Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Author Topic: Pixsy Letter Even Though Image Isn't Hosted On Website  (Read 575 times)

soybread

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Pixsy Letter Even Though Image Isn't Hosted On Website
« on: August 14, 2018, 01:49:11 PM »
We received a letter from Pixsy today, but noticed that the image was being hosted on a different website altogether (twimg). The image is on our webpage, but if the image isn't actually being hosted on our physical server, are we at fault?


Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Re: Pixsy Letter Even Though Image Isn't Hosted On Website
« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2018, 01:58:32 PM »
nope....linking to an outside source ( image) is not infringement, as there is no "copy".
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

Ethan Seven

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
Re: Pixsy Letter Even Though Image Isn't Hosted On Website
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2018, 02:52:57 AM »
Robert’s answer is based on a 9th Circuit case that has been rejected or not applied in other circuits.   Inline linking is not a valid defense outside of the 9th Circuit.   The Bietbart case from the 2nd Circuit, which does not require possession of the image, seems to be the opinion more courts are adopting. 

However, the fact that the clam is being pursued by a non-law firm and a company based in Germany should eliminate any fear of getting sued.  I have not heard of Pixsy even referring cases to attorneys in the U S. 

If you are fine with not paying for something you may have used, you can ignore Pixsy. 
Even if I am a lawyer, I am not your lawyer.  Copyright matters can have serious consequences.  If you have assets worth protecting, consult a lawyer who is familiar with copyright law and who can review the facts of your case. If you cannot afford one, call your state or county bar association.

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Re: Pixsy Letter Even Though Image Isn't Hosted On Website
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2018, 12:43:53 PM »
The Bietbart case from the 2nd Circuit, which does not require possession of the image, seems to be the opinion more courts are adopting. 


So in other words if you outside the 9th circuit and "embed" or link to image from Getty you could still be on the hook for infringement?? Even though getty now allows  on their images??... I think if it were me I would argue this decision tooth and nail, and stand my ground that no copy was made..
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

DavidVGoliath

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
    • View Profile
Re: Pixsy Letter Even Though Image Isn't Hosted On Website
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2018, 01:45:20 PM »
Ethan Seven is partly correct: the "server test" has been argued as still infringing on the copyright holder's right to display under 17 U.S. Code §106, part 5, and although it's not settled case law yet, there's a fairly strong argument that it will become so... even in the 9th circuit (eventually)

Frankly, it's a little surprising that this sort of challenge to the "server test" method wasn't made sooner. After all, the right to display can be infringed by using a picture resident on any server - whether an image is 'hotlinked' or not, the end user experience of viewing the work is no different.

Naturally, there are quite a few parties that are trying to challenge this viewpoint because their business model relies on hotlinking to images rather than hosting them because a) hosting images without license exposes them to infringement liabilities and b) actually licensing images instead of hotlinking would eviscerate their revenues.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Cult Leader", Grand Poobah, Big Cheese
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2742
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Pixsy Letter Even Though Image Isn't Hosted On Website
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2018, 03:46:18 PM »
Just to be clear on my admittedly biased and conservative position.  Most people should just not hot-link. In my view, it is too close to the line. And if you must hot-link, I would be transparent about it so as to not give any false impression that you are not hosting the image in question.

Actually, there is a difference between posting a link to an image vs. an embedded hot-link. One clearly displays a URL only or text with a link.  The other is embedding an image using a remote link. The  It used to be the ELI Forums would automatically display memes with any image link users posted on the forums. However, it created confusion because the software feature masked the fact it was actually an image link that someone posted but it implied that ELI hosted it which is not the case. ELI hosts very few images and memes itself.

I deactivated that auto-display function as to prevent any such confusion.  So, if anyone wants to post an image link, it is very clear that it is an outside link. You can't view it without clicking and going to that site hosting the image.

I have read many blogs which make reference to notable images. However, out of caution, they don't display at all, not even a snippet. They simply place a link to direct people to view the image of the source.

Professional bloggers are getting more cautious. They don't want the hassle of a copyright infringement accusation. They entirely discuss and comment on images hosted and displayed on other sites. But they will not even do an embedded hot-link. There is only a text-link to direct people who want to see the image being discussed.

I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, epithets, & profanity. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Cult Leader", Grand Poobah, Big Cheese
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2742
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Pixsy Letter Even Though Image Isn't Hosted On Website
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2018, 03:47:38 PM »
Agreed.

However, the fact that the claim is being pursued by a non-law firm and a company based in Germany should eliminate any fear of getting sued.  I have not heard of Pixsy even referring cases to attorneys in the U S. 

If you are fine with not paying for something you may have used, you can ignore Pixsy.
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, epithets, & profanity. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 
Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.