[OpenGuides-London] Fwd: Re: [OpenGuides-Dev] Fw: Images on St Paul's Cathedral London Openguides node
11 Oct
2004
11 Oct
'04
10:09 a.m.
----- Forwarded message from Rev Simon Rumble <simon(a)rumble.net> -----
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 09:54:50 +0100
From: Rev Simon Rumble <simon(a)rumble.net>
To: OpenGuides software developers <openguides-dev(a)openguides.org>
Subject: Re: [OpenGuides-Dev] Fw: Images on St Paul's Cathedral London
Openguides node
Reply-To: OpenGuides software developers <openguides-dev(a)openguides.org>
This one time, at band camp, IvorW wrote:
I have sent the reply below to a contributor regarding
copyright and images.
I don't have a problem with the policy, if this is indeed the policy,
but it needs to be explicitely stated.
There are two views on the legality of linking remote images:
1) That there are technical means to stop people linking the image, so
if that is the policy of the copyright holder, they can implement
such means.
2) The unless there is explicit permission given for remote linking, it
isn't allowed.
Personally I go with option 1 with the proviso that if a request is made
by an image owner to stop linking to the image, that the link is
removed.
--
Rev Simon Rumble <simon(a)rumble.net>
www.rumble.net
Given the choice between two evils, I pick the one I haven't
tried before.
- Mae West
--
OpenGuides-Dev mailing list - OpenGuides-Dev(a)openguides.org
http://openguides.org/mm/listinfo/openguides-dev
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Rev Simon Rumble <simon(a)rumble.net>
www.rumble.net
"Dans ce pays ci, c'est bon, de temps en temps, de tuer
un amiral pour encourager les autres"
- Voltaire
11 Oct
11 Oct
10:40 a.m.
New subject: [OpenGuides-London] Fwd: Re: [OpenGuides-Dev] Fw: Images on St Paul's Cathedral London Openguides node
----- Forwarded message from Rev Simon Rumble
<simon(a)rumble.net> -----
There are two views on the legality of linking remote
images:
1) That there are technical means to stop people linking the image, so
if that is the policy of the copyright holder, they can implement
such means.
2) The unless there is explicit permission given for remote linking, it
isn't allowed.
Personally I go with option 1 with the proviso that if a request is made
by an image owner to stop linking to the image, that the link is
removed.
I'd be interested in the legal viewpoint on option one - if a bicyle isn't
locked, is it therefore OK to steal it? ;-) More practically, most of us
web amateurs have the nous to get images on the web but not protect them
from remote linking. I'd be really unhappy if my images therefore were seen
as being free for general use. Indeed I have successfully persued one
website who saw fit to steal wholesale whole chunks of text and images from
one website. If I found my pictures in use on a website like OGL wihtout
permission, I'd be sending a polite but firm email to someone...
To use an image in publishing you, you should have express permission from
the copyright holder, whether personally or via some general statement.
Option 2 is is the only way to go - it is the full responsibility of the
person adding an image to not only ensure the image is used legally, but
also, I suggest, include copyright information. Any image without that can
therefore be removed.
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...
To reiiterate - my 'vote' is for images only to be added if known to be
copyright free, or with permission, and copyright information MUST be
included with the image, visible on the page (not just in the 'alt' tag).
cheers
S.
11:43 a.m.
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(a)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.
--
Rev Simon Rumble <simon(a)rumble.net>
www.rumble.net
Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics
with bloodshed.
- Mao Tse-tung
12 Oct
12 Oct
12:16 p.m.
New subject: [OpenGuides-London] Linking versus embedding
On Mon 11 Oct 2004, Rev Simon Rumble <simon(a)rumble.net> wrote:
Tell me, how would it be different if I used an <a
href> link to your
image file instead of <img src>?
It would make it obvious that the image was on another site and
therefore not available under the creative commons license covering
OGL. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
Kake
12:15 p.m.
New subject: [OpenGuides-London] Central image storage
On Mon 11 Oct 2004, Simon <mzdt(a)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
11:52 a.m.
New subject: [OpenGuides-London] Copyright stuff on linked images
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.
--
Rev Simon Rumble <simon(a)rumble.net>
www.rumble.net
"Bore, n. A person who talks when you wish him to listen."
- Ambrose Bierce: The Devil's Dictionary
11:59 a.m.
New subject: [OpenGuides-London] Re: Copyright stuff on linked images
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?
12:11 p.m.
New subject: [OpenGuides-London] Re: Copyright stuff on linked images
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 11:59:05AM +0100, 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. 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.
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.
R
14 Oct
14 Oct
8:38 p.m.
New subject: [OpenGuides-London] Re: Copyright stuff on linked images
On Tue 12 Oct 2004, Roger Burton West <roger(a)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
15 Oct
15 Oct
10:37 a.m.
New subject: [OpenGuides-London] Re: Copyright stuff on linked images
This one time, at band camp, Kake L Pugh wrote:
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.
Very perceptive ;)
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.
--
Rev Simon Rumble <simon(a)rumble.net>
www.rumble.net
Arguing online is like being in the Special Olympics.
You might win, but you're still retarded.
11:27 a.m.
New subject: [OpenGuides-London] Re: Copyright stuff on linked images
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
2:04 p.m.
New subject: [OpenGuides-London] Re: Copyright stuff on linked images
On Fri 15 Oct 2004, Rev Simon Rumble <simon(a)rumble.net> wrote:
However, aren't we working towards consensus
rather than attempting to
convince a single person?
I already posted my opinion on the matter at hand:
--------------
On Mon 11 Oct 2004, Rev Simon Rumble <simon(a)rumble.net> wrote:
Tell me, how would it be different if I used an <a
href> link to your
image file instead of <img src>?
It would make it obvious that the image was on another site and
therefore not available under the creative commons license covering OGL.
--------------
I just didn't want it to look as though nobody was disagreeing with
Roger's broader point.
Kake
12 Oct
12 Oct
1:03 p.m.
New subject: [OpenGuides-London] Re: Copyright stuff on linked images
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.
--
Rev Simon Rumble <simon(a)rumble.net>
www.rumble.net
"University politics are vicious precisely because the
stakes are so small."
- Henry Kissinger
3:39 p.m.
New subject: [OpenGuides-London] Re: Copyright stuff on linked images
Simon wrote:
Rev Simon Rumble writes:
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
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? 
19 Oct
19 Oct
9:57 p.m.
New subject: [OpenGuides-London] Re: Copyright stuff on linked images
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.
--
Earle Martin
http://downlode.org/
http://purl.oclc.org/net/earlemartin/
6680
days inactive
6688
days old
openguides-london@lists.openguides.org
14 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Dave Arquati -
Earle Martin -
Kake L Pugh -
Rev Simon Rumble -
Roger Burton West -
Simon