="http://yoursite.example.com/image.jpeg">Image</a>
> <script>
> var i = new Image();
> var h = document.getElementById('foo');
> i.src = h.href;
> i.alt = h.innerHTML;
> h.href = '';
> h.appendChild(i);
> </script>
>
> And what if that Javascript isn't on the page, but is instead run by the
> visitor? (cf. Mozilla's GreaseMonkey extension, Opera's native User
> Javascript capability, "bookmarklets" in any Javascript-capable browser.)

I couldn't comment on that, as I have no idea what that script is
doing - I don't speak JavaScript...

> Where exactly do you draw the line? And why do you need to draw a line at
> all? If you want people to view your images, why does it matter what HTML
> element I use to link to them? Every visitor who views your image is
> going to use X kilobytes of your bandwidth, whether I use A or IMG.

There's more than one difference. One of them is people seeing my
images without me being credited at all (ordinary MySpace visitors
don't look look in the source to find the original URL). Another is
that my bandwidth is used far more than I had planned. I have only a
certain amount of visitors per day, and it's not a strain on the
server whatsoever. Now add the multitude of people on MySpace en
similar blogs who have my large image as their background, and
multiply that by their visitors. If I wouldn't stop them, the actual
bandwidth taken by this picture via other people's sites is more than
the bandwidth taken up my my own visitors looking at many images.

Don't get me wrong - it's not passing my bandwidth limits. But if I'd
let them and have a couple more wanted images, it might. I pay hosting
for people who visit my site. Not for everybody else's visitors.

>> passing the picture off as one's own, and wasting my bandwidth.
>
> Now that's not an issue with "theft", but one of passing-off: an issue of
> copyright violation.

True. I used the term 'passing-off' to indicate the picture is shown
in their page, and no one will suspect it's not their own, so they
wouldn't even know of the existence of my site. Hence, no benefit for
me.

> But if I write:
>
> <p>Here is a great picture that Els took:
> <img src="http://yoursite.example.com/image.jpeg" alt="Image"></p>
>
> then how am I passing it off as my own?

You're not. But you'd still be stealing my bandwidth :P

Let's turn this thing around. If you'd have a large image (300kB) on
your site, would you have no problem whatsoever if I would use it as a
background, hotlinked, on my (hypothetical!) 5000+ visitors a day
blog?

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

[Back to original message]