Blatent aiding of image theft

redhed17

redhed17

Messages
7,417
Edit My Images
Yes
I just logged into my Photobucket account to see if there was anything new there. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this;

Firefox Browser Add-on
Install the Photobucket Firefox add-on, right-click on photos that appear on any web page, and upload them directly to your Photobucket account.
Click to expand...
(I know the irony of copying and pasting the text btw ;))

I had to read it about five times to see if I was reading it right. :eek: An add-on that allows people to copy any image directly to their Photobucket account, why? Do people want to do that? I know that anyone can copy images from the internet quite easily, and if they wanted, upload the images to Photobucket, but do Photobucket want to help themselves get involved in possible copyright problems? After all, copying an image to your own computer for whatever reason, for the most part, limits the the use to that computer, as a desktop image for example. Uploading to Photobucket is to be able to show the images in forums, (possibly claiming them as your own) or having a gallery of images, which again, you may claim as your own.

I just don't understand the reasoning. Am I missing something obvious for the benign existence of this add-on? :shrug:
 
Last edited:
redhed17 said:
(I know the irony of copying and pasting the text btw ;))
Click to expand...

I think you'd have a reasonable defence of 'fair dealing' under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, either for the use as criticism and review, or news reporting.

As for a legitimate purpose for the tool: the material you're uploading could be in the public domain (e.g. expired copyright or NASA photographs) or released under a licence such as one of the Creative Commons licences.
 
Looking at the link you have posted regarding 'Fair Use' of Copyright, I doubt the copied images would for the purpose of news reporting, and/or indeed the author acknowledged in the vast majority of cases.

I would imagine most people using this add-on, or even just copying images and then uploading them to a hosting website may even go as far as to claim the images as their own.
 
Last edited:
The problem lies with the intent of the user, not the capability of the tool.. all this plug-in does it make it easier for the people that were doing this (or wanting to do this) anyway.
 
Alastair said:
The problem lies with the intent of the user, not the capability of the tool.. all this plug-in does it make it easier for the people that were doing this (or wanting to do this) anyway.
Click to expand...

I agree that the intent is everything, but just found it morally questionable to produce and add-on to do this when the intention for the most part wouldn't fall under the 'Fair Use' section of Copyright Law. And I also thought that Photobucket may be leaving themselves open to some problems by condoning this add-on, when again the intentions for the most part would not be 'Fair Use' imho.

Seems my outrage is unjustified judging by the replies and lack of posts. :shrug:
 
redhed17 said:
Looking at the link you have posted regarding 'Fair Use' of Copyright, I doubt the copied images would for the purpose of new reporting, and/or indeed the author acknowledged in the vast majority of cases.
Click to expand...

:lol:

No, in my first paragraph I was suggesting your copying and pasting the text from Photobucket's web site is Fair Dealing, not the use of the Firefox Add-on to upload photos.
 
redhed17 said:
I agree that the intent is everything, but just found it morally questionable to produce and add-on to do this when the intention for the most part wouldn't fall under the 'Fair Use' section of Copyright Law. And I also thought that Photobucket may be leaving themselves open to some problems by condoning this add-on, when again the intentions for the most part would not be 'Fair Use' imho.
Click to expand...

The general test for this kind of thing is whether the device (Firefox add-on) has significant non-infringing uses. At least under US law, which is the most likely to apply to the Mozilla Foundation and the Photobucket Corporation.

The Sony vs Universal Studios case established the precedent in 1984.
 
Last edited:
Musicman said:
:lol:

No, in my first paragraph I was suggesting your copying and pasting the text from Photobucket's web site is Fair Dealing, not the use of the Firefox Add-on to upload photos.
Click to expand...

Sorry I read that the wrong way Musicman. :bonk: :lol:

Subtlety is sometimes lost on me. ;) :lol:
 
Time to start putting transparent gifs over all images then...
 
Musicman said:
The general test for this kind of thing is whether the device (Firefox add-on) has significant non-infringing uses. At least under US law, which is the most likely to apply to the Mozilla Foundation and the Photobucket Corporation.
Click to expand...

I didn't think that the add-on was illegal, just morally questionable. :shrug: And possibly leaving Photobucket open to some uncomfortable questions when it is used in the 'wrong' way. :nono:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top