adrian
Flying Squad
Having had a little quiet time to cogitate on the issue of hot linking images on the forum, I'm going to try a solution which I think should meet everyone’s requirements.
In summary : I propose to re-instate the feature of hot-linked images being cached/copied to the forum, with an opt-out feature for members, and with the proviso that any hot-linked images from third parties must be done with permission of the copyright holder and visible attribution of that copyright.
What does this mean for the members?
For 99.8% of members this doesn’t mean anything as they upload and attach their own photographs to their own posts, these are not hot-linked and you retain copyright of your images. For additional deterrent some members may wish to visibly copyright mark their photographs, as Brian Dale does with Tim Mill’s photographs.
For a dozen or so members it is more convenient for them to host their photographs on a separate hosting platform for example Flickr, they can compile a post offline to be copied to multiple fora, when cutting and pasting the post to WT the images get inserted as hot-links back to the original source. The fact that they own the image copyright and post it under their used-id, then hitting the post/reply button implies permission from the copyright owner. You still have full control and attribution over your images as they are posted under your id and you have the ability to edit and/or delete your posts. The issue of the original complaint essentially was the loss of an automatic update if a hot-linked sourced image was cached on WT. Hence the solution to offer any member an option to opt out of their images being cached on WT. I can define web domains to exclude from the image caching. Thus any images hot-linked from the Templot forum will remain as hot-links. If any other members who use 3rd party image hosting also wish to opt out then a simple PM request to myself is all that is required.
Last for the rare occasion where hot-linking to external images where the copyright is held by a third party then the first consideration is does it constitute “fair dealing”, if it doesn’t meet the fair dealing exception then permission must be sought from the copyright owner and suitable attribution included when making the post on WT. Yes I am fully aware that “technically” for hot-linked images copyright permission is not required, but this is a technicality, it’s a weasel word exemption created by expensive Google lawyers to absolve them of copyright claims from their web scraping. However I consider this does not satisfy the spirit or intention of copyright. Hence on WT I will expect, where possible, users to obtain permission to publish images if not covered by the fair use exceptions, criticism, parody, private study etc stipulated in the link Exceptions to copyright. If you are unsure the question it sets is “how would a fair-minded and honest person have dealt with the work?"
Finally by way of explanation why I’m not keen on hot-linked images and prefer locally cached images.
In summary : I propose to re-instate the feature of hot-linked images being cached/copied to the forum, with an opt-out feature for members, and with the proviso that any hot-linked images from third parties must be done with permission of the copyright holder and visible attribution of that copyright.
What does this mean for the members?
For 99.8% of members this doesn’t mean anything as they upload and attach their own photographs to their own posts, these are not hot-linked and you retain copyright of your images. For additional deterrent some members may wish to visibly copyright mark their photographs, as Brian Dale does with Tim Mill’s photographs.
For a dozen or so members it is more convenient for them to host their photographs on a separate hosting platform for example Flickr, they can compile a post offline to be copied to multiple fora, when cutting and pasting the post to WT the images get inserted as hot-links back to the original source. The fact that they own the image copyright and post it under their used-id, then hitting the post/reply button implies permission from the copyright owner. You still have full control and attribution over your images as they are posted under your id and you have the ability to edit and/or delete your posts. The issue of the original complaint essentially was the loss of an automatic update if a hot-linked sourced image was cached on WT. Hence the solution to offer any member an option to opt out of their images being cached on WT. I can define web domains to exclude from the image caching. Thus any images hot-linked from the Templot forum will remain as hot-links. If any other members who use 3rd party image hosting also wish to opt out then a simple PM request to myself is all that is required.
Last for the rare occasion where hot-linking to external images where the copyright is held by a third party then the first consideration is does it constitute “fair dealing”, if it doesn’t meet the fair dealing exception then permission must be sought from the copyright owner and suitable attribution included when making the post on WT. Yes I am fully aware that “technically” for hot-linked images copyright permission is not required, but this is a technicality, it’s a weasel word exemption created by expensive Google lawyers to absolve them of copyright claims from their web scraping. However I consider this does not satisfy the spirit or intention of copyright. Hence on WT I will expect, where possible, users to obtain permission to publish images if not covered by the fair use exceptions, criticism, parody, private study etc stipulated in the link Exceptions to copyright. If you are unsure the question it sets is “how would a fair-minded and honest person have dealt with the work?"
Finally by way of explanation why I’m not keen on hot-linked images and prefer locally cached images.
- It leaves broken threads with missing images if the remote link fails - either due renaming files, blocking 3rd party hosting, putting up paywalls [Photobucket] or going bust [ Fotopic.net ].
- It doesn't give the Copyright holder visible recognition if it’s not suitably marked on the photo.
- Malicious intent - changing an image after posting to damage the image of the forum or embarrass a user. A post with a hot-linked innocent image e.g motorbike might get a few replies about a nice ride, handling etc. This would take on a completely different connotation if the 3rd party later after several replies replaced the innocent motorbike image with a pornographic image or one of Theresa Coffey. [Google The Oatmeal and Huffington Post]
Last edited:
