We always think of linking to someone else’s site as an act of benevolence. It drives our traffic to their site, a good thing. But there’s an interesting case that has emerged out of the EU.
Nothing sucks more than when we create a picture and another site uses that picture and then a huge site links to the other site to let everyone take a looksy at our nice picture.
This happened to us when The Conservative Treehouse reposted one of our pictures (which is great, I have absolutely no problem with that. We want other sites to use our pictures, as long as our credit remains intact.) Drudge loved the picture and linked to it… at The Conservative Treehouse. (Sad Trombone.)
That’s just the the way it goes sometimes.
Now this is being challenged in EU courts, and disgruntled people who’ve had their copyright infringed are suing everyone else in that wake… successfully.
Dutch Playboy had exclusive rights to nudey pictures of a TV personality. Another site posted them illegally on their site. In our analogy this would be like The Conservative Treehouse posting our pic (the difference being that I endorse the usage of our imagery on other sites, as long as our credits aren’t stripped off. In this scenario I would be in the role of a publisher that wouldn’t want the Treehouse to post our picture.)
Enter Drudge. When Drudge links to The Conservative Treehouse, driving all of his traffic over there, the EU says I have a right to sue Drudge for copyright infringement.
I dunno. This sounds a little thin. This is horrible.
That would mean I’d have to be wary about linking ANYONE because they might have used a copyrighted image in their story and I could be sued. This will ruin the business model of blogs.
ht/ FDR in HELL
This is not good news. On the other hand it would destroy Facebook and probably Twitter (although they’re close to the edge now as it is).
It’s like equating giving someone directions to a bakery with giving someone a loaf of bread. An absolutely idiotic ruling, which is what one should expect from EU courts.
It looks like someone wants absolute control of the narrative back, or else.
“This will ruin the business model of blogs.”
That’s not a bug, that’s a feature.
Blogs are the exemplification of liberty. The EU is the antithesis of liberty.
It’s always better to link than to extract a portion from somebody else and quote it. I incorporate images all the time from other sites. They don’t always provide a watermark or clear indication in the picture itself where it came from. Are we going to have to search out the ownership of everything we use from now on?
Muslim Court-there I fixed it for you!
This is Euro model vs US ‘Freedom of Speech’ model, although vigilance is always prescribed.
My friend’s news website InkaBinka.com (which I highly recommend, and yes I am an investor) has limited verbiage from an original story and a link to the story, similarly to iotw. He engaged an attorney to be certain of what is allowable and what is not. So I think we’re ok under US law, but of course with the wrong
rulersleaders that may not last.Be adult about it all, and bypass the f**kin’ courts.
If you see your picture posted somewhere, without attribution, follow the link to the link to the link (etc), and then contact the blog about your picture, “I appreciate your using my picture, but could you please re-post it with proper attribution? Thanks ever so much.”
And if you get contacted about posting a picture without attribution, again, be adult, “Wow. I didn’t realize that. Let me do a little research, I’ll get right on it.”
(I say “do research” because sometimes someone will claim attribution on something that’s not theirs).
The courts. . .. they could f**k up a wet dream.
Hey, there’s a “C” on the graphic for this thread… it must be classified.