Embedding other people's work

Pookeyhead

Pookeyhead

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,746
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
This makes an interesting read. It's always been considered wrong to embed other people's work, even if embedded directly from their sites. I've always thought that doing so, so long as credit is given, and declaring where the source came from is not infringing any laws. Seems the law is starting to agree.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2014/02/14/eu-copyright/1


Thoughts?
 
Sounds like common sense to me. Im all for nailing the people/companies that either try to pass off work as their own for profit or to gain future business via advertising, but this (imo) is not the same thing at all. probably just another load of chancers that are all too quick to go down the litigation route. Im surprised that the official ruling took so long to be honest.
 
Hot-linking was originally frowned upon for the band-width implications rather than copyright - but I may be showing my on-line age by being able to remember that! Correct attribution was then a separate issue.

The issues now are much wider, and the EU ruling has implications for some of the financial models used to support on-line presences. If Blogger A supports themselves through advertising and associate links, and Website B embeds the content of a post made by Blogger A - regardless of how that content is linked or attributed, is there not a risk that the revenue of Blogger A is endangered by Website B's actions? And specifically with an aggregator that could be funnelling the entire output of Blogger A (along with other sources) to the point that readers don't have to read the original blog.
 
Alastair makes a good point.

I often written articles for my Blog which have raised a huge amount of interest around the web. These articles are routinely linked to from forums and other blogs (which I have absolutely no problem with, and that is quite lawful) but in other cases a blog or website about a similar subject will repost my article and pictures in its entirety on their own blog. The fact I may have received attribution is irrelevant in my view, what they have done is use my work to create fresh content for their own website, generating additional traffic to their site where the viewer can stay and read the full article without having to go to my blog at all. I am happy to be a guest blogger when asked, but I do see a lot of my work republished in full, not in the UK but usually in other European countries. Normally this is quite easy to deal with, and I'm happy to come to a more equitable arrangement with the site concerned, but full-on embedding of wording and images should not happen in the first instance without permission from the originator. The argument that an article/picture is already "publicly available" elsewhere could understandably open the floodgates for plagiarism and copyright infringement. I believe there is leeway when it comes to educational use, but as I understand it that would relate to use within actual educational institutions rather than anyone simply deciding to use someone else's work in order to provide engaging content to their own readers, and to boost their own presence.
 
but wasn't that case about clickable links rather than embedding ?
 
Reading the judgement, rather than the reported summary, the decision makes sense.
donut said:
but wasn't that case about clickable links rather than embedding ?
Click to expand...

A bit of both I think, the reporting is getting confused as implications for aggregators that embed material are being drawn beyond the circumstances of the specific case. And the judgement itself is looking at circumstances beyond simple hyperlinks to material hosted elsewhere. I suspect that Flipboard et al are combing the judgement with a fine-toothed comb as its more relevant to the way they work than to most forums.
 
The EU court judgement is totally clear about linking - it's 100% fine so long as the material to which you are linking is freely available. (Para 28 of the ruling.)

But it's really not so clear about embedding. For starters the case was only about linking, and it was acknowledged that the defendant "did not carry out any transmission of any protected work; its action was limited to indicating to its clients the websites on which the works that are of interest to them are to be found". (Para 12.) It seems that the complainants also had an issue regarding the distinction between "a case where the work, after the user has clicked on the link, is shown on another website and one where the work, after the user has clicked on the link, is shown in such a way as to give the impression that it is appearing on the same website" (Para 13(3)). The court decided that it was completely OK if "when Internet users click on the link at issue, the work appears in such a way as to give the impression that it is appearing on the site on which that link is found, whereas in fact that work comes from another site" (Para 29). BUT that's not quite the same as embedding, because it requires the existence of a clickable link.

So linking to works is fine; linking to works in such a way that the clicked link causes the work to open on your own website (i.e. embedded) is fine; but embedding without requiring a clickable link is not addressed.

EDIT:
Pookeyhead said:
Seems the law is starting to agree.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And I think your words are very well chosen, because the law hasn't gone quite all the way yet.
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
EDIT:Agreed. And I think your words are very well chosen, because the law hasn't gone quite all the way yet.
Click to expand...

I know.. I did chose those words carefully. Some interesting points raised regarding blogging too. I do wonder about the finite differences between linking and embedding. I suppose if linked, you're not actually transmitting the copyrighted works, but for instance, if I put a link in this post to maybe a photographer or other artwork, most reading the thread would probably click it... if not all... so it seems a moot point.

Still... it's a sign of law being flexible and reacting to a changing digital environment.
 
The whole concept of the www is.. clickable links.. why is anyone up in arms about it.. so long as your not embedding content from source A into source B ... from what I read from the hearing..its all about having a clickable link to other sources.. complete and utter waste of time.. thats exactly what the www is.. you cant complain about links on a system that is links ?
 
I link other work in my blog/learning log, but use the Harvard reference system to fully reference the work and where it was linked from
 
If you have any photos on Flickr (or similar sites) then there is a good chance that Twitter accounts like this one: https://BANNED/planetepics/ (377,000 followers) have uploaded your photo to their Twitter account image space and tweeted it. While they never claim the photo is theirs and their Twitter bio says "All images are copyrighted by their respective authors" - they also never credit the photos or link to the source. Same goes for their Tumblr account (and many other Tumblr and Twitter accounts, eg: https://BANNED/AwkwardGoogle ).

Only knew one of my photos was on there thanks to PicPedant https://BANNED/PicPedant
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top