On 04/12/2017 10:50 AM, interest-requ...@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
(630)-205-1593
http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog
http://lesedi.us/
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
