User:Bart Terpstra/Cross-site embedding images

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

instagram v photographer

server rule upheld

Goldman v. Breitbart News Network.

Nicklen v. Sinclair Broadcast Group

rejects server rule

https://www.gettyimages.nl/resources/embed

explores the case of it being possible _at all_, not whether all uses are legal.

Server rule yey. affirmed by ninth circuit

overruled several times by local courts, booh.

pro:

from an information theory perspective, wikipedia never distributes any copyrighted material when embedding images hosted at different domains, they distribute the resource location and the client makes a private request to the distributor for a copy. To check if something is copyright has been reffered to as the "server rule".

URL, their literal text, do not carry copyrights (i think there is clear precedent there, as it would be a terrible thing, but do check with a lawyer)

Similar to using an iframe

con:

might discourage uploading to commons.

abuses bandwidth/terms of service violation?

ad revenue steal?

Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]); cf. GS Media v Sanoma for a landmark case in the European Union.

privacy issues?

technical issues?

"Framing rule" is more important

counter:

it could be done on a whitelist based system where either permission for collections to be embedded is asked or otherwise checked against a checklist that sees if it would violate terms of service or otherwise injure the embedded copyrights holder.

Template:External media

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COPYLINK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:HOTLINK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC