Interesting development in a German Case

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I wonder if this will effect US copyright law as it currently stand?

“Embedding” Images From Third Party Sites In Websites Is Copyright Infringement.

At least that is the case in Germany today according to the Dusseldorf Court of Appeal [8 October 2011, I-20 U 42/11].  Embedding content now appears to be copyright infringement by making the content available to the public on your website even though you have never taken and kept a copy of the image yourself and even though the image is never “physically” part of your website.  The Dusseldorf appeal court overruled the lower Court of First Instance.

http://cliffordmillerlaw.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/embedding-images-from-third-party-sites-in-websites-is-copyright-infringement/

[lucia]

Buddhapi--
Even without this case we don't even know if current US law is stable on this issue.

What we have is a ruling from the 9th circuit.  We don't have a ruling from SCOTUS.  My understanding is a ruling from the 9th circuit doesn't bind any other circuit. Moreover, the 9th circuit is often overruled.

In principle, Getty could go after someone in one of the other circuits and the other circuit could rule differently from the 9th. In practice, Getty would have a heavy burden because at least some justices in other circuits are likely to interpret US law as those in the 9th circuit did.  Also, given the entities that benefit from the current law (e.g. Google), if Getty does pursue one of these cases, I imagine amicus briefs would magically appear explaining why not linking should not be viewed as violating US copyright law.   All in all, it is highly unlikely Getty would go after anyone hotlinking an image.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

All in all, it is highly unlikely Getty would go after anyone hotlinking an image.

Didn't you recieve a letter from Getty for an image that was linked in your blog..they may not "go after" as in filing a suit, but they certainly try to go after..

Thanks for the info regarding the 9th circuit, honestly I do not know much about this...or law in general, but I'm certainly learning something just about everyday..

[SoylentGreen]

Each "circuit" in the United States courts of appeals refers to a geographical region.

Lucia's correct that when a precedent is set in a court appeal, it will apply to that "circuit" or "district":

"Court of appeals decisions, unlike those of the lower federal courts, establish binding precedents. Other federal courts in that circuit must, from that point forward, follow the appeals court's guidance in similar cases, regardless of whether the trial judge thinks that the case should be decided differently.":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals

"Linking to infringing content: The law is currently unsettled with regard to websites that contain links to infringing material; however, there have been a few lower-court decisions which have ruled against linking in some narrowly prescribed circumstances. One is when the owner of a website has already been issued an injunction against posting infringing material on their website and then links to the same material in an attempt to circumvent the injunction. Another area involves linking to software or devices which are designed to circumvent DRM (digital rights management) devices, or links from websites whose sole purpose is to circumvent copyright protection by linking to copyrighted material.[4]  There have been no cases in the US where a website owner has been found liable for linking to copyrighted material outside of the above narrow circumstances.":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Linking_to_infringing_content

Whichever side we're on, we can agree that neither side is "guaranteed" a court "win" unless it's already been tested at the highest court level in the land.
That rarely happens.  But, it's important to look at the "big picture".
If we only fight back when we have a Supreme Court precedent to assure us of a "guaranteed win", then we'd all be paying 2500 to 12,000 dollars (per alleged infringement) to everybody who sent us a threatening letter.
There's a lot of those letters flying around, because we don't manufacture dick-all here anymore, and people want to "monetize" their "intellectual property".
Which sounds like a good idea until people fight back in a big organized way, or third world countries get cameras and PhotoShop.

Some people pay a lot of money at the notion of "no guarantee".  Others weigh the likelihood of a successful outcome, and take other routes.  Some will simply never pay a cent, no matter what.

S.G.

[lucia]

Didn't you recieve a letter from Getty for an image that was linked in your blog..they may not "go after" as in filing a suit, but they certainly try to go after..

Yes. I mean actually file suit. I got a letter and they sent a second letter. I suspect picscout didn't even look at the html before they send out letters.

I'm crossing my fingers but after responding to letter 2, I haven't heard back. I'm beginning to think they are going to just stop. . .   But what I mean by "going after" is filing suit.