Quote:
Originally Posted by SleazyDream
i think it might come down to what the url of the page you are viewing is when you watch the movie. There's a BIG difference between a link and an embed.
if you embed, the URL is YOUR site. Google does not embed movies to my knowledge. Google does embed images though, all be it thumbnails. Although I see no ads (other then links to other google services) on the google image pages, only links to the site the image came from...... which means no financial incentive to sue google for linking to that image and all traffic for that image goes to the site that posted it. You could sue them, but there's no real reason to sue as they are sending you free traffic.
an embedded movie is different. you are on the Tube's URL and seeing the tube's ads, the person providing the movie gets none of the revenue from that, and the traffic exists solely because of the movie. it's wrong and theft if there is no permission to use the movie.
what the law says may be different though.... That's my logic process on it
|
The Ninth Circuit Court has ruled that using an entire image as a thumbnail falls under fair use, which is where Google cover's it's own ass (and probably with the no ads thing, too). I guess by that, if you use a thumbnail on your tube and then link to the actual page where the video is hosted, you may be OK. That's linking with a fair use image to the content rather than embedding.
How Google shows the larger image may be a problem, but if you look at the URL on Google, it is a Google domain, but the actual URL of the image itself is also in the domain ... and if you click the image it takes you to the page where it is. That part is tricky, so I don't know where that would fall.
This will be an interesting case for everyone with an Internet business to follow. Since Boneprone is claiming to have few assets, I imagine the chance of this settling out of court like so many other cases are slim so there may be an actual decision.