Any argument about reproduction is also pretty silly. By putting an image on the web, you must expect it to be reproduced. It gets downloaded and stored on people’s computers.

In my mind, the only way you’re infringing on his copyright is to claim that you took the image in question. You didn’t do this.

Frankly, I really feel that images from outside sources should be properly credited with a proper link to the originating page. Do I feel that this is legally necessary? No. Not in all cases. Personally, I would credit the creator as I would wish to be credited — “that whole do onto others” thing.

I’ll end it here.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

Because that’s what you said. You said, essentially, “she didn’t hotlink, therefore, she didn’t infringe”.

One example clearyly shows infringement and the other doesn’t.

Clearly, it would not be subject to discussion if it was so clear.

The reality is hotlinking that “embeds” the image in a page permanently is copyright infringement while simply referencing it, as you did in your example and Caroline in her article, so that it appears as a hypertext link only, is NOT copyright infringement.

You put “embeds” into quotes, so you seem to know that it doesn’t actually embed an image, yet you base your entire position on the belief that it does. That just makes no sense.

“To be clear, it’s my opinion that hotlinking is not copyright infringement, but the main point I intend to present in my post is that it’s fact that hotlinking is not “reproducing an image”.”

Not sure how you are squaring that circle either. I gave you an example of a hotlink that clearly infringed your copyright. No sane court would say I did NOT reproduce your image in my dummy website (how it’s done technically is neither here nor there. The fact is I DID reproduce your image without your consent by hotlinking).

I’ll end the discussion here because you clearly don’t understand what’s going on, or if you do, choose to ignore it. I looked at what you had on that page, and my image wasn’t there. You did not reproduce my image. If you created that page, you know this… you know that you did not copy the file into the page, and that the server under your control did not send that image to me. You know this, yet you claim otherwise. Goodbye.

A hotlink, like a regular link, like the textual representation of a link, are all just sequences of characters. The only difference is where they show up on a web page. My description of hotlinks is accurate, so clearly I know what they are. I gave examples using textual representations and “normal” links to highlight the ludicrousness of considering them to be images in and of themselves.

Here is an illustration: http://mpxstockimages.com/hotlinking.htm

You give examples of a link only, not a hotlink. Carolyn is correct (she always is!). You are not when you accuse her of infringing your copyright. I looked at the article and did NOT see your image embedded in the article.

You are suggesting copyright infringement can’t happen if hotlinking is not taking place, that is, that hotlinking is the only way one can infringe on copyrights. That seems pretty silly.

Search engines, I believe, are allowed to store images on their servers and to “hotlink” for the purposes of cataloguing only.

I don’t know why you bring up search engines, but are you suggesting that they have some moral or legal exemption?

Hope this helps.

Not at all. —Jeffrey

If it does, I would revise the article — before you get sued!

If she’s so against hotlinking to images, how then does she justify the legality Google Image Search (actually, she links to an article on how to remove images from this service)? While this service cites where the image comes from, it actually displays the image to the user for them to right click on and download. It’s one thing to steal bandwidth and content from another site and not give credit. But I cannot fathom how hotlinking itself can be considered illegal.

While I have read Carolyn’s website from time to time, I have always had a problem with her format. She sometimes posts great information, but then does not have any way for readers to comment or discuss the topic at hand.

I’ve felt the same frustration from time to time about the inability to comment, but I understand why she might not want to host those discussions. I feel the same about Seth Godin’s amazing blog: the rare time that I feel I can actually add to something he’s said, I have no easy outlet in which to do so. I understand, though, that not everyone wants to host an interactive discussion, and I respect that. —Jeffrey