Imageproxy, is it legal?

[bpn]

To my knowledge it's copyright infringement to store images hotlinked from external sites, at least here in Europe.

How does this affect use of imageproxy?

[Aiwa]

The images aren't stored on your server, you're just proxying the direct image url with your board url which handles the redirect internally. 

For sites with https, if someone posts a link to an http image, you'll get SSL warnings. 

[David..]

1 hour ago, Aiwa said:

The images aren't stored on your server, you're just proxying the direct image url with your board url which handles the redirect internally. 

For sites with https, if someone posts a link to an http image, you'll get SSL warnings. 

What about the option "Serve images from local server?"

[opentype]

4 hours ago, bpn said:

To my knowledge it's copyright infringement to store images hotlinked from external sites, at least here in Europe.

How does this affect use of imageproxy?

Technically, that is correct. The same is true for millions of pictures uploaded to Facebook every day. 

It’s the site owners’ job to set up rules and enforce them, concerning which of these images should not be uploaded or removed, because copyright claims are likely. 

[bpn]

Well, it's the owners job to set up rules which comply with the law. Which to my knowledge prohibits local serving of external images.
Which I see as a good thing, having over 200k copyrighted images on our site.

4 hours ago, Aiwa said:

The images aren't stored on your server, you're just proxying the direct image url with your board url which handles the redirect internally. 

For sites with https, if someone posts a link to an http image, you'll get SSL warnings. 

The files are stored in the imageproxy folder which normally will be a subfolder of the forum folder.
As you say, not using imageproxy will cause a warning on pages with images hotlinked from non-ssl sites.

But, except for scaring the user, can it cause negative effects on Google-rating?

 

2 hours ago, David.. said:

What about the option "Serve images from local server?"

That's what this is about. Make a local copy of external, probably copyrighted, images, and store and serve them from your own server.

[Ryan Ashbrook]

Note - not a lawyer. Speaking on behalf of myself, etc.

Uploading an image in and of itself is not explicitly copyright infringement - it all depends on the licensing of the source material. Most of the time you are fine to upload the image, but you cannot claim ownership of it unless you actually created it yourself. There would only be very, very, specific circumstances where merely uploading an image would result in a DMCA being issued (such as things shared exclusively on Patreon, for instance).

EDIT: Also keep in mind that Fair Use can indeed apply.

[opentype]

The problem is the act of “republishing” it, which you do when you download it from the source and upload it to your own server automatically. Publishing needs consent from the copyright owner—unlike embedding as you would with a public YouTube video. But as said before: The internet has turned those laws upside down. The violation is the norm, so that now the owners of the copyright usually have to complain and then the service provider has to take the content down. Big trouble usually only awaits if you ignore this step. There can be exceptions though …

[rllmukforum]

The default is for the cached image to be purged after X time, and recached if necessary, correct? That seems like a reasonable compromise to those looking to juggle multiple, competing priorities (wanting to adhere to applicable laws, wishing to maintain good security practicies, etc.). To accompany this, if you have an obvious and clear means to report copyright infringement, this surely shows the intent to act in good faith.

I'm not sure you can do much more beyond that.

 

(IANAL, etc.)

[VectorPlexus]

Going to leave this here:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/15/pirate-bay-european-court-of-justice-rules-infringing-copyright-torrent-sites

Quote

Additionally, the site argued that because it didn’t create the trackers itself, but merely hosted those uploaded by its users, it should be protected under “safe harbour” provisions – the same rules that mean that YouTube is not immediately liable for copyrighted material uploaded to its site.

But the ECJ disputed those claims, arguing that the Pirate Bay goes further than a protected site should, by offering not just a search feature, but also categorising files, deleting faulty trackers, and filtering out some types of content. That means, in the court’s eyes: “The operators of the platform play an essential role in making those works available.”

So while you may not be hosting, this ruling sets a precendent that could potentially put anyone at risk. But I don't think there's any reason to panic. Any copyright claimer should and would first send a take down request/cease and desist, I imagine, before resorting to file a lawsuit in a court. Just be diligent about that, and I think you should not have any motives to worry.

This is just my opinion though.

[Jennifer M]

Again, not a lawyer, speaking for myself (like Ryan).

Pirate Bay is a special case. Pirate bay actually does host illegal content intentionally and allows content that requires "purchase" to be downloaded for free. AKA movies, etc. So I don't see that as a precedent for anything.

Note, that Google, proxies it's images that it shows inside of their search results. This is to make sure that search results are not compromised (aka an image doesn't load) when someone searches for it. This is actually why you get images that will take forever or load blurry in google images, it is because their proxy image is their thumbnail and when it can no longer pull the image it gives you that garbage blurry one? So downloading content/hosting yourself, is not inherently illegal. It's:

• Claiming it as your own.
• Unwillingness to take it down when contacted about it.

That actually causes issues.

The niche community I primarily use actually has many different written works that the authors require no "original" work be created based off of it. These works are basically banned from use. Things like Anne Rice novels etc, she doesn't like fan work and forbids it's use and anyone that uses it can get their site shut down over a DMCA if it's not removed. However other works, like Repo Men or Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, have looser fan bases and those sorts of things have a free reign of using the work in an original setting.

Really it's a know your rights thing. As long as you are reasonable and remove content that is asked by the original author/publisher/agent of the person then you are meeting DMCA requirements which means legality. Additionally, if you are not publishing the content for profit. So as long as you aren't selling work that is not your own, or your members actual work, this also falls under Fair use.

[Hexsplosions]

The UK has a similar exception for copyright laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing_in_United_Kingdom_law

I'm not a lawyer, but a read of this a few years ago settled my anxiety about caching images. We moderate any blatant copyright infringement rigorously.