Does an internet browser infringe on copyright when displaying images?

Hello, and sorry a somewhat rhetorical question.

But it begs the question ... can a software developer create an
application ... a "browser" application, that allows the user to
display copyright/protected images that are publically available (via
HTTP) on the internet?

Suppose the "browser" was not all encompassing such as a bonafide
internet browser (IE, Firefox, etc), but was just a browser for images
.... specific images (cars for example). And say such a browser did not
allow the user to enter their own URL, but rather the "browser" came
preconfigured with a list of "favorites" that pointed to existing car
images on the internet; images that are on other websites and marked as
copyright. Some "favorites" might even be dynamic such that the browser
program derived the name of new daily images, for example
(http://somecarsite.com/daily/01_18_2007/car.jpg).

Furthermore, no intentions would be made by the "browser" to claim
ownership of the images, but on the contray, would make obvious what
site the image comes from, either through a title or else a site logo
right on the image itself (put there from the image owner).

If such a program is created and marketed as a generic "car browser"
and not something specific such "Chevy Corvette Daily Image from
chevy.com" , then ....

Two questions.

Can such a program be created and given/downloaded for free (no
strings) without the author fearing of legimate legal action?

Could such a program be created and sold for profit without fear of
legal action?

It seems to me that a fundamental question is not that the images
themselves are stolen for profit, but what is being sold is the
application (browser) itself. The images are not part of the program
that is given/sold, only links to the images are included in the
program.

Would a disclaimer saying the none of the images belonged/were owned
but the browser/author ... would that be needed or make any difference?

I should point out too that no contact/permission would/has been made
by the various website to ask to use their images. I suspect they would
not agree.

Where is the line is such a scenario and when does it get crossed? If
the images are freely available for viewing, that can not someone
create/sell a program to view them? Seems to me that that is exactly
what an internet browser does.

Thanks for reading and appreciate your comments.

Cheers,
Eric

Eric wrote:
Hello, and sorry a somewhat rhetorical question.


Cutting to the answer. Yes such a product may well be illegal to sell,
distribute or use and someone may take action if it is found.

Could someone win in court, maybe, if it gets there one side will loose
and sometimes both sides loose.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

Joseph Meehan wrote:
Eric wrote:
Hello, and sorry a somewhat rhetorical question.


Cutting to the answer. Yes such a product may well be illegal to
sell, distribute or use and someone may take action if it is found.

Could someone win in court, maybe, if it gets there one side will
loose and sometimes both sides loose.

Yes, but what are they loosed upon?


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"Eric" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello, and sorry a somewhat rhetorical question.

Very rhetorical or more like roundabout.

All Internet Browsers allow the user to display pictures.

Those pictures have been put up on the net, by their copyright holder.

The holder must know that by doing so, anyone can display those pictures, so
it would be rather pointless and stupidly expensive to sue for breach of
copyright.

It would not really make any difference, how the browser worked. Google
Image can search for images of anything you specify.

Doing anything with those images other than just displaying them on screen,
would be a breach of copyright, but again litigation would not seem cost
effective.

Roy G

Roy G wrote:
...
Doing anything with those images other than just displaying them on screen,
would be a breach of copyright, but again litigation would not seem cost
effective.
...

I would qualify this by saying that I believe copyright law allows
fair use of such images. You can view them, print them, store
them on your hard disk, copy them to CDs. In fact, every browser
allows you to print copyrighted images and every browser
automatically stores them on your hard disk in its cache.

What you can't do is re-publish those images. You can't give
them to other people, put them up on your own website, or
redistribute the images via prints, CDs, ftp, or any other
mode of distribution, without the copyright holder's permission.
You also can't cut out parts of them to incorporate in your own
images.

So regarding the O.P.'s original question, it sounds to me like
the proposed program is absolutely, unquestionably, fully legal.
You may write and distribute such a program with no
compunction whatsoever.

(Of course if someone sues you, you can produce my usenet
posting as your justification - which will give all the attorneys a
good laugh.)

Alan

Very interesting, Alan, Rob .... thanks.

So it sounds like "fair use" allow me to do things to the image for my
own purpose (print, saving, etc). If I build a program that facilitates
the displaying of other peoples publically copyrighted images ... is
that still fair use?

Alan, when you say the list of "can't do", you say that they can't be
redistributed. To clarify, does this just mean redistributing the
physical file/image via various methods? And does that redistribution
include displaying/redisplaying them on a screen using my own
application and not their webpage?

Roy states doing anything other than "displaying them on screen". I
guess what I'm hammper at is, is the concept of "displaying them on
screen" suppose to be limited to using the owners web page to display
the image. If the image is taken out of context of their web page, I.E
displayed on its own without their web page, is this still considered
fair use?

Thanks again for any and all input.
Cheers,
Eric



Alan Meyer wrote:
Roy G wrote:
...
Doing anything with those images other than just displaying them on screen,
would be a breach of copyright, but again litigation would not seem cost
effective.
...

I would qualify this by saying that I believe copyright law allows
fair use of such images. You can view them, print them, store
them on your hard disk, copy them to CDs. In fact, every browser
allows you to print copyrighted images and every browser
automatically stores them on your hard disk in its cache.

What you can't do is re-publish those images. You can't give
them to other people, put them up on your own website, or
redistribute the images via prints, CDs, ftp, or any other
mode of distribution, without the copyright holder's permission.
You also can't cut out parts of them to incorporate in your own
images.

So regarding the O.P.'s original question, it sounds to me like
the proposed program is absolutely, unquestionably, fully legal.
You may write and distribute such a program with no
compunction whatsoever.

On 18 Jan 2007 18:15:28 -0800, "Alan Meyer" wrote:

What you can't do is re-publish those images. You can't give
them to other people, put them up on your own website, or
redistribute the images via prints, CDs, ftp, or any other
mode of distribution, without the copyright holder's permission.
You also can't cut out parts of them to incorporate in your own
images.

I can use such images on my website, if I don't claim it as my own or
use it to make money or other gain.
"Distribution" is a hazy word; I can, for example, make a print of a
copyrighted image, and take it to a group of friends, and pass the
print around for them to see, and retain ownership of the print (take
it back home with me)(not the image, but the print). Is that
"distribution"? I don't think so.
My opinion; IANAL.

--
Angelina Jolie moved into
a mansion in New Orleans
with Brad Pitt where they
say they will be very
involved locally. The
actress is nothing if not
meticulous. Whenever Angelina
Jolie orders in Chinese she's
very careful to specify boy or girl.

In article .com,
"Eric" wrote:

Hello, and sorry a somewhat rhetorical question.

But it begs the question ... can a software developer create an
application ... a "browser" application, that allows the user to
display copyright/protected images that are publically available (via
HTTP) on the internet?

Free legal advise is worth exactly what you paid for it. Laws like this
vary from one country to another. Talk with an intellectual property
attorney who is experienced at dealing with Internet issues for an
informed opinion.

"Eric" wrote in message
ups.com...
Very interesting, Alan, Rob .... thanks.


.. If the image is taken out of context of their web page, I.E
displayed on its own without their web page, is this still considered
fair use?


Hi.

You seem to be getting yourself into a lather over trivia.

I mentioned earlier that Google Image Search finds images of whatever
subject you request.

It displays them as biggish thumbnails on a Google Page, so it is doing
exactly what you are worrying about.

No-one has yet sued or, as far as I know, complained about Google doing
exactly what you are considering.

It really is not worth any worry.

Roy G

Excellent point, Roy!

Cheers,
Eric

Roy G wrote:
"Eric" wrote in message
ups.com...
Very interesting, Alan, Rob .... thanks.


. If the image is taken out of context of their web page, I.E
displayed on its own without their web page, is this still considered
fair use?


Hi.

You seem to be getting yourself into a lather over trivia.

I mentioned earlier that Google Image Search finds images of whatever
subject you request.

It displays them as biggish thumbnails on a Google Page, so it is doing
exactly what you are worrying about.

No-one has yet sued or, as far as I know, complained about Google doing
exactly what you are considering.

It really is not worth any worry.

Roy G