Are URL Links copyrighted???
I had someone steal my art and post it to their facebook.
The art has been removed but I posted a journal complaining about my art beng stolen. Well, the deviant who stole the work said that that was her and that I was violating copyright infringement, and that she sent in an abuse report over it.
Serious, I've been searching for 30 minutes now, and I can't find anything on copyright and url links. I'm not even sure if it falls under intellectual property.
I would think URL links are open domain since anyone can access them???
Anyone know anything about this. Please help.
The art has been removed but I posted a journal complaining about my art beng stolen. Well, the deviant who stole the work said that that was her and that I was violating copyright infringement, and that she sent in an abuse report over it.
Serious, I've been searching for 30 minutes now, and I can't find anything on copyright and url links. I'm not even sure if it falls under intellectual property.
I would think URL links are open domain since anyone can access them???
Anyone know anything about this. Please help.
Comments41
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
You mean the actual text in the link? Like is "[link]" copyright/trademarked? That's pretty much the same as trying to copyright '2 West Ave' or something. I don't think that even falls in the realm of possibility.
You can't control who links to your work online, if that's what you are asking.
Linking via url does not violate copyright, since it doesn't actually reproduce the image as such, it redirects to the site it was originally posted on. You're not going to be able to get a copyright violation ruling based on someone linking to one of your works.
Even if they were copied and re-posted, since they have been taken down you're pretty much at the end of what you can do legally. If they weren't being sold, the courts aren't going to be interested.
It sounds more like you're having trouble with someone trying to impersonate you. First off, assuming they don't have access to all your personal information and communications, that should be pretty easy to deal with. If they filed a false report, then you should have proof just from the site that it wasn't you.
If this person tries to file against you, you should have the original works in your files to show that they belong to you.
You can't control who links to your work online, if that's what you are asking.
Linking via url does not violate copyright, since it doesn't actually reproduce the image as such, it redirects to the site it was originally posted on. You're not going to be able to get a copyright violation ruling based on someone linking to one of your works.
Even if they were copied and re-posted, since they have been taken down you're pretty much at the end of what you can do legally. If they weren't being sold, the courts aren't going to be interested.
It sounds more like you're having trouble with someone trying to impersonate you. First off, assuming they don't have access to all your personal information and communications, that should be pretty easy to deal with. If they filed a false report, then you should have proof just from the site that it wasn't you.
If this person tries to file against you, you should have the original works in your files to show that they belong to you.
She had posted in on to her facebook. The link was me showing where the image was used at. I have the original work in my hand right now. Its a physical oil painting that I painted it in 2010.
She wasn't impersonating me. But the image has been taken offline that she took.
She wasn't impersonating me. But the image has been taken offline that she took.
Ahhh thieves... doesn't matter how good you are at anything, if its on the internet, it's gonna be stolen, hands down.
The fact they were reporting you is somewhat hilarious though, considering for them to steal yours would have to be up first
I've come to terms with the fact that, my stuff is likely to always be stolen somehow somewhere. [link] <<< this is a website that, if detected your content somewhere else, will alert you if your stuff has been stolen. It helps, but doesn't fix the problem, of course.
The fact they were reporting you is somewhat hilarious though, considering for them to steal yours would have to be up first
I've come to terms with the fact that, my stuff is likely to always be stolen somehow somewhere. [link] <<< this is a website that, if detected your content somewhere else, will alert you if your stuff has been stolen. It helps, but doesn't fix the problem, of course.Hmmm thank you for the link. I've heard of monitoring websites but never looked into it. Thank you.
Wait, you got upset because she linked your picture to her friends?
No she used my image on her facebook with my permission.
No it's not. I'm assuming your work was being linked back to you so...
My art gets posted and credited all the time. That really isn't theft. And if it was, who cares, I put it on the internet in the first place and it's a jungle out there.
Artists who choose to post their work on the interwebz have to pick their battles wisely.
A person who merely reposts a piece crediting you, with a link to you, isn't really a problem. As said before, it's simply free advertising. It probably does you far more benefit than harm.
My art is reposted all the time. I wouldn't be able to control that if I tried ( aside from never posting to online websites). Occasionally people ask if they make it their Facebook header or w/e- but it's rare. Most of these people do not provide links to me.
But it would be impossible to track it all down( in multiple languages) and do something about it. So you have to see if people are merely enjoying it, or making money off it.
The only time this is a problem imo, is when they're making a profit, or claiming it as their own. Simply reposting a pic while crediting the original artist isn't a big deal :/
A person who merely reposts a piece crediting you, with a link to you, isn't really a problem. As said before, it's simply free advertising. It probably does you far more benefit than harm.
My art is reposted all the time. I wouldn't be able to control that if I tried ( aside from never posting to online websites). Occasionally people ask if they make it their Facebook header or w/e- but it's rare. Most of these people do not provide links to me.
But it would be impossible to track it all down( in multiple languages) and do something about it. So you have to see if people are merely enjoying it, or making money off it.
The only time this is a problem imo, is when they're making a profit, or claiming it as their own. Simply reposting a pic while crediting the original artist isn't a big deal :/
Yeah. In retrospect, if she had asked me first and read my descriptions I wouldn't have minded, and I do feel bad about my initial journal about it now. She actually liked my work which was good. I haven't had my work taken a lot before so I probably need to get use to people doing this now. Thank you for the insight because if you've encountered it alot you would have the best advice about it.
But as I said, you can't expect people to ask or read descriptions :/. The average person hates reading anything 
.
I once found someone putting an image of mine on mugs for profit ( that was a pain in the arse), and then there's GFX people who took images of mine, cut the backgrounds off and left the characters as a stamp or something- then they redistributed the character image to other GFX people to use freely so long as they credited them ( meaning crediting the person who ripped it off for making a cut out. Not me), then there's the ongoing battle of people uploading stretched versions of some pieces to wallpaper websites where anyone can download them ( and of course they have to credit the person who uploaded the pics, not me. No mention of me).
Then there was people claiming my art in an online portfolio on a foreign website when I can't speak Russian..( so I had a hell of a time asking the host to take it down). I do have watermarks on these- but people would edit them out as best they could. Now I've had to do more obnoxious watermarks.
etc etc
My point; see how benign it is that someone merely enjoyed a picture you drew and posted it to Facebook actually linking to you and your page?
. I once found someone putting an image of mine on mugs for profit ( that was a pain in the arse), and then there's GFX people who took images of mine, cut the backgrounds off and left the characters as a stamp or something- then they redistributed the character image to other GFX people to use freely so long as they credited them ( meaning crediting the person who ripped it off for making a cut out. Not me), then there's the ongoing battle of people uploading stretched versions of some pieces to wallpaper websites where anyone can download them ( and of course they have to credit the person who uploaded the pics, not me. No mention of me).
Then there was people claiming my art in an online portfolio on a foreign website when I can't speak Russian..( so I had a hell of a time asking the host to take it down). I do have watermarks on these- but people would edit them out as best they could. Now I've had to do more obnoxious watermarks.
etc etc
My point; see how benign it is that someone merely enjoyed a picture you drew and posted it to Facebook actually linking to you and your page?
I get you but I don't think its benign, I just wanted to protect my work. I really don't want to talk about it anymore, I did what I thought was right. Thank you for the insight though.
URL links are not copyrighted. That would be like copyrighting your home address.
Thank you 
Only the contents linked to the URL are copyrighted, not the links themselves.
That is what I thought too, thank you.
Oh hell. I went and actually read the damn thing. Fuck me.
I would like to say first; she didn't claim copyright. If she has somehow set the rule that no one can post her FB link without her permission, it is her good right. Whether she can actually enforce it is another matter alltogether so the only real thing you could and should have done here is just FUCKING IGNORE IT. The twat had a point; if you indeed handled this through private messaging, was it really neccessary to make a journal about it too? Come on, that's like me reporting a bunch of rule breakers and then gloating on their page how I reported them to get a rise out of them. Granted, fucking satisfying, but still a dickish thing to do.
Also, I am sick and tired of all you yahoos being "deathly afraid of their art being stolen" as one of your commenters put it. The fuck do you care? First of all, it's not like she made any profit out of it. She simply reposted the work. Hell, she even went through the trouble of crediting you, something that I think nowadays is not done a lot anymore. You were not making any money of your art, so it is not like you or any business you probably do not have suffered any damage. If anything, it could actually be considered advertising. No, this is just you and your watchers being a bunch of paranoid queefs. What, are you going to sue someone for plagiarism too when they use your work as a reference?
I would like to say first; she didn't claim copyright. If she has somehow set the rule that no one can post her FB link without her permission, it is her good right. Whether she can actually enforce it is another matter alltogether so the only real thing you could and should have done here is just FUCKING IGNORE IT. The twat had a point; if you indeed handled this through private messaging, was it really neccessary to make a journal about it too? Come on, that's like me reporting a bunch of rule breakers and then gloating on their page how I reported them to get a rise out of them. Granted, fucking satisfying, but still a dickish thing to do.
Also, I am sick and tired of all you yahoos being "deathly afraid of their art being stolen" as one of your commenters put it. The fuck do you care? First of all, it's not like she made any profit out of it. She simply reposted the work. Hell, she even went through the trouble of crediting you, something that I think nowadays is not done a lot anymore. You were not making any money of your art, so it is not like you or any business you probably do not have suffered any damage. If anything, it could actually be considered advertising. No, this is just you and your watchers being a bunch of paranoid queefs. What, are you going to sue someone for plagiarism too when they use your work as a reference?
"I would like to say first; she didn't claim copyright. If she has somehow set the rule that no one can post her FB link without her permission, it is her good right. Whether she can actually enforce it is another matter alltogether so the only real thing you could and should have done here is just FUCKING IGNORE IT. The twat had a point; if you indeed handled this through private messaging, was it really neccessary to make a journal about it too? Come on, that's like me reporting a bunch of rule breakers and then gloating on their page how I reported them to get a rise out of them. Granted, fucking satisfying, but still a dickish thing to do.Comment rating:
Also, I am sick and tired of all you yahoos being "deathly afraid of their art being stolen" as one of your commenters put it. The fuck do you care? First of all, it's not like she made any profit out of it. She simply reposted the work. Hell, she even went through the trouble of crediting you, something that I think nowadays is not done a lot anymore. You were not making any money of your art, so it is not like you or any business you probably do not have suffered any damage. If anything, it could actually be considered advertising. No, this is just you and your watchers being a bunch of paranoid queefs. What, are you going to sue someone for plagiarism too when they use your work as a reference?
~PiratesAdventure in Are URL Links copyrighted???
Uninformed and stupid.
First of all, the value of an intellectual property comes from it's exclusivity, if you want to have inclusive rights, you have to pay.
Inclusive rights means the right to include. There are certain instances where inclusive rights are alwasy granted, like educational or news purposes with regards to freedoms of fair use but these rights do not extend to publishing works on social media outlets.
Secondly, if you had bothered to...
"...actually read the damn thing..."
~PiratesAdventure in Are URL Links copyrighted???
...then you would know that Lynne said that she...
"...had someone steal her art and post it to their facebook..."
=LynnTV in Are URL Links copyrighted???
...which clearly implies that the person took the work and then uploaded in direct contravention of the Facebook terms of service.
With regards to the facebook terms, Facebook assumes that you have the inclusive rights to post the work.
"You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook"
Facebook - Statement of Rights and Responsibilities
By posting work to Facebook the individual is claiming rights of ownership over the intellectual property, more specifically the legal rights of inclusion for digital publication.
The rights, that weren't granted but still assumed, devalue the product's exclusivity and ultimately damage the possibility of selling exclusive rights to third parties.
As for this:
"What, are you going to sue someone for plagiarism too when they use your work as a reference?"
:dev: in Are URL Links copyrighted???
References and claiming inclusive rights of publication are two different things.
Me posting my honest opinion in the moment is not "dickish" at all, nor was I gloating. And, That's not what my friend said at all. I do care because its my work. Even if she did credit me she did not have the right to use my stuff, for profit or not. Also, all professional artists follow copyright laws for a reason.
Btw, its wasn't through private chat, it was all open in comments.
Btw, its wasn't through private chat, it was all open in comments.
You know what professional artists also do? Get stuff like SOPA, ACTA and what else started. You know, the one thing that suddenly made the internet wake up and be all in arms because AMG, OUR FREEDOMZ AND SHIT ARE UNDER FIRE? Copyright in its current form is bullshit and restricts so much that it is actually counterintuitive to what it tried to be when it was first created. If we go by your description, you are the only one who has ever got any right to your work, which means that people who reference it or use the work to increase their own skill by copying it are essentially doing illegal stuff. In fact, even the simple fav system is open to scrutiny thanks to your description, because what they are essentially doing is copying the link to your work to their fav gallery. Good going there, huh?
Oh, pussy move by the way, deleting your journal. I guess that means you automatically "win" as I cannot prove "what your friend not said at all", ey?
Oh, pussy move by the way, deleting your journal. I guess that means you automatically "win" as I cannot prove "what your friend not said at all", ey?
First off, your taking everything out of context of what was originally said. She used my work on her facebook, i reported her, made a journal, she got mad, and I asked a simple question. I deleted the journal because I don't like that shit on my profile, and because people like you get mad at me for simply defending my art, how does that warrant your response when it didn't even involve you. I just asked one damn question about copyrights. If you reply, I will block you and report this as abuse because ALL I was looking for was simple answer to the question I asked.
Way to not understand business models and funding structures to do with intellectual properties.
A person has an exclusive right to their work, this means that; If I was to draw something and keep my rights, you do not have the right to duplicate and post it, you technically don't have the right to have it on your computer beyond viewing it in a temporary cache.
As soon as you download an image you are physically claiming inclusive ownership of an intellectual property. The inclusion being, the rights to personal use, which you don't have permissions or a licence for.
There is nothing the artist can do to stop that from happening beyond DRM but even these can be bypassed.
If you drew my work exactly, you could prove that artistic skill had gone into the image because the art would be in the precision of duplication given technical abilities without replication via a machine.
The point is, the value of an intellectual property comes from the owners ability to exclude the work from anything, including rights of deletion.
Imagine if a photographer didn't have exclusive rights over an image and the person in the image had the rights of deletion.
(which is what one law in the EU was trying to enforce.)
The photography field would end up much narrower and a lot of paparazzi would be out of business. The same paparazzi that expose corruption and political events for what they are as well as intruding on other peoples lives. The value of such a picture would go from £3000 to £0 because the photographer wouldn't have the right to deny deletion by the party in the photograph.
It is more complex than, I want free stuff. It is more, we want our work to have a value.
A person has an exclusive right to their work, this means that; If I was to draw something and keep my rights, you do not have the right to duplicate and post it, you technically don't have the right to have it on your computer beyond viewing it in a temporary cache.
As soon as you download an image you are physically claiming inclusive ownership of an intellectual property. The inclusion being, the rights to personal use, which you don't have permissions or a licence for.
There is nothing the artist can do to stop that from happening beyond DRM but even these can be bypassed.
If you drew my work exactly, you could prove that artistic skill had gone into the image because the art would be in the precision of duplication given technical abilities without replication via a machine.
The point is, the value of an intellectual property comes from the owners ability to exclude the work from anything, including rights of deletion.
Imagine if a photographer didn't have exclusive rights over an image and the person in the image had the rights of deletion.
(which is what one law in the EU was trying to enforce.)
The photography field would end up much narrower and a lot of paparazzi would be out of business. The same paparazzi that expose corruption and political events for what they are as well as intruding on other peoples lives. The value of such a picture would go from £3000 to £0 because the photographer wouldn't have the right to deny deletion by the party in the photograph.
It is more complex than, I want free stuff. It is more, we want our work to have a value.
I just read your responses, and thank you. Thank you. You said everything in a well manner way and your post was informative thank you. I hate that I posted this forum now because of the person you replied to. All I wanted was a simple answer, which you gave, but ~PiratesAdventure, well you critiqued his reply and your response summed it up clearly.