This one time, at band camp, Simon wrote:

I'd be interested in the legal viewpoint on option one - if a bicyle isn't locked, is it therefore OK to steal it? ;-)

I think your analogy is flawed. As usual with copyright issues people take the concept of "ownership" to be the same as tangible goods. If I steal your bicycle, you no longer have a bicycle. If I copy your image, you still have it.

The point I'm making is that the Web, by design, encourages linking of material. It's the way it was made and part of the whole point. Linking in material is significantly different from taking your own copy in that the publisher retains control.

Tell me, how would it be different if I used an <a href> link to your image file instead of <img src>?

So, here's the policy I would suggest, and I adopt on my Openguide.

1. Linking of images is allowed and encouraged. 2. If your images have been linked from the site and you have a problem with it, you have these options:

a) Make an edit of the offending page and add the edit comment "please don't link my images", or b) Send an email to <openguides-london@openguides.org> requesting removal of the image link and we will do it for you, or c) For a longer-term solution, consider [http://wsabstract.com/howto/htaccess10.shtml technical measures] to prevent linking of images.

On Mon 11 Oct 2004, Simon mzdt@livejournal.com wrote:

As photographer myself, I've been thinking around this a bit - it would be really great to have a lot more images on OGL - a thousand words and all that, and to be honest it would make it look a lot more accessible. Ideally some central image storage would be great, but access to all would be a problem. Some kind of pre-registration to get ftp upload permission? A web interface that requires basic personal info to be added? I'm not any kind of programmer, so I can only suggest that to the clever people here...

This is not going to happen unless you get someone to take personal responsibility for writing it. I think it's a very good idea. I'm not trying to be negative here, just realistic. Coming up with good ideas is wonderful but you need to get hold of a programmer who will (a) promise to write the code (this bit is easy) and (b) actually do it.

I'm not volunteering; I'm hardly well enough to get out of the house most days let alone think.

Kake

Rev Simon Rumble writes:

Hmm, can you say "bury head in sand"? How about some discussion folks? Or, even, just a decision by Earle whose arse is on the line, after all.

calm down, calm down, it's only a commercial... oh, anyway.

A little more discussion from others would be appreciated. We can have a two-way debate, but I suggest reference to copyright law is made before ayone does anything. I don't have your previous email to hand, but hyperlinks are indeed what the internet is for, but link to the page, not to the image. Using inline images without permission in my mind is theft of intellectual property as well as bandwidth; both have value.

Anyone else?

On Tue 12 Oct 2004, Roger Burton West roger@firedrake.org wrote:

If you put an image up for straight http, you are _intrinsically_ giving anyone permission to use it. You can assert copyright, and you can make some lawyers slightly richer thereby, but really it's all bullshit. If you didn't want it used, you shouldn't have made it freely available. If your images are so precious to you, require cookies or basic auth or referrer checks; don't put them up where the entire world can see them and then complain that the entire world can see them.

Just for the record, I don't agree with any of this but I don't think I can change Roger's mind by arguing with him, so I won't.

Kake

On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 10:37:37AM +0100, Rev Simon Rumble wrote:

Very perceptive ;)

It has been knokwn to happen...

However, aren't we working towards consensus rather than attempting to convince a single person? Or is Roger hosting London Openguides? After all, I suspect whoever is doing that has final say.

I'm likely to respect other people's claims to "ownership" of their images if they make them explicit. My point is rather that there's no practical method of _forcing_ me or anyone else to do so, and asking politely tends to work better than having a heavy-booted Policy.

R

This one time, at band camp, Simon wrote:

A little more discussion from others would be appreciated. We can have a two-way debate, but I suggest reference to copyright law is made before ayone does anything.

The problem is that copyright law is far from clear in this regard.

By way of example, back in the early days of frames (evil evil evil), a company framed CNN's news site and put their own banner ads around it. CNN initially sued the company doing this. Eventually they dropped their case because they found a reliable technical means of avoiding this (Javascript take frame to _top hack).

There really haven't been many cases exploring this area, particularly the use of inline images. Since HTTP was designed explicitely to enable this, I err on the side of open access. There are relatively easy technical means to stop your data being publicly accessible, if that is the work holder's desire.

Using inline images without permission in my mind is theft of intellectual property as well as bandwidth; both have value.

Here we go again...

If you have a can of Coke and I take it, you no longer have a can of Coke. That is theft.

If I use my Coke-copying machine to copy your can of Coke, we both end up with a can of Coke. This is not theft, but is probably some kind of obscure infringement of Coca-Cola's rights.

There is a difference.

As for "intellectual property", well, it isn't. There is no such thing. Legally there are a number of different and distinct classes of law: copyright, patents, trademarks.

On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:39:34PM +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:

Just as an aside: I know it's an effort, but some places will let you use their copyrighted photos quite easily if you just ask. I asked the Natural History Museum if I could use one of their photos; they said yes and sent me four high-quality ones.

Dave makes a good point.

As the person most likely to be legally responsible for the Open Guide to London, I'll make the official position clear: if you were not given permission to use someone else's words or pictures, then you may not use them. If you *did* get permission, then you may use them, and you *must* make it clear where the pictures came from and what their copyright status is. You may not include any images from a source whose copyright policy is incompatible with the site license. This is Policy. It will be appearing somewhere on london.openguides.org, soon.

I have no time for protracted debate between utopian idealists and die-hard legalists, and I would suggest it be taken to a more appropriate forum than OpenGuides-London.

Thank you,

Earle.