Op-ed Stealing Bandwidth

[LCHIEN]

I have been reading this rather long thread now for a while.

How is it affecting my posting?
When I discuss a tool or technique using a tool, I will most often try and post a picture of the tool, either a generic one or one with the specific features being discussed. Well, in the past I have inserted many pictures by hotlinking the JPG image file and I almost always include a link to the page on which it appears so that the source is obvious and the reader can get more information. I also often include a textual reference that this is from so-and-so (usually the manufacturer or the store). I feel the page reference is actually the most important because if the web designer was worth anything at all, they put a home-page link on the page.

In all these cases, I feel that it should be at the very least acceptable to the linked site host if not completely beneficial. This is because they are the manufacturer or retailer and as such the reference is both fair use and potentially steering an interested person to their advertising and promotional material.

In the above instances I will continue to operate in the same fashion.

Once (maybe four-five years ago) I hotlinked a picture of a bed in a post and said I’d like to build something like this. Sam came back and said that the site owner objected so the link was removed. It was a on-line furniture store illustrating items for sale. I suppose he saw that it was linked in a woodworking site and figured he wouldn’t be selling any beds to a bunch of DIYers. At that time I did not attribute the link. Probably mea culpa.

In regards to other postings, I have linked to interesting news articles, linked to interesting photographs, linked to programs at FTP sites.
Maybe I have to rethink these? Seems like its more an issue of ethics than legality.
Granted, the examples of copyright infringement where a work is displayed as one’s own without attribution are more or less straightforward.

The digital world is so interesting that previous examples don’t compare. I thought of analogies with gas stations and free or pay air and water and of libraries with books for loan and broadcast media. But none really apply well.

I’ll continue to hotlink in these cases but present an attribution text and a link to the page in context. Sometimes I’ll also download and have re-served a picture with the same attribution. The re-served picture will have more permanence but in attributing it I think still fits in the fair use doctrine. Quoted test is more or less re-served text. I have to assume that if it was put up on the web in the first place, it was meant to be looked at.

BTW, sometimes I have looked at hotlinked picture attributes and tracked them back to the original sites, when intrigued by the picture. That is one reason I include the page link in context in most of my posts. Cut and paste makes it so easy and accurate – although you have to do it twice.

As for bandwidth theft, the average views on BT3central posts is like a few hundred, some hitting thousands (most chain posts though), this one currently at 725. Hotlinking an image from a non busy site on a very busy site I can see might cause problems. That non-busy site might be an individuals or a small organization webpage with limited transfers allowed.
Still its hard to see how a hotlinked image is theft while posting the URL for the image and allowing readers to click on it would not be theft. granted, some people won't click on the link. Here the ethical thing to do is to copy the image and re-serve it with attribution if you have worries about the linked site's bandwidth capacity.

There are remedies to limit access and limit hotlinking to the sites that have these images... its at least partly their fault for failing to use them.

[Tequila]

You can record TV shows, TIVO, movies, photocopy all your books, photograph all your art, rip all your CDs, and distribute them amongst yourself as much as you want.

The ruling was not that you can distribute amongst yourself. It was that recordings are legal for personal use. Personal use as defined by the court does not include making another copy for another party. Distribution almost always implies making another copy.

Interesting discussion all around.

FYI, my practice has been to provide a URL to the source site rather than including a copy or hotlinked image. I find that it:

• Automatically notifies the reader that it's not my image.
• Provides the reader with the ability to see who owns the image (the site owner).
• Gives the site owner the chance to see where traffic is coming from.

[Alex Franke]

The ruling was not that you can distribute amongst yourself. It was that recordings are legal for personal use.

Yes, of course. I meant that as a bit of humor. (Supreme Court rulings have no humor. ) By saying "distribute amongst yourself," I meant "do not distrubute to anyone other than yourself" -- or "make copies for personal use only."

Sometimes I think I'm funnnier than I am... =)

[scorrpio]

Those that question the validity of the arguement puzzle me. Since when does the severity of a wrong determine the wrongfullness of it?

Nobody is talking about 'severity' - I consider entire 'bandwidth stealing' argument totally invalid. In my book, bandwidth stealing is hooking, unauthorized, into someone's network and using their bandwidth for your own needs.
Far as web concerned, if I have a website, I can technically make every single bit of info hosted locally, without a single link to any other site. If hotlinking is 'stealing bandwidth', then anytime I post a link to other's site instead of hosting locally is stealing as well. Web does not work that way - its existence in fact depends on ability to reference other's resources. The entire purpose of having a website is to have content available for public viewing. And if bandwidth is an issue, having your small site linked (not hotlinked) by a high-profile site can swamp you out and drive up your costs just as easily.

And any resource that is posted publicly *by its legitimate owner* can be referenced. Tools galore exist to prevent hotlinks where they are not desired, and in fact many hosting services that provide webspace to individuals have that code embedded so that site owners don't even have to worry. I.E. last I checked, any geocities-hosted site did not allow direct resource access.

Copying a resource and hosting it locally, by my standards, is a whole lot worse than hotlinking. Hotlink retains resource control squarely with the owner - ability to remove it, deny it, alter it, whatever. But copying is stealing. I do not feel necessary to ask premission to hotlink - I consider premission pre-granted by the act of making it public - any more than I would ask permission to regular-link. But I would never copy a resource without owner's consent.

[germdoc]

Can't resist throwing in my .02 one more time. There are a number of zealous website operators who state categorically that hotlinking is impolite, wrong or illegal, but without anything to back it up. (Google the phrase "hotlinking illegal" to see what I mean.)

I have tried to find legitimate information on the web about this topic and have been *almost* stymied. I have found no case law to suggest that hotlinking per se is illegal. In fact, the most relevant case involves Google and an adult photography site which found that Google could post thumbnails from that site legally. (See http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20070523.html for discussion. In that case Google had copies of images on ITS OWN SERVER.)

There is a legalistic point in the above Google case revolving around the fact that by presenting the material in a new context (i.e., framing) you are not duplicating said material, you are creating a new work which does not change the nature of the original work in any way, shape or form. By analogy, if you quote from a written work in your book of critical essays you have created a new work, have not claimed the old work as your own, and have not altered the old work in any way.

Interesting point: even if the copyright holder protests, you may still be able to use his work--see Google case above--although certainly it's not considered polite in the context of weblinking. Re' printed material: many writers would LIKE to be able to stop critics from quoting their works in reviews which are highly negative, but guess what, the First Amendment applies.

My take on this is: the legal question above is extremely complicated and there is very little case law that applies to internet usage of material in this way; copyright (of any work you created) does apply, and if someone uses your material and misrepresents it as his own he has committed copyright violation; but if someone hotlinks your material in the context of a discussion--including forums and blogs--and gives you attribution "fair use" doctrine applies, just like quoting from a written work. (If you use an image from a commercial website like Grizzly and refer readers to that site it's hard to see how that violates copyright or does anything other than benefit them.)

Therefore, I do not see any reason not to hotlink as long as the creator of the image is credited and the image is not claimed as my own. If they ask me to stop, I'll stop. Because I'm a nice guy.

[Russianwolf]

Hiding under the workbench till all this technical talk goes away.


Really, I got lost after the first page. I only do links to pages or my own pictures. So I guess I'm safe.

[Black wallnut]

In my OP I referenced "images" etc. There have been several instances in years past of clip-art sites offering their stuff to anyone for free use. Many used them but instead of cut and paste onto their own server or someone elses server hotlinked to the source of the gif. The servers were overloaded and were shut down. Now if you go to many clip-art sites they have a statement instructing you to upload the image to your own server.

It is the part "with attribution" that bothers me. I take more issue to those who hotlink without attribution than those who hotlink with. Those defending hotlinking make some interesting and persuasive arguements and I'm glad I started this topic. Yet hotlinking an image without also noting the source is IMHO bad manners. Even though any viewing the image can by right click>view properties establish the source, I think to be fair the poster should state where the image is "borrowed" from.

[dramey]

I find this discussion interesting because I am a professional photographer and my future income is centered around copyright law. As far as hotlinking goes, if you are in doubt about whether it is ok to hotlink an image, ASK the owner. As far as downloading an image and reusing it without permission, that is out & out theft.

My web site is MY storefront just the same as if I had a brick & mortar storefront. It is ok to come into my store and browse. It is ok to come into my store and browse and not buy anything. It is ok to come into my store and browse and buy something. It is NOT ok to leave with my image and you not pay for it. If you want to borrow the image, ask, maybe I will say yes, maybe I will say no, but it IS MY image and my right to do with that image as I see fit.

[JR]

My web site is MY storefront just the same as if I had a brick & mortar storefront.

Ok, I think most everyone agrees with your POV.

As to Mark's OP, though, would you be ok if I posted a hot-linked pic here, belonging to you, hosted on your site, with full attribution. If the entire universe of woodoworking photographers descended on your site at once, would this be a problem for you or your hosting service?

JR

[dramey]

Ok, I think most everyone agrees with your POV.

As to Mark's OP, though, would you be ok if I posted a hot-linked pic here, belonging to you, hosted on your site, with full attribution. If the entire universe of woodoworking photographers descended on your site at once, would this be a problem for you or your hosting service?

JR

It would be a problem for me because you walked out of my storefront with my image without paying for it or asking if you could borrow it. That was one of the points I was trying to make. Hotlinking is the same as borrowing my image without my permission. ASK BEFORE YOU TAKE!!!.

As far as bandwidth usage, I don't think it would effect my hosting service as they are about the largest in the world, but it would cause a problem for me with the huge bandwidth surge. What if I was uploading a weekends worth of photos (3000-5000 photos) when everybody decended upon my web site creating a huge bandwidth surge? It might make me lose my connection and lose my uploads creating additional work on my part getting MY photos on MY web site.
If the surge generated more bandwidth usage than what my plan allows for, then it could cost me even more money in the excessive bandwidth charges. So this effects me in 2 bad ways.
1. loss of productivity on uploading my photos and maybe lost sales because of the slower productivity.
2. higher expenses because of excessive bandwidth charges.

I would susspect that 99% of business would grant permission for hot linking if we were asked first. That way we can plan for and avoid the above 2 reasons of negative results.

Like I have said, just ask first. It is the polite, honorable, and reasonable thing to do.

Why do people on the internet have such a hard time asking to use somebody else's property, when they would NEVER think of NOT asking if we were face to face in person?

Copyright law is fairly simple in concept: if you didn't write it, draw it, compose it, build it, take the photo, create it, etc; then it belongs to somebody else and you need their permission to use it. Copyright law only gets complicated when you try to circumvent the law.

[ragswl4]

I have read through all of the posts on this and occurs to me that this average person knows very little about this subject. Most of us cruz around the internet and when we see something that might be of interest to others we send it to them, either by copying the link or the object itself.

If we expect the average user to know which of those is legal/ethical I think we are going to be disappointed most of the time. If a person has something on the web that they do not want copied or hotlinked I believe there are ways to prevent the common cruzer like me from doing that. In fact I have attempted to copy an image from a site and got the message, "you can't do that". My attempt was innocent, but the author protected himself by disallowing my action. Now, if I am one of those hacker guys that just wants to overload a server or steal a file, I can probably figure out how to do that given enough time and thought. Don't think we will ever stop those folks who are intent on tieing up the server or stealing stuff off the web.

I don't agree with anyone taking anything from anywhere that they should pay for but I think you gotta put up a sign that says, "This costs that if you want it" and don't allow linking that you don't want to occur. My $.02

Physician, heal thy self.

[JR]

It would be a problem for me because you walked out of my storefront with my image without paying for it or asking if you could borrow it.

Now we're gettin' somewhere! I don't dispute your position at all. It's your IP and you should control it.

Now, as to rags' point, I have web site with a few of my projects pictured there. I'm quite certain the images have very high value, because they are professionally created by me depicting my professional craftsmanship ( ). Unfortunately, I am an amateur web author (the only true part of my premise!). So if I want the images to be seen but not hot-linked or copied, I need to figure out how to do that or hire someone to do it for me.

As I'm typing this, I realize I'm cool with all of that. If I was an aspiring photo-woodworker in the pre-internet age, I'd have had to create a catalog and advertise in print media to get the word out about my products, which would happen at great cost. Nowadays I have the opportunity to reach a global audience very easily, but if I don't exercise proper security I could lose control of some of the intrinsic value.

Circling back to Mark's OP now. We've seen a material example of "bandwidth stealing" (not the correct term, as has been mentioned, but using it in context here) can impact performance of the IP owner's site. If it's a commercial site, like dramey's, it's an opportunity waiting to happen. dramey would not want to get blind-sided by a bs surge in activity, but the general rule is that eyeballs mean $$, so if the activity stayed high, he'd increase b/w.

If it's a private site at which you'd not want to raise the bandwidth bar, you could invoke security to enable only those eyes you want to see the pages there.

I love this thread! The Internet is unfolding in front of us. Its capabilities and risks are only beginning to be understood. Fortunately, we can learn about it real-time in "places" just like this.

JR

[Alex Franke]

It would be a problem for me because you walked out of my storefront with my image without paying for it or asking if you could borrow it.

You would be turning away a potentially huge amount of business -- it's essentially free advertising. Remember, JR said "with full attribution", and of course I'm assuming that your full resolution (on non-watermarked) images are protected from public download. If even one out of a thousand -- or one in ten thousand -- people saw the image and said, "Wow, I really like that -- maybe I'll buy a print" then you'd be a lot better off than if you'd never been hot-linked.

I pay about a penny per 500MB of monthly data transfer. That's about 5,000 downloads of a reasonably-sized representative sample of an image. 5,000 impressions for a penny. That's the best kind of advertising you could hope for for a few reasons: (1) The person posting it probably feels the community to which he's posting it will like it. (2) The person posting it is essentially endorsing it. (3) The person posting it is promoting it. All you do is pay one penny for each 5,000 impressions.

Why do people on the internet have such a hard time asking to use somebody else's property, when they would NEVER think of NOT asking if we were face to face in person?

Partly because you often can't get to a real person anymore -- more and more sites don't even list a contact email address anywhere for fear of spammers. Plus, personally, if I have to ask all the time, I'm probably not going to take the time to do it. So either I say nothing at all in my popular group of photography enthusiasts, of I say something like, "Hey -- check out this guy's photos -- they're the best I've seen in a while and they're a great price, too!"

if you didn't write it, draw it, compose it, build it, take the photo, create it, etc; then it belongs to somebody else and you need their permission to use it.

Not true -- that's what fair use is all about. And the courts uphold that -- specifically in the case of photographers, too (reference Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation). There are of course rule as to what's fair use, and of course it's polite and preferred to ask and receive permission, but it's not a requirement.

Please reconsider your position on hotlinking -- maybe even provide a specific set of images that are hotlinkable. You could be turning away a lot of business....

My US$0.02. (Of course I'm probably up to at least a quarter by now!)

[dramey]

Not true -- that's what fair use is all about. And the courts uphold that -- specifically in the case of photographers, too (reference Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation). There are of course rule as to what's fair use, and of course it's polite and preferred to ask and receive permission, but it's not a requirement.

You might want to reread that. The 9th circuit court of appeals awarded that photographer $345,000 judgment against the search engine company for their copyright infringment. Of course the 9th circuit court then said the use of linking to thumbnails is fair use. So if Arriba Soft was using the photos under fair use, then why did they have to pay Mr. Kelly $345,000? It is this kind of stuff that the 9th circuit court holds the record for the most amount of decissions being overturned and why several people in the USA wants them broken up and disbanded.

[Alex Franke]

You might want to reread that. The 9th circuit court of appeals awarded that photographer $345,000 judgment against the search engine company for their copyright infringment. Of course the 9th circuit court then said the use of linking to thumbnails is fair use. So if Arriba Soft was using the photos under fair use, then why did they have to pay Mr. Kelly $345,000?

OK, to be clear, at the end of the day, the courts said, "There is a 'fair use' application of this photographer's copyrighted photographs which is not considered copyright infringement." That's the point I was trying to make -- just because you write it, release the shutter, paint the picture, etc, doesn't mean that it can't be used without your permission. (Course packs at universities are another good example of this.)

To answer your question, (though I'm not an attorney) my understanding is that the award was a default judgment -- the plaintiff didn't show up for court (or something along those lines). I think they ran out of money and had filed for bankruptcy, but I don't know for sure. One aspect of their use of the images was indeed "fair use" while another was not. (Ariba was framing and distributing full-sized images as if they were their own.)

I'm not saying that all use is fair use; I'm just saying that some use is.

Back to linking: Regardless of how you link to any resource on the web (image, for example), be sure your use of it is "fair use."

Back to JR's question: If JR posted one of your full-sized images that you sell on your site (whether linked from your site or not), saying "Here's a picture I took. Do with it as you wish" then you have a pretty strong case against him. If on the other hand, he posts a thumbnail or watermarked image and says "Here's an example of a photo by one of my favorite photographers -- you should check out his work" then you should probably thank him for referring business.