Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 19

• 0%

  BoxMonkey1 year, 6 months ago

  English Please .

  Reply
• 0%

  Craig1 year, 6 months ago

  49 votes !?! Please if you can't host an image don't encourage linking -- this is someone elses material that you are using without sourcing or permission.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    Wil1 year, 6 months ago

    I submitted this link because I thought it was a great way to share images without stealing bandwidth from an third party.

    I don't believe this encourages stealing, though I suppose if someone is inclined to hotlink an image, they're going to steal images no matter what.

    Good, responsible Internet users know to look for Creative Commons licensed photos, include text links to the original material in their respective posts, and take steps to ensure that credit is given to the image's creator.

    This isn't about stealing images, it's about *preventing* stealing bandwidth.

    Reply
• 0%

  decipher1 year, 6 months ago

  craig's right. if you don't have permision to use an image you are stealing it. it's the same as downloading music and not paying for it. what do you think the result will be when photographers, musicians and other artists can no longer feed their families because some of you think you deserve something for nothing?

  Reply

  7 Replies

  • 100%

    icelander1 year, 6 months ago

    If I put an image on my blog to make a comment about it, it's the same as taking a quote from a news article. ImgRed provides a way to do that without also costing that person money in the form of bandwidth.

    Now if I took the image and said I created it, and then sold it to other people, that would be copyright infringement which is wrong.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      decipher1 year, 6 months ago

      actually just using a copyrighted image without permission is against the law. it doesn't matter if you are charging to view it or not. the holder of the copyright is the only entity that has the right to reproduce (copy) their copyrighted image. if you get permission from the creator then your use is legal, if you don't get permission your use is illegal.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        decipher1 year, 6 months ago

        oops, i left out something important. there is a stipulation called "fair use" which in some cases does allow for the limited use of copyrighted works for educational purposes... this is not a given however, and each case must receive individual consideration.

        Reply
  • 0%

    decipher1 year, 6 months ago

    the neg vote here tells me that you don't care if artists are able to feed their families. i'm not sure if you are legitimately anti-art or mearly foolish.

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 0%

      icelander1 year, 6 months ago

      The negative vote was because you don't seem to understand why this was posted. It's not to steal someone else's ideas. I frequently post images on my blog to comment on, which falls under fair use, as do many other people. I have my own web host, which means I can download the images so that I'm not using up their bandwidth and costing them money.

      Other people use services like Blogger or LiveJournal and can't download these images to their host and therefore use the copyright holder's bandwidth despite using the art under fair use. ImgRed allows them to put this image on their blog without costing the copyright holder any money.

      To summarize: It's not about stealing content. It's about not stealing bandwidth.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        decipher1 year, 6 months ago

        hi icelander, i appreciate your reply and i agree that this article wasn't written to encourage people to steal art. it really focuses on a more techincal aspect of the copying images. however, there are a lot of misconceptions about copying images and what is allowed, for example, the meaning of the term "fair use". copying an image to comment on is not automatically protected by "fair use".

        here's a link to a Stanford report: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_...

        you can see that one of the questions that is used in determining "fair use" is will this use deprive the copyright owner of income? that is open to wide interpretation.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          icelander1 year, 6 months ago

          I'd argue that by taking a political cartoon and commenting on it on my blog, I'd be under fair use so long as I provided a link back to the original image. And if I used a service like ImgRed to do it, it would be even more fair use because I'm not depriving them of content, nor am I costing them money by hotlinking to their image.

          But it's fairly trivial to set up your web server so that you can only see the images within the original context.

          And it would be even better if artists used the Creative Commons license rather than copyrighting their works. This would allow people greater freedom in creating derivatives, and gives the owner of the works greater flexibility in what they allow done with their works.

          Reply
• 0%

  Senseless1 year, 6 months ago

  Yeah I am wondering how a site could get away with hosting someone elses images without thier consent but I guess google caches images to.

  Does it provide a link to the original source?

  Reply
• 0%

  keyfitter1 year, 6 months ago

  Here is another alternative for Linux users

  who use the KDE desktop. Simply use ksnapshot

  on the image and save it to your disk.

  '

  Then create an account on: http://www.divshare.com/.

  Upload the image to a folder that you create.

  Then, you can embed that link to your image anywhere,

  just like this one of my desktop.

  '

  http://www.divshare.com/download/244183-8fe

  Reply
• 0%

  keyfitter1 year, 6 months ago

  Since when OS2X, is it stealing to create your own

  images and share them on another site?.

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 0%

    decipher1 year, 6 months ago

    keyfitter,

    i'm not sure exactly what you are saying here but the unauthorized use of any portion of a copyrighted image, be it a photograph or graphic to create a "new" public work is a violation of the law. is that what you meant by "create" your own?

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 100%

      keyfitter1 year, 6 months ago

      What I meant by creating my own images, is

      exactly that. A link that I put in a previous

      post was of an image created by myself, to share

      on Linux forums. It had nothing to do with stealing

      copyrighted material, as OS2X seemed to think.

      '

      Anyone should know that copyrighted materials are

      off limits for reproduction, whether it is a book,

      or a photograph on the web.

      '

      I don't think that the article was posted by Wil,

      with the intention of showing people how to steal.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        decipher1 year, 6 months ago

        i don't think that was the intent of the article either. please don't misunderstand that. i'm just asking questions and presenting some info on current copyright laws. i would like the readers to understand that "creating" something using all or part of anothers original work is appropriately illegal. i bring it up because as an artist, i have been profoundly effcted by this problem.

        Reply
• 0%

  keyfitter1 year, 6 months ago

  In fact, graphics are nothing compared to the

  freeloaders who download a Linux distro, and use

  it for their main operating system without donating

  a cent to help out some hard working developers.

  Reply
• 0%

  icelander1 year, 6 months ago

  I'm currently developing a Wordpress plugin that'll do something similar, only you'll be using your bandwidth rather than ImgRed's.

  Reply