Coprighted images

In a bind this Sunday morning as there are two pressing topics I'd like to address, one on free speech and blasphemy laws ... t'other on copyright, esp. regarding images. The first would have the livelier discussion of course, the second, courtesy John in Cheshire, is one of those necessary cautionary tales.

Going to run with this latter, while the blasphemy one is better over at Unherdables in Sunday [1] where there's more scope for far greater length.  Doing this OoL one first.

This is what John in Cheshire sent yesterday:

I know that you do not use Discus, but this may be of interest to you. Tom Armstrong runs "Free Speech Feedback" site.   This morning he received notice of copyright infringement and asked if any readers can help.   This is one reply....

Tom, re the copyright infringement email you received, I asked this question in ChatGPT:

If an image deemed to infringe copyright is posted on a Disqus discussion which has been embedded in an iframe on my site, who should receive the infringement notice, me or Disqus?

This was the reply:

This situation depends on who actually hosts and controls the image, but here’s the practical and widely accepted breakdown:

Who usually receives the copyright notice?

The notice typically goes to the party that publicly published or distributed the infringing image.

In your scenario:

If the image was uploaded inside Disqus, the file is hosted by Disqus, not by you. The user uploaded it into Disqus’s platform, not onto your server. It is displayed on your site only because their system is embedded via an iframe, which keeps their content separate.

Therefore, Disqus is usually the legally responsible “service provider” for the image.
They would be the first target for a DMCA/infringement complaint.

But can you still receive a notice?

Sometimes, yes — even if you’re not ultimately responsible. Copyright-enforcement firms often:

Scan the visual content shown on your webpage ... Don’t understand (or don’t care) that the image is in an iframe ... Send the notice to the website owner anyway because the image appears on your site.

So in practice

You might be contacted, even if you’re not legally the uploader or host. If it happens, the correct response is usually to direct them to Disqus, since that’s the hosting & upload platform.

Why the iframe matters

When content is embedded via an iframe, your site is not “hosting” the content. You are not “reproducing” or “transmitting” the image; the browser loads it from Disqus’s server, not yours.

Legally, it’s more like linking, not publishing. This makes you much less likely to be considered the infringing party.

Important exception

If you yourself encouraged, solicited, or asked users to upload copyrighted images, a copyright owner might argue contributory infringement.

Summary ... most likely scenario

For normal Disqus usage, this is not an issue. Disqus, because they host the user-uploaded image.

However, you might still receive a notice simply because the image is visible on your page. If so, the appropriate response is to explain that the content is delivered via Disqus iframe. Provide the copyright claimant with Disqus’s DMCA agent info.

All right, that was the sum total of the text sent to me, pertaining particularly to Disqus. Frankly, I avoid Disqus like the plague or any other highly manipulative commercial comments offering, with two exceptions ... Google Blogger, plus Word Press. We could throw in Substack too. Each has its own set of Ts and Cs, plus it allows some things to happen, not others, on its own platform.

The complication is that different Ts and Cs apply in the US, Canada, the UK, the EU and the antipodes, where "first world civilisation" is found (risible today) ... and those Ts and Cs clash.

We're talking here about image copyright, not text nor footage.  The approach at OoL is (see policies in navbar):

Regarding copyright, all attempts are made to attribute images but if there's any issue, we require 24 hours to take down but will not, in any way, shape or form, respond to attempts at extortion.

The thing there is that "decent" complainants allow that period of grace ... for me, personally, it means instantly, upon reading it ... I take the image down.  It's not normally an issue at OoL but it often can be on some pages of Unherdables.  That's for us ... for Julia and me here.

The issue is predators deliberately scouring the net in order to relieve unsuspecting image uploaders of their hardearned ... extorters. We admins have that set response above.

With you, ordinarily, you would not be aware of the legal ins and outs but there is one exception, called "hotlinking":

That's a no-no.  I avoid it usually by screenshooting the pic, compressing it, as well as asking the uploader for permission or if not possible, then at least attributing afap.