Op-ed Stealing Bandwidth

[Alex Franke]

Here's another hotlinking compromise, though I'd only suggest this if you're actually coming up again your bandwidth limitations:

Sign up for a cheap, Linux, unmetered hosting package (about $3 a month) and upload to it all your images or other web resources. Brand your images (watermark them) if you want with your website name, address, copyright info, whatever else you want. It's very easy to do this en bloc with free tools. (If you want to know how, let me know.)

Then, on you main site, link to your newly hosted images. (It doesn't matter if you main site is linux or windows). Set up the default page on your Linux URL to redirect to your main site's home page.

So for about $36 a year, you don't have any more bandwidth headaches caused by hotlinking, and you have a little extra space for you main site. Plus should you ever want to instantly forbid or allow any hotlinking, check check or clear the "disable hotlinking" checkbox on your Linux server's control panel. (It's probably there, but if it's not, submit a support request and have them do it.)

[scorrpio]

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!!!

But hotlinking is NOT brorrowing. The image is still in your store, all yours, there isn't a copy of it in my posession. Rather that take something out, what I did is installed a webcam pointed at one of your images in your store. Then made webcam feed available to public. Anybody looking is not looking at something borrowed - they are having a direct peek into your store. The "downside" is that you now sorta have a crowd of people in your store looking at that image.
And if you have a problem with that you are still in control. If I walk out of a store with your image, you'll have to chase me down, try to make me relinquish it, etc. But this way? You can destroy my webcam. You can put an extra-large logo of your store over the picture. You can pre-configure your store so that any webcam installed shows nothing but your store logo.

Hotlinks are not theft - they are free advertisement which you can easily opt out of.

[brecklundin]

hot linking and image stealing is a CRIME. I have sued (small claims) several people who either hot linked or used one of my photo's to try and generate income for themselves. Won all three times. Simply put it is a felony to steal bandwidth by hot linking and two it is a violation of copyright law to use without permission items protected under copyright laws.

I did not collect much but that was not the point. The point was to impress on these few individuals that if they had only asked me first I possibly would have said yes. It's the same with the other things I own. If I know a person really needs something I have and am not in dire need of possessing, I will freely give to whatever I have to someone who is honest enough to approach me. But if that same person simply broke in and took what they needed I would have them arrested and press charges. Theft is theft it is that black and white.

Sorry for this being an early post for me here but this is an issue that others really need to not be so dismissive of...for example I buy and sell a lot on eBay. I am sure many others here do also. Say you see an item the seller has nice pictures of and those pics make it seem as if the seller actually has that item in their possession. Well, if they have either hot linked or photo-jacked the images then odds are the buyer is gonna get screwed or at the very least is in danger of over paying as they are not seeing the actual item offered for sale. Of course for NIB (new in the box) items this is not the same issue.

Additionally the person who took the photo's owns, by federal/international, copyright law all rights to those photos. PERIOD and end of story. And rights of use can be granted ONLY by the copyright holder/owner.

As for watermarking, that is far from fool-proof. And in many cases, especially with offering items for sale, impractical w/o affecting the appearance of the item in the photo. BTW, there are types of invisible watermarking that either phone home to a web page telling it the URL it is being used on or that simply embed a code that can be located using either a custom web-bot or even standard search engines. But currently these options are impractical, very expensive and not impossible to remove once discovered. Options are out there but why should a person be forced to that extreme simply because others feel it is their "right" to steal.

Bandwidth theft (ie hot linking to another person or company's web site/server) is no different then siphoning gas from your neighbor's car. Can you do it, sure, is it legal...not a chance it is theft of property or resource paid for by another person or entity.

Last if you report a bandwidth thief or an image thief to their ISP or hosting service their account will be canceled and pretty quickly too as the service provider does not want to become liable for allowing the content to remain.

[cabinetman]

I've read this whole thread so far and my response is a general overview as I'm not a computer engineer or a lawyer. I've had many situations that date back to the early '70's that involved drawings, and inventions that were the subject of unauthorized use.

The bare fact of life and the legal system is that if some type of document, object, or idea is not patented, copyrighted, trademarked, in it's purest form, and I mean actually registered as such, it's pretty much free game. And this is with the established laws. The internet is public domain. But you have to pay to get it. What privileges go with that? It's how you interpret the rules and ethics of that which has very little control. There are no hard and fast rulings on what constitutes theft, or what is moral or not, period. It's an individual judgment call if an act can be construed as moral or not. If personal gain is achieved from the use of an image or material that's a whole different story. Then it's up to a court to decide criminality or civil liability.

In talking about this issue, I may not use the correct terminology as I'm not really literate in the high tech terms. If someone makes a posting or has a website, that is public domain, it's like TV airwaves. The signals that are for sale, have to be paid for. The owners of those signals encrypt the signals so they have to be paid for. IMO, websites should do the same thing if they are concerned about "free use" of whatever is on their site. It's an assumed risk taken that has alternatives.

I'm not one to agree with those who feel that there is theft and immorality, just to be accepted. Am I to respond with what I think the majority here would like to hear... I don't think so. I'm sure my saying that copying anything, right clicking or saving anything is an act against humanity...would go over to please more. Nor am I to be intimidated by anyone. I haven't gone through life being swayed by what may be construed as a moral issue. I'm an educated individual with my own mind and realize that if someone wants to protect what's theirs, they go ahead and do it.

I've been in places that had that handy bowl of "free" candy or peanuts for the taking. Sure, somebody had to pay for it. Am I to say to myself, "I can't take the candy because somebody had to pay for it and it wasn't me?" Now there's a moral issue. I don't pretend to have the "holier than thou" persona.

This moral issue can be bounced around till doomsday. I don't plan on going through life walking on eggshells or worrying about what someone thinks of me or my principles. I'm not directing this at anyone in particular; I give respect where I feel it's due and I don't project myself as a "dudley do-right" or a "holy roller" to get the confidence of others. As for the legal issue, until the parameters have been fixed for proprietary matter, there are steps that can be taken for protection. I've seen it many times when images can't be copied, or there are words to that effect.

I agree and follow the "terms of acceptance" on the hosting sites and I also have options that are free on my own website on the security of any material.

I also thought of not speaking my mind on this one...but that ain't me.

[Knottscott]

This is an interesting discussion that raises some possible "new awarenesses" for me (and likely others). A picture is worth a thousand words, and is a great device to enhance forum discussions. I most often use pics that I've stored on Photobucket, but I must confess that I've not really given the ownership, original location, and rights issue much thought. No malice or personal profit intended, but ignorance and oversight may have been rampant in the eyes of some.

"Intellectual properties" is a term many people have never heard of, or at least not given thought to. Some pics don't allow copying...can't do it, so I guess I've assumed that those that could be copied were fair game. If I've down wrong, I'm not so much trying to rationalize the action, but trying to explain how or why it happens. An analogy would be a small toddler helping themselves to a piece of candy...the ownership issue doesn't hit their radar until later in life. It's "learned" with cyber maturity in this case as well. We're all at different levels with internet etiquette.

I'm at kind of a loss when I ponder how many times I may have infringed. Using pics is also a convenient habit that may be a bit of a nuisance to break, then of course there's the moral debate that I'll have to wrestle with before forcing myself to use other methods. I'm not paying for any bandwidth so I personally don't consider it an infringement on me if someone uses a pic that I've posted. If nothing else, I now have an increased "awareness", so hopefully it'll develop into an increased sensitivity about the issue. I haven't decided yet how I view the issue.

Thanks for raising the flag, sorry it took me so long to see what this post was about, and sorry if I've stepped on any toes with my pic use.

[Alex Franke]

hot linking and image stealing is a CRIME.

Please point me to the US code (or the case law) that forbids hotlinking. I am very interested in reading it -- I may need to get up to date on this stuff. Or we may find that we need to better define the word "hotlinking" -- to be sure we're all talking about the same thing.

scorrpio's storefront example is excellent. If I have a picture hanging in the window of my store front, it might be so beautiful and so interesting that everyone wants to see it -- or people that do see it start telling others to take a look at it as well. Before too long I might have such a large crowd in front of my store that nobody can get in the front door.

So what do I do? Pull a curtain -- or better yet, charge people to come inside the store in order to see it (protect the image).

I don't believe hotlinking in and of itself is a crime. Copyright infringement is a crime, though. Not all hotlinking is copyright infringement. If it were, then just about every site that displays advertisements or collects web stats is committing a crime.

I have sued (small claims) several people who either hot linked or used one of my photo's to try and generate income for themselves.

Then you have, no doubt, protected your content against copyright infringement.

Simply put it is a felony to steal bandwidth by hot linking

A felony? Really? Again, I really want to know the section of the US Code to look at, or at least the case law that supports this. I might have missed some very important decisions on the issue and want to be sure I'm not advocating being a criminal.

Theft is theft it is that black and white.

My point is this: If you're going to use an image of mine (and I'm assuming this would be a "fair use" of that image -- free from copyright infringement) then I would prefer that you hotlink. This allows me to retain control of the image. If you don't hotlink it, you're taking me out of the loop completely, and I take issue with that.

Back to the storefront example. If you want people to see the beautiful picture that I have hanging in my window, tell them to come by the store and take a look. If they can't visit the store, tell them to look at the webcam that scorrpio set up. (I'd hope that he's providing attribution, but I don't know if he's required to.) But don't make a copy of it and redistribute it. That way, if I want people to stop seeing it, I can stop them at any time by just covering it up.

Say you see an item the seller has nice pictures of and those pics make it seem as if the seller actually has that item in their possession. Well, if they have either hot linked or photo-jacked the images then odds are the buyer is gonna get screwed or at the very least is in danger of over paying as they are not seeing the actual item offered for sale.

I think you're talking about fraud here. Fraud is a crime. Clearly if you're selling a product and are implying that the images you post are accurate representations of that product, then you probably shouldn't be hotlinking anything.

Additionally the person who took the photo's owns, by federal/international, copyright law all rights to those photos. PERIOD and end of story. And rights of use can be granted ONLY by the copyright holder/owner.

Only certain rights are protected by copyright law. For example, any university can, for educational purposes, make hundreds of copies of your image (with some fair use restrictions) and distribute them to its students in a course pack. This (and other uses) is not an infringement of copyright law.

And in many cases, especially with offering items for sale, impractical w/o affecting the appearance of the item in the photo.

Is this image affected? If anyone wants to know how to do this type of branding quickly and easily (and with free tools), then let me know and I'll teach you.

BTW, there are types of invisible watermarking that either phone home to a web page telling it the URL it is being used on or that simply embed a code that can be located using either a custom web-bot or even standard search engines. But currently these options are impractical, very expensive and not impossible to remove once discovered. Options are out there but why should a person be forced to that extreme simply because others feel it is their "right" to steal.

I don't think images can "phone home". The pages that contain them or the servers that host them can provide some information about who's accessing them, but I'm not aware of a technology that allows an image to proactively phone home.

If someone is intent on sealing your image and removing any watermarking, etc, then they'll figure out a way to do it. And if it's not a "fair use" of the image then they'll be infringing on your copyright. Digital content is unfortunately very easy to steal and reproduce, which is why companies are constantly trying to figure out ways to protect it.

Aside: I love this thread, BTW -- no matter where it goes, it's very interesting conversation! I think at the end of the day we're all learning something valuable.

[Ed62]

Or we may find that we need to better define the word "hotlinking" -- to be sure we're all talking about the same thing.

I think that's a good idea. Who wants to take a shot at it? This is definitely an interesting thread, but I wonder if everyone's talking about the same thing?

Ed

[cabinetman]

I think "hotlinking" may be this:
.

.
There I've done it, now I must go and repent.
.
.

[linear]

I think the awareness-raising parts of this thread can be concisely restated:

1. Anything that is posted on the web is costing someone money to host.
2. It may not cost very much money, thanks to competition and economies of scale. But nonetheless its a real cost, borne by the publisher of the item.
3. There are ways to control the ways material on the web can be used.
4. Most of those measures are trivial to defeat for anyone with the technical knowhow (even elaborate Digital Rights Management schemes from big companies get cracked pretty quickly).
5. The default case is to make every published web resource available to anyone unconditionally. That is, if a publisher wants to restrict permission, that requires taking action.
6. Aside from any questions around expense, there are considerations of copyright involves in using other people's work for any purpose.

As forum participants here, I think the best outcome is that we all understand the above points pretty clearly.

A decent amount of the debate has centered on the "rightness" of hotlinking. Alex makes the argument that since the hosting cost is small, the publicity benefits a publisher accrues outweigh the costs.

This is a little like taking napkins from your favorite restaurant. They have the logo on them, and they are free for your use as a customer. The presumption is that you expect and require napkins for your use while you're eating a meal.

Hotlinking an image is a little like taking home a stack of napkins to use on your dinner table. They have the logo of the restaurant--so the restaurant does accrue some brand exposure benefit, probably it outweighs the napkins cost (especially since they buy napkins in enormous quantities).

Hotlinking an image onto a busy site is a little like backing your pickup truck up to the service entrance of the restaurant, and loading up a few cases of napkins to take to the family picnic. How would the restaurant owner view that? After all, his name is getting out in front of everyone, so it's good PR, right?

Well, maybe not--the restaurant owner has some expectations of being able to control the way his napkins are used. Nonetheless, the are offered freely to the public, just like images on the web. These two ideas are not in conflict.

And yes, the restaurant owner needs to keep control of his napkin stock. He protects them like any other goods, with measures that are commensurate to their value (you don't keep napkins in the safe). So while 1-100 napkins are of no consequence, he may get concerned if entire cases were vanishing.

And part of the web problem is that is is designed to facilitate access--most of the ways to keep people out of things were thought of after the fact, and then implemented on a structure that really wasn't ideal for the purpose. There's nothing on the web like a "safe." Things that need that much protection don't get put online.

[JR]

I think "hotlinking" may be this:
.

.
.

Nope. It appears you've copied Ed's avatar image and posted here on BT3Central. If you don't have Ed's permission, then you've violated copywright law. The violation is so minor that it wouldn't be suitable for prosecution, but is a violation nonetheless.

In hot-linking, the image would be resident on Ed's server. Hotlinking makes it visible here. One way to do this (FOR EXAMPLE ONLY, THIS IS NOT A PRIMER ON IP THEFT!): Select the Insert Image button in the response editor, bringing up a window that looks like this
It asks you to enter the URL (Universal Resource Locator), or web address, of the image you want displayed. Even though the image will appear here on BT3Central, similar to the stolen Ed's avatar, it's actually resident at the "hot-linked" location. Assuming that's Ed's web site, he would still retatain control of the image. He could change the image from a dog to a cat, which would change the way it displays here. You wouldn't have posted a picture, just a link to where you think the picture resides.

The thing that brecklundin is so passionate about is that people who do that kind of hot-linking for the purpose of using the image profitably (ie posting it in their Ebay listing as if it was theirs) are absolutely breaking the law. brecklundin's pictures belong to him and only he can determine how to make money from them.

Hot-linking to his images from a post on Bt3Central is almost assuredly NOT breaking the law, particularly if the link is properly attributed to brecklundin. The use of the image here would not be for commercial purposes. It would be for the purpose of making a point of some kind, and with attribution, would send a person curious about acquiring rights to use the picture to brecklundin.

JR

[dramey]

Only certain rights are protected by copyright law. For example, any university can, for educational purposes, make hundreds of copies of your image (with some fair use restrictions) and distribute them to its students in a course pack. This (and other uses) is not an infringement of copyright law.



Aside: I love this thread, BTW -- no matter where it goes, it's very interesting conversation! I think at the end of the day we're all learning something valuable.

I think you have a too broad of view as to what constitues "fair use". In your example, I could sue that univiersity and win on copyright infringement. Fair use allows a one time use for educational purposes (along with a few other uses). If a university wanted to use my image one time to make a point, then fair use allows them to use that image without contacting me. But if the use of that image is more than a one time use, then they have to contact me and get a license from me describing the usage and maybe payment to me. Without that license, it is hard for the university to have legal standing.

Copyright does not have to be registered in the USA, it is automatic upon creation and under the revised law, we no longer have to mark it as being copyrighten. Copyright is not something new. USA copyright law was around when our coutry was founded. I was taught about copyright in grade school. Intelectual property is propery just as much as real property. If you didn't buy it, create it, make it, or it was given to you, then you most likely do not own it.

If you buy a print from me, you do not own the image. You own the print. If you want to use my image for an advertisement, you don' buy the image, you lease the usage of that image. Just like renting a car, you rent the car for a certain length of time and for a certain usage, and when the terms are up, you return it. The same with photo usage. You can't use it again, unless you negotiate another contract.

Fair usage and public domain is not the same thing. Public domain of an image is 50 years after the death of the copyright holder.

On registering a copyright, even though it is not required, there are advantages to registering. The biggest advantage is instead of collecting just the real damages to me, I can also collect punitive damages which is normally 3 times the amount of real damages. Wining a copyright infringement case is fairly easy because if somebdy is using my image, then they will have a license of usage, and if they do not have a license of usage, the burdon of proof falls on the defendant to prove fair use.

Now I have to go out of town and get some photo jobs done.

[Alex Franke]

I think you have a too broad of view as to what constitues "fair use". In your example, I could sue that univiersity and win on copyright infringement. Fair use allows a one time use for educational purposes (along with a few other uses).

That's not how I understand it, dreamy.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Again, there are some limitations on what is fair use. For example, if the university reproduced and distributed a full-sized, full resolution copy of a complete work of your art, of the same kind that that you would otherwise sell for a profit, and didn't attribute it to you, then you'd have a pretty strong case.

Again, I'm not an attorney, so I'm sure there are lots of shades of meanings here, but at least in the way I interpret it, the example could easily be fair use.

[dramey]

Franke,
There is a very large market for selling photo usage for textbooks, teaching materials, teaching aides, etc. This market would NOT exist if your version of fair use were true. If a Professor made muliple copies of my work to use for one class (20 copies for 20 students) that would be ok, but if he started using it for muliple classes and making it a part of his ciriculum, that would not be fair use. Again, in court, the burdon of proof would be with the University and they would be asked for a copy of their license of usage. In the case of my work, my customers even get in touch with me about fair use and I provide them with a license (even though it is not required) to protect both them and me. It really isn't that hard to ask and permission is rarely denied. It is doing something behind someones's back that looks suspicious. It is being polite and considerate.

[Alex Franke]

Just realized I got your name wrong in my previous post. Sorry 'bout that!

There is a very large market for selling photo usage for textbooks, teaching materials, teaching aides, etc. This market would NOT exist if your version of fair use were true.

I don't doubt that that's a pretty big market -- especially with the cost of textbooks nowadays. But I think there's a difference between, say, Prentice Hall using your work in a textbook, and a prof using it in a course pack. First and foremost, Prentice Hall is in the business of publishing course materials for a profit -- their intent is clearly commercial.

But maybe you're in the business, say, of documenting scientific experiments with photographs for the purposes of licensing those photographs to scholarly publications, newspapers, educational publishers, etc. And let's say the professor was indeed using a clear reproduction of the complete work in the exact same context that you would otherwise be licensing it -- thus potentially impacting your business. That to me would not be fair use. (Not all educational use is fair use -- again there are criteria for establishing "fair use" in the courts.)

My point about the whole "fair use" thing is not that we should feel free to copy things that we think are fair use. It's not that we shouldn't ask for permission to use things. And it's not that hotlinking is fair use. My point is this: There is a thing called "fair use" which, in some cases, may allow other people to use your work without your explicit permission.

It really isn't that hard to ask and permission is rarely denied. It is doing something behind someones's back that looks suspicious. It is being polite and considerate.

I totally agree.

[Alex Franke]

Back to hotlinking:

I'd like to propose a definition to be sure we're all talking about the same thing. Note that this definition says NOTHING about if it's good or bad, considerate or rude, legal or illegal. It's just a definition of what it is -- to be sure we're all on the same page.

Hotlinking is causing an image (or other resource), which is located on a web server that you don't "own" (control, pay for, etc), to appear on any website.

So as an example, by this definition, if you post an image that is served from http://plans.thefrankes.com/blah/blah/blah (which I control), then you're hotlinking.

Is this what we're talking about here?