[Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 67, Issue 12

Roland Hughes roland at logikalsolutions.com
Wed Apr 12 18:05:12 CEST 2017

On 04/12/2017 10:50 AM, interest-request at qt-project.org wrote:
> [Disclaimer: IANAL] On Wed, April 12, 2017 12:43, Roland Hughes wrote:
>> Only problem with "fetch the file first" is it would be illegal in most
>> cases.
> Your sentence translates to: "It is illegal to view any file (image, text
> or otherwise) that originates on the web."
No it doesn't. Fetching to media is where you get in trouble.
> It is perfectly legal (in most jurisdictions) to fetch and cache files
> that are part of a web page, as long as you do not have to crack some kind
> of access control to get it. Being part of a web page means it is meant to
> be viewed, implying permission to cache.
> It may not be legal to transfer the file to a more permanent storage
> location and/or to copy it to your own web page.
>> Each and every image on the Internet has a copyright.
> This statement is wrong in its absoluteness: on Wikipedia alone there are
> thousands of images that are in the public domain - meaning no copyright
> claimed or copyright is already expired.
public domain is the holder of the copyright. I've been publishing books 
for over a decade now and have had to go through all of this many times. 
I've even had to pursue others for infringement, so it is a sensitive 
issue for me.
>> While it is legal
>> to_reference_  an image in any HTML page by linking back to the site
>> which hosts the image,
> Surprisingly not entirely true in all jurisdictions: e.g. in Germany you
> must not create the impression that it is your own work - even if you
> "only" "link"...
Correct. You can never create the impression it is your own.
>> it is illegal to copy the image without the
>> express written consent of the copyright holder.
> Make that a mere "express consent or license" - "written" is not required,
> but merely preferable (it is easier to prove if you have it in writing).
> "Copy" in this context of course means to store the image so that you can
> use it in a different context or even re-publish it. Caching is not "copy"
> (took the courts long enough to finally realize this).
> In short: fetching a file with QNAM and caching it in memory or a
> temporary(!!) file to display it is perfectly legal - it does not matter
> whether the browser widget does it or your own code does it. Depending on
> jurisdiction you may have to tell the user of your program what the
> context of that image is (not a problem if the user directed the program
> towards the image).
In memory caching or caching in a manner the actual material cannot be 
easily or directly referenced by another person/application would be 
legal. But fetching and writing to a single file, even in a /tmp path 
would not because any other user or application can readily identify and 
access the content.

Since the original poster sniped at me, I'm going to bow out of the 
conversation with this word of caution.

Most large content producers have started adding "hidden watermarks" to 
all of there content which can be found via things such as Google 
Alerts, but aren't readily apparent to the average viewer.

Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20170412/4401d11d/attachment.html>

More information about the Interest mailing list