Hotlinking is a controversial and complicated topic! I just read this re copyright:

The most significant legal fact about inline linking, relative to copyright law considerations, is that the inline linker does not place a copy of the image file on its own Internet server. Rather, the inline linker places a pointer on its Internet server that points to the server on which the proprietor of the image has placed the image file. This pointer causes a user's browser to jump to the proprietor's server and fetch the image file to the user's computer. US courts have considered this a decisive fact in copyright analysis. Thus, in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,[5] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained why inline linking did not violate US copyright law:

Google does not...display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user�s computer screen. Because Google�s computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any "material objects...in which a work is fixed...and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated" and thus cannot communicate a copy. Instead of communicating a copy of the image, Google provides HTML instructions that direct a user�s browser to a website publisher�s computer that stores the full-size photographic image. Providing these HTML instructions is not equivalent to showing a copy. First, the HTML instructions are lines of text, not a photographic image. Second, HTML instructions do not themselves cause infringing images to appear on the user�s computer screen. The HTML merely gives the address of the image to the user�s browser. The browser then interacts with the computer that stores the infringing image. It is this interaction that causes an infringing image to appear on the user�s computer screen. Google may facilitate the user�s access to infringing images. However, such assistance raised only contributory liability issues and does not constitute direct infringement of the copyright owner�s display rights. ...While in-line linking and framing may cause some computer users to believe they are viewing a single Google webpage, the Copyright Act...does not protect a copyright holder against [such] acts....

I'm curious how Pinterest works? Would that be considered hotlinking since when you click on a pin, it takes you to the original webpage? I'm assuming Pinterest has worked out the legal aspects of it....

Hotlinking is not illegal where it is allowed. Now ... how does one know it's allowed, and if not allowed, how does one go about enforcing the leeching? It seems a bit like attempting to stop someone from photocopying pages from a copyrighted book for their own use or limited, non-commercial use. Clearly, that is wrong and most of the time illegal, but how can it possibly be enforced?

There are sites such as Flickr that prevent copying of images.

Oh, dear.
I wish I could say I understood all this, but my grasp is vague as best.

For this forum I have been happily copying images, strictly for illustrating points, and not for any commercial purpose.

Anything I see online and want to use as an illustration, I drag to my desktop, and then upload to my Flickr stream. All those images on my stream are designated "Private," which as I understand it means they aren't visible to anyone but me. The only ones not designated that way on my Flickr page are my own photos.

I've noticed that if I delete them from my page, they can't be seen in the thread here, either...so now I think I understand why.

SunnyCottage's quoted legal text seems to indicate that I'm not doing something wrong, but I'd sure like to gain a better understanding from those of you who really understand the process before I yank any more things off the web!

Sigh.

I think this is kind of an outdated concern, dating from when bandwidth was limited and businesses did business in person with possibly a web site if they were trendy.

Nowadays I don't know of any entity that would not prefer to have a photo linked rather than swiped, as the internet is the marketplace now. I certainly infinitely prefer to have people link to my own site images rather than snag them and use them without attribution.

My understanding was always that hotlinking did not violate copyright as you are not copying the image. That is not the case if you download a copy for yourself and the share it. So IMO hotlinking is the legal way of pointing at another's image. And that agrees with the legalese that SunnyCottage posted above.

"It is not OK to hotlink - EVER."

Hmmmm. Suppose someone here asks for a kind of chair, for example... and I find a photo of a chair they might like, and I link to it -- in other words, I link to the business website.

And then suppose they buy that chair.

Why would the business object to me hotlinking if it led to a sale?

Linking the whole website is not the same as hotlinking a picture.

if not allowed, how does one go about enforcing the leeching?

Very early in the web's existence, when a 1MB site allowance was considered huge and bandwidth was expensive, I had a persistent "hotlinker". If I renamed a picture to break the link, he/she would find the picture and re-make the link.

I found that although replacing the pictures he/she was linking to with a 10,000 x 10,000 solid black GIF (tiny file, HUGE black screen image) had some effect, it wasn't until I renamed my files and uploaded pictures of advanced STDs, oozing sores and all, under the old names that he/she finally stopped.

Goodness...All this talk about hotlinking is making me hungry...grilled onions with that hotlink??? Why yes, thank you!

I agree with Annie... I don't want to violate a copyright by taking the image and posting it on a hosting web site without permission. That is not a solution if you are trying to be... legal. The people who have done this with my home photos bother me.

I still don't understand.

Is what I'm doing bad, or ok?
(Friday, 10:46)

As I understand it, if a person goes to a website, right clicks on the picture to get its properties, then uses HTML to insert that picture in a post, they are creating a permanent link to that picture which is using that website's bandwidth. That is not acceptable.

This is different than linking to the website or saving the picture to one's own hard drive, then inserting it. (But then that may be copyright infringement to save it.)

I had read this a couple of years ago, and stopped that kind of linking.

Dee

Actually, as webmaster it's not that hard to disable the right-click functions and make it difficult to "hotlink". So if the owner of the website is so bothered by the bandwidth usage, they can make it difficult to hotlink to their images. They can also simply remove the file or change the address/name of the file so the link becomes broken.

Besides, most webmasters do not have to worry so much about bandwidth these days - most spend more time trying to drive up traffic than worrying about exceeding bandwidth caps.

Copying the photo to your own computer without permission on the other hand and then redistributing it is copyright infringement.

There was a time when bandwidth and hosting was expensive and hosting an image or video was costly, but nowadays we live with a different set of rules. Hosting and bandwidth is pretty cheap now and the old bandwidth issues are by and large moot. Social media being what it is, sites like Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, etc. exist purely to exchange content, and sometimes that content is on your site.

It's easy enough to block hotlinking on your website if it concerns you, but it is insidious and not going away any time soon. Folks that don't know HTML from ASCII know how to link a photo and they aren't going to stop just because of some anonymous post.

This is an outdated concern IMO.

iowagirl, I really appreciate your bringing this to our attention. It sounds like many don't know all the facts or understand the process (me, for sure!).

I also appreciate the answers to this thread that seem to be making the issue more clear (and a bit more foggy to be honest).

Iowagirl, are you saying that when we see a link within the message of a post (highlighted in blue and in print not picture) this is can be a problem for the host of that website? BUT, if it is a picture link, this is okay?

What about when we post links using the Optional Link URL box at the bottom of all posts? Is this also a problem or is this okay?

In regards to your pic you posted that has been reposted so often, did you know that you can go into your photo hosting site and set your privacy settings so that no one can access those pics?

Iowagirl, are you saying that when we see a link within the message of a post (highlighted in blue and in print not picture) this is can be a problem for the host of that website? BUT, if it is a picture link, this is okay?

No, links are not a problem. It is if an actual picture shows up. If someone went to a website, right clicked on a picture and copied the image info and takes that info and adds HTML code to it here so the picture show up in the message thread. That is "hotlinking" because the picture is still being "hosted" at the original website where the info was copied from.

Everytime that thread is opened, that picture will be using bandwidth from the website it was hotlinked from. As others have explained, this may not be that big of an issue anymore with costs - but it is still regarded as not the correct way of posting pictures.

The correct way is to upload that picture to a photo hosting site, such as photobucket - then post that HTML code here. The original website no longer is being used to access the picture. You would have to save the image on your computer to upload first.

Again - I am not a copyright expert, so the intricacies of that are far beyond my scope. I do think if you post a picture - credit should be given.

GardenWeb also now has a feature where you can upload photo's to post in messages.

In regards to your pic you posted that has been reposted so often, did you know that you can go into your photo hosting site and set your privacy settings so that no one can access those pics?

I do have my privacy settings set. No one can access my pictures, just view the ones that I have chosen to post in threads. The picture that shows the numerous views is one that I have posted in a thread. It is pertinent to that thread and I am fine with it being viewed - I just gave it as an example of how often a photo can be viewed even years after posting it.

I really am not trying to make anyone unhappy over this. Thanks for all your replies.

The difference has to do with who owns the picture. If you own it, you can upload it to a photo site and link it or upload it directly to GW. However, if you don't own the picture, like a picture of a sofa from overstock, you should not download the picture to your machine and then upload it to a photo site. That is a violation of copyright. It is like if you took a book that you did not write and republished it.

If, however, you link to the site where the picture resides, then you are only directing someone to the picture that is published by the owner. The owner still retains the right to withdraw the picture or alter the picture should they choose. You are not taking a copy of anything and using it as your own. So no copyright violation.

Now I am even more confused...and I'm sorry to be so thick. Pretend you are explaining this to your grandmother.

Iowagirl seems to be saying that if I drag a picture, like one from a site selling the thing, or from a Bing or Google image page, to my desktop, and then upload it to flickr, and use flickr's HTML code to show the picture in a thread here as an illustration or suggestion, it's okay.

Annie says it isn't.

(I don't keep the pictures - once I've put them on flickr, where only I can see them, I drag them to the trash.)

What if when I post a picture, I attribute it? Wouldn't that solve the potential problem, like quoting someone with attribution in a message?

I don't quite see how posting in these threads is any different from all of us sitting around a kitchen table and sharing pictures in a magazine, particularly since we aren't reselling anything, or gaining anything from participating here.

Bronwynsmom .... "hot linking" is when I insert the HTML code that makes a picture from someone else's site appear on my web page ... they are providing the storage space and the bandwidth that makes the picture show up on my page, so I'm getting the benefit at no "cost" to me.

It's like running a bed and breakfast, using your neighbor's guest room.

Good code: the picture is on my site (spaces added to prevent an accidental link)
IMG SRC="http://mysite. com/ pictures/ mypictureofcat.jpg"

Bad code: The picture is on his site, but the code is on my site so my visitors see it.
IMG SRC="http://his_site. com/pictures/ hispictureofcat.jpg"

Iowagirl seems to be saying that if I drag a picture, like one from a site selling the thing, or from a Bing or Google image page, to my desktop, and then upload it to flickr, and use flickr's HTML code to show the picture in a thread here as an illustration or suggestion, it's okay.

Annie says it isn't.

Technically, it's copyright infringement. It would be better to make an HTML link to the page on the site selling the chair, or hotlink to the image on the vendor's site - they love that because it's advertising their chair.

That's one place where hot-linking is a good thing.

Mea culpa...and I was so proud of myself when I learned to do what you are saying is illegal! The 'hot-linking' seemed like a great way to skip a step. I thought that if someone uploads an image to a website, he/she assumes it can be copied, saved, re-used, etc., as long as it's not used for profit. I assumed the same thing about pics that I've posted--once they are on the 'net, they're out of my control.

Thank you all for contributing to this discussion--I'll mend my ways. :(

There is so much misinformation on this thread it's not funny!

I'm sorry to say that iowacowgirl is wrong - it IS ILLEGAL (technically, though rarely enforced) to copy someone else's photo and upload it to your own site. That is stealing CONTENT, which is not controllable by the owner and is far more serious than stealing BANDWIDTH. Bandwidth can be controlled by the owner of the site, if hotlinking actually became a problem (and as a webmaster myself and knowing many others it never has been) it is easy to remedy.

One someone has copied your content, it's out of your hands and has been effectively stolen.

This debate is 15 years out of date. "Stealing" bandwidth is a quaint antique concept that dates from the old dial up days. Today's websites will have coding that prohibits hotlinking to their images IF that is a concern of theirs. Most are NOT concerned, and instead find it both flattering and useful. It's like reviewing a book, if you are using a hotlink to an image of a couch to illustrate your point in a post and not using it to display it on your website where you sell couches, then it's OK.

Now, these images that are thus displayed ARE copyrighted, and what IS expressly prohibited is you saving that image to your hard drive and then loading it to this site or any other. If you download the image for your private viewing, that's one thing. But putting uploading it to here or Facebook or your website, even if you attribute it to the original creator, is a copyright violation. If you copy the image of a couch from a manufacturer's website and then upload it to your own blog, even if you say it's manufacturer XY's couch, then unless you have their permission to use the image, you are breaking copyright law, even if manufacturer XY is highly unlikely to hunt you down and prosecute you.

> Copying the photo to your own computer without permission on the other hand and then redistributing it is copyright infringement.Two different posts copied...up above and below. There will be a third copied and pasted before the rest of my comment

>Now, these images that are thus displayed ARE copyrighted, and what IS expressly prohibited is you saving that image to your hard drive and then loading it to this site or any other. If you download the image for your private viewing, that's one thing. But putting uploading it to here or Facebook or your website, even if you attribute it to the original creator, is a copyright violation. If you copy the image of a couch from a manufacturer's website and then upload it to your own blog, even if you say it's manufacturer XY's couch, then unless you have their permission to use the image, you are breaking copyright law, even if manufacturer XY is highly unlikely to hunt you down and prosecute you.This post, below is copied and pasted from the OP of this thread.

Which, directly, contradicts the other posts.

I think it's a ridiculous subject... I mean, are you kidding me? Every corporation, website, commercial anything, is hoping to see ANYTHING from their site reposted on Pinterest, blogs, facebook and yes, this highly trafficked decorating forum.

A bunch of silliness. Unnecessary silliness, at that.

E

I'd like to suggest that every image posted on the internet is done so with the intent of garnering some kind of personal or financial gain.

Like getting free help and advice, promoting a product, selling a service, recruiting volunteers, soliciting votes or donations, or even crowd sourcing warm and fuzzies with pix of cute kids and dogs.

There has to be some kind of payoff else why do people choose to post images? Why share? It's like taking a beach ball to a Jimmy buffet concert and holding on to it the whole time. Holding it up every now and then so everyone can see it -- but that's all, they can only look. What's the point?

Just by taking the ball to the concert you put it in play. Might be a good idea to put your name on it with a Sharpie so you can get it back if you really want it back. Even so, you go into it with the understanding someone may ignore the Sharpie marking or remove it and you may never see that ball again.

Same with posting images on the internet. When they are posted, they are put in play on internet turf. Good idea to mark them so everyone knows they are yours but by sharing you risk that others won't give you credit or link back.

It's my opinion that is how most people see and approach shared images right now. Awareness for crediting and linking is growing and I think it's getting better. Altho still not a perfect situation. However, it is understood that is the risk, the price you pay to get the benefits of posting images on line.

So, either don't post images you really care about or take some of the measures outlined above to make it more difficult for people to copy/lift them -- but don't be shocked, surprised and appalled if those measures don't work 100%.

Have to admit the people who want to leverage images on the internet but only on their terms bug me. I get copyrights and that the value of a beach ball in no way compares to creative works. However, maybe the internet isn't the place for people who want the benefits with no risk or cost. Those people want their cake and eat it too, IMO.

Unlimited bandwidth and the new era of SEO, traffic and backlinks evolved the internet image situation into it's own entity with it's own rules. And it's not the right platform for everyone or every image.

Some people should just stay home with their beach balls.

I think it's a ridiculous subject...A bunch of silliness.

That's really not fair, ENMc. People on this forum have a huge disparity in their experience with/knowledge of the technical aspects of the internet. As far as factual info goes, I'm with Green Designs; I believe that info to be correct and current. I also believe that everyone who's participated in this discussion, and evidently another one I haven't seen, is trying to do the "right" thing, they're just a little unclear on what that is. I would not like to see people decide to live with their uncertainty rather that ask a question for fear someone will label them as silly, or worse, decide to not participate in the forum for fear they're infringing on copyrighted materials when they're not. Trying to get something nailed down to the point you understand it is always commendable in my book.

suzanne.. I think ENMc was saying the fact that someone is bringing this up as an issue, at all, is silliness.

I agree with ENMc's point that the OP is doing a good job of ignoring everyone who has said that what the OP is suggesting (copying and reposting) is illegal in itself. The advice they are giving is bad... and several others have pointed it out, but the OP keeps insisting upon it. That is just leading to more confusion.

Flickr is a photo hosting web site. Flickr's rules that relate to this topic:

"DO:

Do upload content that you've created.
Respect the copyright of others. This means don't steal photos or videos that other people have shared and pass them off as your own. (That's what favorites are for.)

DONT:
Don't upload anything that isn't yours.
This includes other people's photos, video, and/or stuff you've copied or collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of such collections may be deleted at any time."

In GW's instructions below, it says:

"It is illegal to post copyrighted material without the owner's consent."

Well, I have been doing it wrong after all.
So tomorrow's task is to go on the Flickr site and delete every photo I didn't take.

Which makes me a little cranky - frankly, as long as I keep those images private, I don't see how that differs from making a scrapbook by cutting out magazine photos.

I guess that also puts an end to illustrating ideas with photos from elsewhere, and also recommending products in answer to each other's questions, except by copying web addresses where those things can be found.

Thanks, everyone.

The worst part of this thread is it made me look at Pinterest's copyright policy. Apparently, you shouldn't ever be pinning someone else's photo from a random web site, unless you have permission to (for the copyright reasons listed above.) That means the majority of pinterest users are not using the site as it was intended.

You can, however, pin all of your photos and then lose all rights to ownership of those photos by doing so!

"Well, I have been doing it wrong after all.
So tomorrow's task is to go on the Flickr site and delete every photo I didn't take.

Which makes me a little cranky - frankly, as long as I keep those images private, I don't see how that differs from making a scrapbook by cutting out magazine photos.

I guess that also puts an end to illustrating ideas with photos from elsewhere, and also recommending products in answer to each other's questions, except by copying web addresses where those things can be found."

A tad dramatic?
LOL

Photo posting isn't going to stop anytime soon.
Certainly not because of one or two threads.

It's a new world.
A website TOS can be out of date in one month while technology marches on.
Copyright issues may be a concern to some but bandwidth issues are MOOT- no longer a concern.

Just watermark your own photos if copyright violations are a concern to you, then post away.
Photos and all.

I can't imagine this forum without photos- it's ridiculous to even try.
People are not going to stop posting photos they snag online.
It's become SOP.

B, yes I'm afraid you have been doing it wrong. (Don't worry...you're not alone!) And that explains why when I go back to the threads where you've posted pics for me to see, they are now gone. If you upload them and then delete them, then I can no longer see them. But if you hot link to the site that published the pic, then they will be there as long as the owner of the pictures wishes them to be.

Again, it's all an issue about ownership of the image. If you use a hot link to point to an image that illustrates your point, that's perfectly fine. So please continue to provide your sage advice...just change how you do it and you'll be fine.

I'm not sure how pinterest works, but it seems that you are linking to sites that are linking to sites that are linked to the original site so what's being copied is the link and not necessarily the image? So if the original poster withdraws the image, all links will be broken, yes?

I just looked at the terms of use of Houzz.com and people who put images there do recognize how they will be used and the limitations of use are much expanded over that of basic copyright law, so posting there is done with the understanding that they will be copied by users, but not for commercial puposes and not without attribution to houzz.com.

No drama intended.
Those of you who are tech natives can't possibly understand how a happy dinosaur like me feels like a nearsighted half-witted one-legged ostrich in a dark wood!

There's still one part I don't understand, but I'll worry about that tomorrow. At Tara...

AnnieDeighnaugh~
I don't know where the post is now but you had posted a pic and when I clicked on it the web site opened..
That seems like a good way to show a pic yet still credit the original site.Don't all sites want traffic to show to advertisers ?
How did you do that ??
Most of the blogs I go to are asking to be "liked" , "pinned" or "tweeted".
I haven't been linking to original site but that seems like a way to go..

"I'm not sure how pinterest works, but it seems that you are linking to sites that are linking to sites that are linked to the original site so what's being copied is the link and not necessarily the image? So if the original poster withdraws the image, all links will be broken, yes? "

I don't think so. There are photos of my kitchen on pinterest that I have deleted from their original source long ago. Also, the wording on their site says users "upload" the photos to pinterest when they are pinning. It does not say they are "linking."

If you further read the fine print, it says you, the user, take on any legal responsibility for your pinning actions and that they are completely innocent.

Lolauren seems to be the only other person who sees the absurdity of this topic. I, too, went straight to Pinterest and photo sites. All of them made sure to cover their ass, legally.. all the while giving a great big wink wink!

Can you imagine if they really made good on the threat to pull accounts? Oh My.. they would be out of business in a day. The whole concept of Pinterest is based on taking these photos from wherever and however you can! My gawd, they even give you a handy-dandy bookmarklet tool, The "Pin It" button on your toolbar! Steal It... er, I mean, Pin It. ;0

Like I said, there are businesses that are tying themselves into knots to figure a way, a relevant way, to justify having a pinterest page!

Lolauren, yes, you understood my post, completely. And, I agree with your follow-up posts, too.
This has taken a downward slide from silliness to absurdity.
E

I don't see this topic as absurd or silly at all. We all need a good understanding of what is right and/or legal.

I disagree that bandwidth is no longer an issue. If I pay for my bandwidth I don't want you using what I paid for.

IANAL, but I THINK if you post a pic here, by copying the pic and uploading it to your fav photo hosting site, of let's say a chair that can be purchased on somesite.com, and you say something like this, "Here's a chair I think would look great in your living room, and you can get it at somesite.com".

I'm probably wrong, LOL.

kathy ... that would still be copyright infringement, unless you have permission from the owner of the photo to do that. I know where you're coming from, though... it seems like it should be enough, but it doesn't appear to hold up in court. On the flip side, I highly doubt any store (like in your example) would object to someone nicely advertising for them.

(Also- - I recognize some people are trying to learn. I certainly don't want to discourage that and hope it isn't coming off that way on my part.)

I am linking to a blog post that discusses that topic, including giving credit to the original photo owner.

Here is a link that might be useful: http://www.blogher.com/bloggers-beware-you-can-get-sued-using-photos-your-blog-my-story

Copying an image off of the net and putting it in your photo hosting account is copyright infringement. That's what you DON'T want to do.

Linking to the original photo on the original owners site is what you DO want to do. Bandwidth is no longer an issue in the broadband era unless you are the person in the boonies who can't get broadband and so never see any photos at all. Websites actually measure their success by the number of times they are accessed, so they are not at all parsimonious about you hot linking to that site. The more traffic that their images generate for them, the happier they are.

Okay, you can take the cuffs off me, I'm clean.
No more purloined photos on my Flickr account.

Even though you don't all agree, I think I understand the principle well enough now.

I feel a little bit like a feral child who wandered out of the forest and began happily collecting apples and bread from the market without realizing that they didn't belong to me.

I didn't eat them, and I put them all back.

Oh, dear. I posted the photo of the faucet, then went traveling and haven't been around to watch the thread develop.

I know it can be illegal to use copyrighted or trademarked material under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In practice, hotlinking a photo as we do here as part of our discussions is technically illegal, but the companies that are violated seem not to attempt to have their rights enforced. I believe it is because the threads here are a good thing for business - a form of advertising. Companies can take technical measures to block hotlinking, and some do.

I'm not endorsing the idea of illegally hotlinking, but in this context, it seems harmless-to-beneficial for the aggrieved party.

I apologize for posting so much... but I have been researching this since the thread started. There is a lot of misinformation on the web on this topic. I am not a lawyer, but this is what I have learned:

Clearly, copyright infringement is illegal. This means anything you copy without permission is wrong and you can get in trouble legally.

However, hotlinking is NOT illegal as you aren't making a copy. Several sites out there say it is, but they are wrong. Refer to this court case that addressed this subject:

"In the 2007 case of Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that hotlinking ("in-line linking") as used by Google did not violate copyright law. Specifically, the court stated:

Because Google's computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any "material objects in which a work is fixed and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated" and thus cannot communicate a copy. Instead of communicating a copy of the image, Google provides HTML instructions that direct a user's browser to a website publisher's computer that stores the full-size photographic image.

Providing these HTML instructions is not equivalent to showing a copy. First, the HTML instructions are lines of text, not a photographic image. Second, HTML instructions do not themselves cause infringing images to appear on the user's computer screen. The HTML merely gives the address of the image to the user's browser. The browser then interacts with the computer that stores the infringing image. It is this interaction that causes an infringing image to appear on the user's computer screen."

While hotlinking is legal, it is frowned upon by some people/groups.

If you have to choose between copyright infringement and hotlinking, choose hotlinking. Some of the small guys might have bandwidth issues if their images are used enough.... if you google the topic, there are certainly bloggers bothered by it. I imagine that isn't without reason. However, there is coding that helps them block the ability for people to hotlink, to post to pinterest, etc. If they care enough, they can take precautions to stop it from happening.

Here is a link that might be useful: http://rising.blackstar.com/how-to-stop-bloggers-from-hotlinking-to-your-images.html

So many websites (e.g., House Beautiful, Better Homes and Gardens, etc.) have "pin it" buttons ASKING site visitors to pin their photos to Pinterest.
Obviously, that's consent.

Pinterest-friendly sites would be smart to make it absolutely clear that they DO give consent to having their content reposted and shared on other informational sites and forums as well.
Like, say, GardenWeb.

Gardenweb is very, very different from the sites you listed.They are all commercial sites with things to sell. Many GW members do NOT want their photos posted anywhere else, for one reason or another, and GW does not generate any original commercial graphics.

Writersblock,

No, no, you quite misunderstand my point.
If you read my post again, I hope you'll see that you didn't comprehend what I was saying.

I'll explain:
I just think that it'd be nice if, for example, House Beautiful included somewhere in their legalese that it's okay for individuals to re-post pics from the House Beautiful website to a forum such as GW.

-Just as many do now without such permission.
-Simply for the purpose of showing exactly what type of curtain, sofa, roofline, etc., they are describing.

The sites I'm referring to allow pinning to Pinterest anyway, you see.

Never anywhere did I say that GW members should give permission for their personal photos to be reposted, and I am well aware that GW does not generate commercial graphics. :)

There seems to be a misunderstanding here about copyright that I think gets confused with plagiarism ... some seem to imply that if they make a copy and give credit to the original source, that's ok. WRONG. Copyright infringement is taking a copy of an original source that you do not own, without the permission of the owner. For example, at work, I had read a good article by Malcolm Gladwell and wanted to share it with the staff. So I called the New Yorker magazine who told me he maintained ownership. So I called him and asked if it would be ok to copy and share with the staff....he, of course, was delighted. But had I not done so, it would have been a violation of copyright, even though copies of the article would have clearly identified him as the author and the NYer as the publisher.

However, had I taken the original article as published, cut it out of the magazine and circulated it to each person on staff, that would not have been a copyright violation as I never made a copy.

You can argue what about references made. There is a "de minimis" use exception which means it's too small for courts to worry about. This typically covers things where you are quoting an author for use in another publication or writing. (If you try to pass the quote off as your own without attribution, that's plagiarism.) So I suppose one could try to argue that copying one picture out of say, all of overstock.com's website would be a de minimis use, but that would be totally dependent on the adjudicating court which might not agree. So why go there? Just hot link.

(Full disclosure...I am not a lawyer....this is all based on what I had to learn for work to keep myself and the co. I worked for in good standing.)

I don't think any poster in this forum is in "danger of prosecution" for hotlinking to a photo of a sofa or faucet here. Some may "frown upon" it, but surely GW also has the capability to disallow hotlinking, if it's considered truly problematic.