- Joined
- Feb 13, 2014
- Messages
- 2,693
- Reaction score
- 3,007
- Location
- Magdeburg, Germany
- VCDS Serial number
- HN0-nnnnnn
Uwe, it feels to me like there is a huge difference to what is being discussed here and the case you partially quoted. In the case you referenced, the issue were thumbnails of legal material. Feel free to correct me, what we are talking about here are full-size inline/embedded images of illegal material - at least that was what you brought up as being your main concern for not self-hosting files. So from my understanding...
Case A: Somebody makes photo and puts it on their website for free. Embedding a thumbnail, would be legal based on your reference above. Embedding a full size image, may be legal as well.
Case B: Somebody makes photo and sells that through private channels or uses it for a commercial purposes w/o making it available to the public for free. Any unauthorized copy, and along that embedding any of those unauthorized copies/photos, would be illegal.
...the situation (between self hosting and embedding illegal content) is practically the same in our specific use-case. I also fail to see your point regarding the First Amendment, in fact the page you linked states that according to 'Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.' ("...no special immunity from laws that apply to others, including those—such as copyright law...") the freedom of speech and press does not automatically make less-liable in terms of copyright issues. Maybe I fail to see/understand your references to the full extent, if so please do help me understand where I am missing the point.
Case A: Somebody makes photo and puts it on their website for free. Embedding a thumbnail, would be legal based on your reference above. Embedding a full size image, may be legal as well.
Case B: Somebody makes photo and sells that through private channels or uses it for a commercial purposes w/o making it available to the public for free. Any unauthorized copy, and along that embedding any of those unauthorized copies/photos, would be illegal.
...the situation (between self hosting and embedding illegal content) is practically the same in our specific use-case. I also fail to see your point regarding the First Amendment, in fact the page you linked states that according to 'Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.' ("...no special immunity from laws that apply to others, including those—such as copyright law...") the freedom of speech and press does not automatically make less-liable in terms of copyright issues. Maybe I fail to see/understand your references to the full extent, if so please do help me understand where I am missing the point.