Opinions please on this topic
JaPa
Posts: 121
Copying of anothers coin pictures to this site or any other.
For instance let's say that I link to a picture of an ebay pic of a coin and it is COPIED to this site's database and subsequently is just right there when I click on that topic, is that copying another's pic?
Let's say as another has suggested that he/she is just linking to that pic, through the proper command, but it too also shows up when I go to their topic on the coin, right or wrong?
Ex. I go to your website/photopage/etc. and I decide to link to one of your pics and that pic pops up here, is this the same as going to your site and copying the pic?
In my humble opinion both are THEFT as one is stealing the pic and one is the theft of bandwidth. If you haven't a clue what bandwidth theft is I present this link
http://altlab.com/hotlinking.html
For instance let's say that I link to a picture of an ebay pic of a coin and it is COPIED to this site's database and subsequently is just right there when I click on that topic, is that copying another's pic?
Let's say as another has suggested that he/she is just linking to that pic, through the proper command, but it too also shows up when I go to their topic on the coin, right or wrong?
Ex. I go to your website/photopage/etc. and I decide to link to one of your pics and that pic pops up here, is this the same as going to your site and copying the pic?
In my humble opinion both are THEFT as one is stealing the pic and one is the theft of bandwidth. If you haven't a clue what bandwidth theft is I present this link
http://altlab.com/hotlinking.html
0
Comments
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
You delete the pic and it goes away from this forum. Dreaded red x.
bob
.....depends on your definition of "it" is.
<< <i>There is nothing illegal, immoral, or otherwise wrong with linking to a pic on another site, unless there is a rule against it on the site you're posting it to.
Suggest you read the link I left and I am not talking about linking from your own site.
Please then explain the difference in copying a pic from say Charmy's site and copying a pic from ebay. YES it is done here all the time and p-l-e-a-s-e do not call it an axe to grind. People are constantly peeed off here over their pics being copied so why don't you answer the actual question instead of skirting it? If you are linking to a pic and the actual pic shows up here then you ARE commiting an ILLEGAL act it is known as band with theft and when is is done from my site that person will end up with a very vulgar link instead of what they desired to STEAL.
But obviously I am not "in the click" here to where people who KNOW as I do will discuss the issue so BYE BYE!
Thanks! Merry Christmas everyone.
Now I'm going to go find something to be mad about too.
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>
<< <i>There is nothing illegal, immoral, or otherwise wrong with linking to a pic on another site, unless there is a rule against it on the site you're posting it to.
Suggest you read the link I left and I am not talking about linking from your own site.
Please then explain the difference in copying a pic from say Charmy's site and copying a pic from ebay. YES it is done here all the time and p-l-e-a-s-e do not call it an axe to grind. People are constantly peeed off here over their pics being copied so why don't you answer the actual question instead of skirting it? If you are linking to a pic and the actual pic shows up here then you ARE commiting an ILLEGAL act it is known as band with theft and when is is done from my site that person will end up with a very vulgar link instead of what they desired to STEAL.
But obviously I am not "in the click" here to where people who KNOW as I do will discuss the issue so BYE BYE! >>
He copied that picture from Heritage.
There's nothing illegal about hotlinking images.
To support LordM's European Trip, click here!
That's why I take screen captures.
constitute an offer to buy the coin in the image.
What I think really ticks us off is that someone steals your picture to sell the coin in the image
when they did not ask permission to use the image to resell the coin. To make matters worse,
some sellers steal images to attach to their listings of coins for sale - but - the images are not
of the coins for sale.
I asked the seller of the Red Stick Barber Half Collection [ recently purchased by yours truly ]
if it was okay to use his pictures - and he didn't have an issue with it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
New Barber Purchases
<< <i>YES it is done here all the time and p-l-e-a-s-e do not call it an axe to grind. People are constantly peeed off here over their pics being copied so why don't you answer the actual question instead of skirting it? (© JaPa 2009) >>
Folks only get "peeed off" (©JaPa 2009) when folks use their pictures without permission for "commercial profit". There's a big difference between selling a coin and discussing a coin.
<< <i>But obviously I am not "in the click" here to where people who KNOW as I do will discuss the issue so BYE BYE! (©JaPa 2009) >>
Promise?? It would be a great gift for a lot of folks here.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>If you are linking to a pic and the actual pic shows up here then you ARE commiting an ILLEGAL act it is known as band with theft >>
Brother, what's a "band with theft"?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If you are linking to a pic and the actual pic shows up here then you ARE commiting an ILLEGAL act it is known as band with theft >>
Brother, what's a "band with theft"? >>
You better find out quickly or else risk ending up in a virtual prison.
Here is some info I looked up regarding inline linking:
The most significant legal fact about inline linking, relative to copyright law considerations, is that the inline linker does not place a copy of the image file on its own Internet server. Rather, the inline linker places a pointer on its Internet server that points to the server on which the proprietor of the image has placed the image file. This pointer causes a user's browser to jump to the proprietor's server and fetch the image file to the user's computer. US courts have considered this a decisive fact in copyright analysis. Thus, in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,[5] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained why inline linking did not violate US copyright law:
Google does not...display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user’s computer screen. Because Google’s computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any “material objects...in which a work is fixed...and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated” and thus cannot communicate a copy. Instead of communicating a copy of the image, Google provides HTML instructions that direct a user’s browser to a website publisher’s computer that stores the full-size photographic image. Providing these HTML instructions is not equivalent to showing a copy. First, the HTML instructions are lines of text, not a photographic image. Second, HTML instructions do not themselves cause infringing images to appear on the user’s computer screen. The HTML merely gives the address of the image to the user’s browser. The browser then interacts with the computer that stores the infringing image. It is this interaction that causes an infringing image to appear on the user’s computer screen. Google may facilitate the user’s access to infringing images. However, such assistance raised only contributory liability issues and does not constitute direct infringement of the copyright owner’s display rights. ...While in-line linking and framing may cause some computer users to believe they are viewing a single Google webpage, the Copyright Act...does not protect a copyright holder against [such] acts....
It seems this would apply to images posted here, but I am not a lawyer so you decide.
<< <i>
In my humble opinion both are THEFT as one is stealing the pic and one is the theft of bandwidth. If you haven't a clue what bandwidth theft is I present this link
http://altlab.com/hotlinking.html >>
Linking to an image is considered theft only in the minds of people who think claiming something is so makes it so.
When you post a picture on the world wide web, make its http address known, do not require a password to access it, it's really lame to claim that
people who view it are stealing your bandwidth.
The whiners are mostly high schoolers using "free" webbuilding sites like geocities (now discontinued) or tripod, which have a ridiculously low number of bytes per month that can be fetched from their servers PURPOSELY in order to force you to buy one of their unlimited bandwidth packages for a monthly fee.