ECJ ruling on copyright status of links

[Junctionmad]

Good news for posters and bloggers. It's entirely legal to link and therefore display material already published elsewhere on the net.

 

This removes a gray area where copyright holders could potentially claim links were breaches and request material be removed.

 

This does not extend to hosting the material independently of course

 

Good news for forum posters , bloggers and all online junkies around Europe

 

Also clarified the position re pirates bay etc

[Warbonnet]

Good news for posters and bloggers. It's entirely legal to link and therefore display material already published elsewhere on the net. This removes a gray area where copyright holders could potentially claim links were breaches and request material be removed. This does not extend to hosting the material independently of course Good news for forum posters ' date=' bloggers and all online junkies around Europe Also clarified the position re pirates bay etc[/quote']

 

As a matter of interest, do you have a link for the source of this information? Thanks

[Junctionmad]

As a matter of interest, do you have a link for the source of this information? Thanks

 

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/web-log-linking-not-same-as-uploading-copyrighted-material-1.2608920

[Noel]

This ruling seems logical and applies good common sense. Once the internet published material is displayed or accessed via a link the source and copyright holder is by inference acknowledged and not hidden, nor has it been 'copied'.

[Warbonnet]

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/web-log-linking-not-same-as-uploading-copyrighted-material-1.2608920

 

Thanks. I don't see what's landmark here in the context of web forums to be honest. Sharing links to material on a forum is common practice. I think the ruling here is sharing links to content that is infringing copyright in the first place. Can't recall that being common occurrence on here, compared to say people blatantly ripping off someone else's photo and sticking it up without asking permission and/or crediting them for it. Still we can watch stuff on YouTube etc and sleep soundly at night.

[Noel]

Thanks. I don't see what's landmark here in the context of web forums to be honest. Sharing links to material on a forum is common practice. I think the ruling here is sharing links to content that is infringing copyright in the first place. Can't recall that being common occurrence on here, compared to say people blatantly ripping off someone else's photo and sticking it up without asking permission and/or crediting them for it. Still we can watch stuff on YouTube etc and sleep soundly at night.

 

I think the ruling covers somebody on a forum such as this, posting a link to somebody else's image on another web site (e.g. photobucket, flickr, smugmug, Facebook, etc). An embedded image here using IMG bb tags would be covered as it is a 'link' to externally published material (i.e. not a copy). What would be in breech is a link to a copy, or an attachment here of an image that was copied from another copyright holder. Personally I think it is 'good practice' to acknowledge sources or external content owners while not strictly necessary legally.

[Warbonnet]

I think the ruling covers somebody on a forum such as this, posting a link to somebody else's image on another web site (e.g. photobucket, flickr, smugmug, Facebook, etc). An embedded image here using IMG bb tags would be covered as it is a 'link' to externally published material (i.e. not a copy). What would be in breech is a link to a copy, or an attachment here of an image that was copied from another copyright holder. Personally I think it is 'good practice' to acknowledge sources or external content owners while not strictly necessary legally.

 

Indeed Noel. Sadly we've had people in the past post up images with no acknowledgement to the copyright holder, not linked from their source etc. which is copyright infringement and (in my view) bad manners. No harm in linking properly and/or asking the permission of the copyright holder first. Keep it in mind going forward everyone!

[Junctionmad]

The issue tends to be that in many cases . the original material is on a web site where copyright info is not obvious , nor does the poster of the picture repond to any request. IN the past , the originator of the material could then request removal of a link or the status of that link was unclear.

 

what that judgement says is that a link is not a copy and therefore no copyright is infringed and the material can only be removed if the original linked to material is itself removed . its protects both the website with the link and the poster that posted the link.

 

Its not a catch all , but its helps clarify a situation where links where claimed as copyright infringements, It also supports the view that material posted on the Internet is placed in the public domain, which is good thing for net freedom

 

IN regards to any other situation thats entirely different, the ruling is not a carte blanche to infringe copy protection

 

However I do usually find that people think copyright offers complete protection from uncontrolled use of the material , this is of course not the case , there is the concept of fair use etc

 

anyway, my post was merely to bring attention to posters that might feel , unacknowledged linking was a breach of copyright law. the ECJ essentially says a link is not a copy

[Randall Stevens]

Thanks. I don't see what's landmark here in the context of web forums to be honest. Sharing links to material on a forum is common practice. I think the ruling here is sharing links to content that is infringing copyright in the first place. Can't recall that being common occurrence on here, compared to say people blatantly ripping off someone else's photo and sticking it up without asking permission and/or crediting them for it. Still we can watch stuff on YouTube etc and sleep soundly at night.

Very well said, nothing landmark here at all, nothing we don't know already, the problem arises when people try to profit from others very hard work, when somebody builds up a collection over 40 50 years then somebody else comes along and profits from that without acknowledging the hard work somebody spent years building up, the internet forums is full of ambitious posters anxious to make a name for themselves on the back of other people's work, it's plain to see, you've only to study the forums, which I have done.

[Junctionmad]

given the injunction against places like pirate bay, Id suggest the ECJ ruling is quite a landmark decision.

 

in fact fortune magazine stated

 

"That could have huge implications for sites that don’t host pirated music and videos themselves, but direct people to sites that do. It could also have an impact on the future business of search engines such as Google"

 

The situation in the US was always less restrictive then Europe, but this decision has significant ramifications for european legislatures

 

The big advantage is that people with blogs and forums and what like now have reasonable legal cover that links in themselves are not copies of the original material

 

but anyway , i posted it as a mere interesting piece that I read over lunch in the IT , thats all