This blog has been accused of “stealing” by Mike Harding over at, because a contributing editor “hotlinked” a picture on Harding’s site on this blog. The title of Harding’s piece is: Dvorak Steals Copyrighted Work. He further states that John had the “audacity to use my bandwidth in the commission of the theft.” Harding makes no argument in support of accusation of stealing and theft, so I’m sort of left in the dark.

I’m assuming he is under the impression that infringing copyright equals theft. That’s certainly what the copyright industry likes to call infringement. However, the argument that infringing and stealing are equivalent under the law is wrong. The United States Supreme Court said exactly that in Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985).

The Court determined that “the property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple goods, wares, or merchandise, for the copyright holder’s dominion is subjected to precisely defined limits. It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud.”

And here is the Court’s money-shot: “The infringer (of copyright) invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use.”

So if Harding’s support for theft arises out of copyright, he is dead wrong.

Jordan Golson over at chimed in too, but he does not accuse John of any theft. He does say that the image was used “without permission” and that the act of hotlinking constituted a “copyright violation.”

So with the issue of theft out of the way, let’s move to the issue of whether hotlinking constitutes infringement. Golson’s support for his argument is that “some lawyers say” it is. Well, as a lawyer myself, that doesn’t really mean much. Some lawyers I know say any number of things that aren’t true, as merely saying something in no way makes it true. This attempt at “argument” is called an appeal to authority. It’s universally considered an invalid argument for a very good reason; it’s nonsense.

Now I have no doubt that if I downloaded a copyrighted image from a server without permission and placed it on my server (or printed it out, or emailed it, etc…) it’s a copyright infringement. But that’s not what hotlinking is about. A hotlink is nothing more than a link to data on a different server.

In case Harding and Golson hadn’t noticed, the interwebitubes constitute a web. That means each page is linked to other pages, which are linked to other pages, which are linked to even more pages, which all together make up the web.

So let’s assume that instead of hotlinking, the contributing editor used a simple link directly to the picture. Can someone explain the difference? In both situations links were provided to the host’s server and readers of John’s blog could have the picture downloaded, stored in the browser’s cache, and made to appear on their monitor, without any prior permission from Harding. Sure the hotlinked picture would have been seen more, because the hotlinked picture is loaded automatically while some readers might chose not to click the link. But that is a matter of degree not of nature. Harding and Golson might argue that hotlinking makes it easer for the user to view the copyrighted material without prior permission. But once again, that is a matter of degree not of nature. Thus, hotlinking and direct linking are by nature the same thing.

So let’s look at an analogy. Let’s assume I live right next door to Tom Petty. He’s putting on an outdoors concert at his house and will be playing his copyrighted music. I have some people at my house so I give them directions to Tom’s house to hear the music. Is that infringement? I don’t possibly see how. Similarly, I don’t see how a direct link is infringement.

Now instead of giving directions on how to get next door, I simply open up my window to let those in my house hear it from Tom’s house. There is no copy of any material being made by me. There is only a direct line from Tom’s house to mine through which his copyrighted music flows. Is that infringement? There is no statute or caselaw forcing homeowners next to auditoriums to pay such copyright fees. Therefore, there simply is no such infringement. Similarly, I don’t see how hotlinking is infringement.

But wait, it gets better. In that hypothetical above the music actually flowed through my house to get to my guests’ ears. However, with hotlinking, the data never flows through the hotlinking server. It goes directly to my guests’ computers and the hotlinking server is never involved, other than to store the link. Which is the exact same thing that happens with direct links.

But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe, even though no copy is being made by the hotlinker and even though no data from the copyright holder is flowing through the hotlinker’s server, maybe it should be considered infringement anyway. In the US, when people feel bad about something, the first thing they want to do is file a lawsuit. So let’s assume that hotlinking does infringe copyright and Harding and Golson are free to file lawsuits from sea to shining sea. However, the problem, as I’ve already shown, is that there is no real difference between hotlinking and direct linking.

Accordingly, I hope bloggers such as Harding and Golson see the dark side of what they are supporting. What bloggers do is link to copyrighted materials found throughout the web, condense some of the materials down, and then comment on them. If that is infringement, the entire blogsphere is dead in the water. But it gets worse, because every single site that offers links to other sites, without prior permission, is also dead in the water. Goodbye Google.

If linking without prior permission is infringement then the web is dead. So we are faced with a choice: Do we kill the web, as the copyright industry would love to do, or do we create some sort of fair use for copyrighted materials on the web? Given the choice, I’m in full support of the latter. And I’m guessing, that given the choice, both Harding and Golson would strongly agree.

Here’s a possible solution: If a copyright holder intentionally places his or her copyrighted material on the web without any access restrictions, it’s fair game to link to it. If you make your material available to the public, you simply cannot complain when the public shows up to use the material.

There are plenty of sites that block direct linking to pictures. By blocking they are giving notice to the world that the copyright holder only wants the pictures viewed in a particular context. Harding and Golson apparently would want such blocking respected.

However, Harding and Golson should be worried of such a course. Because if copyright holders can block direct links to images, then they can block direct links to everything. Once there is precedent that some links without permission are illegal, then it only follows that all links without permission are illegal. The copyright industry would love that because, right now, the internet is out of their control. If it’s a tightly controlled internet Harding and Golson want, I hope they enjoy their blogging now while they can, because it certainly is going to make their blogging much more difficult in the future. This won’t kill the web, but it will certainly block off large portions of it.

Thus it is clear to me (and I hope it is clear to everyone else who uses the web on a regular basis) that the best solution to this alleged problem is to do nothing at all. Treat the internet as a web and let all materials on it be linked at will. If you have a problem with that, get off the web. No one is forcing you to be on it.

Some readers will point out that the contributing editor may have stolen bandwidth by linking to the picture. However, because Harding did not accuse him of theft in that regard, there really is no point in responding directly to it. I’ll just say that all of the arguments expressed above about theft and infringement of hotlinking could certainly be applied to so-called bandwidth theft. And further, if you don’t want people using your bandwidth, stop placing interesting materials on your webserver. Problem solved. (Wasn’t that what Geocities was all about? An entire server filled with materials no one wanted to see.)

Update: I noticed that Harding is now saying that “the issue is the appropriation of the image without attribution.” However, both hotlinks and direct links can appropriate an image without attribution. Here’s a hotlink without attribution:

And here is a direct link without attribution. Thus, Harding is back to destroying the very essence of the web.

And I should point out that, like footnotes, browsers have a built-in method for citing attribution. The url. If you want to know the site url for a picture, right click on it in Firefox and chose Copy Image Location. There, you have the cite and you know where the picture came from. Now wasn’t that a heck of a lot easier than following a footnote to the back of a book?

Last Update: Harding has posted a response to this here. Because the comments (were) closed, I wanted to give him a chance to have his opinions heard over at this blog.

  1. Thomas says:

    A. There is no copyright infringement unless he can prove he owns the copyright. If I buy a book at Borders and resell it, Borders cannot claim copyright infringement.

    B. There is no “theft” in that nothing was taken from the site that was not freely provided. If someone puts out a bag of candy for all to have, you cannot claim theft when someone takes a piece nor can you claim theft if I mention to someone else where the bag is located without mentioning who put out the bag.

    C. There was no “theft of creativity” unless we establish that he actually created the image in the first place.

    If I create a portal site with images I found from scouring the web and someone hotlinks to those images, I cannot claim “theft” of anything.

  2. Jennifer Emick says:

    I think hotlinking can be theft, depending on how it’s done- but it’s a bandwidth issue, not copyright. If someone hotlinks an image from my site when blogging about one of my articles, i’m not going to care, really. But if someone’s using my images/bandwidth to illustrate their own work without credit or attribution, that’s just not right.

    I think the right thing to do would be to reprimand whoever did it and stop defending it. It may be a mild infraction, but it was still a discourteous thing to do.

  3. Gregory says:

    So to sum up

    - Hotlinking is rude, but not illegal.
    - Hotlinking uses a sites bandwidth without providing any benefit to that site.
    - Hotlinking is pretty lazy
    - Hosting, and then distributing, someones creative work is copyright infringment. Hotlinking avoids this hurdle, but adds others.
    - Hotlinking is easily stopped on the server side
    - Hotlinking is awful for your site in terms of consistancy and quality control.

    All in all I’m happy for people to hotlink, the people that take liberties with this must also be happy with the fact that I can change the image to anything I want. Be that a giant set of rainbow penises, or as suggested earlier, horse porn.

  4. MikeN says:

    #81, this strikes me as plagiarism.

  5. Mister Catshit says:


    Very well written introduction and comments. A tip of the hat.

    #81, Thomas,

    I like your analogy about the candy.


    I consider the “web” as akin to a public beach. Anyone can get there for the price of bus fare or parking. Look at whatever other people are there. It doesn’t matter what their suit costs, looking is free. Staring or overt oogling may be rude, but they are not illegal. If someone objects to you, or anyone for that matter, admiring their revealing bathing suit then it their prerogative to cover up or else leave the beach. Heck, they could even hang a blanket or towel between you and them.

  6. Sean H says:

    After reading SeanH’s comments, I retract my post #1. You are right to go into legalese given his attitude, which was presumably expressed on his site beforehand.

    As previously stated, it’s not my website. I have nothing to do with it. I’m simply playing devil’s advocate in the debate.

    There is no “attack” here and to claim as such is ridiculous.

    I never said DU was attacking anyone. Someone else said that the internet protocol makes hotlinking possible, so it’s ok to hotlink. I pointed out that IP (Well, HTTP really) makes attacks possible too, but it doesn’t mean it’s right to attack people.

    If you’re going to quote me, you should follow the whole conversation so you don’t look foolish.

  7. pedro says:

    #86 said: “As previously stated, it’s not my website. I have nothing to do with it. I’m simply playing devil’s advocate in the debate.”

    Then, don’t complain about the consequences of playing devil’s advocate.

  8. Thomas says:


    From Response #60

    The IP doesn’t pay my hosting bills. The IP also makes many security attacks possible. That doesn’t make it right to attack someone.

    It is you that made the claim that someone is being “attacked” and I merely responded that any such claim is ridiculous.

    From Response #86

    I never said DU was attacking anyone. Someone
    else said that the internet protocol makes
    hotlinking possible, so it’s ok to hotlink. I
    pointed out that IP (Well, HTTP really) makes
    attacks possible too, but it doesn’t mean it’s
    right to attack people.

    It is illogical to compare the use of the web as it was designed with the exploitation of the http protocol for nefarious purposes. The former utilizes a fundamental design principle of the web whereas the later relates to attempts to pervert those design principles to seize control of a person’s machine or glean privileged information. One is using the web as it was intended whereas the other is not.

  9. Dave says:

    It’s only barely been mentioned but one of the biggest potential issues with hotlinking is plagiarism. It’s rare for a hotlinked image to be credited properly to the originator.

    The biggest issue of them all, as far as I’m concerned, is quality control. It worries me that the company that I work for has editors inserting YouTube videos directly into articles. Besides the problems with allowing them to write HTML on their own, (which is nearly always invalid…) we have no control over what YouTube do with the file we have embedded. Sometimes the file is the subject of a DMCA takedown notice (Ironically, often issued by our parent company who own the copyright !) and we end up with a “Sorry, this video is no longer available.” message instead of the video we originally embedded. Embedding javascript ads from a third party company worries me just as much, if not more. Youtube and our ad suppliers are reasonably reliable but imagine what the angry young blogger who already “stole” the images from the actual content creator could do to your site with a quick rewrite rule and an offensive image.

    I’m firmly of the opinion that hotlinking is not a copyright violation (and definitely not “stealing”) and I’m not sure about serving up your own copy of the image either. Proxy servers cache copies, Google caches copies, your own computer caches a copy. Why would it be a violation for a website to cache a copy ? Until the courts decide the issue of making perfect, or even imperfect, digital copies of copyrighted materials, even the lawyers are just full of hot air.

  10. nobody_reading says:

    why couldn’t your first sentence be “sorry”? even if followed by “you big fat baby”?

    I won’t pretend to have read every comment, the posts are quite a bit old now. I just wanted to jog in a little opinion from “nobody” who doesn’t know much about nothing.

    What offends me is this: the hotlinked image was “stealing” or “appropriating” or “borrowing” or “what-the-H-ever” the bandwidth from another server. I don’t think the inclusion of an image online is necessarily free-reign for use. I don’t think anything you can say would excuse the contributing-editor’s misuse of another’s bandwidth. “ouch, sorry” would have sufficed.

    Your rambling about “cache” is only relevant if the target audience of the article were readers who were linking over from the original site where the image was hosted. Thus, the image would have already been in the cache.. right? Or possibly I missed your point. sounded a bit deep in it.

    I do appreciate the whole legalese premise of your ‘rebuttal’, makes for quite interesting defensive posting.

    Further note: As far as I’m concerned, the hotlinking was ‘uncalled-for’. The response may not have been polite, but afterall.. what if professional bloggers just hotlinked each other’s images all day long? of course, you would probably note they do when they include little buttons to visit their friend’s sites.

  11. Sean P. Aune says:

    It is called “theft of services”. When someone pays for a service (hosting) and someone uses your service without your permission, it is called theft of services. It is why it is illegal to put your trash in a businesses dumpster and the police will find you and ticket you if you do it. Hotlinking is no different.

  12. M says:

    people who are paranoid about their pictures being “stolen” and switching them for horse porn or annoying images which accuse you of bandwidth theft are the reason that every time I think I’ve found just the image I’m looking for on google images, I want to shoot someone in the face.

  13. drone says:

    Firstly, you are wrong to equate an img tag with a “link”. Calling it “hot linking” is muddying the water. A “link” is a shortened term for a “hyperlink”, which is a specific HTML reference that takes the user to _somewhere else_. Your use of the image tag is NOT surrounded by a hyperlink, so it does not “link” the user anywhere else, it just shows someone’s content inline with your content, as would appear to the average user as if the content were your own.

    You did NOT attribute the content clearly, and saying “well, you could read the source code, find the reference to a different site, and then go digging around there” is a non-starter, and a weak defense. I might as well include an inline frame, or use javascript to inline all of your text blog posts, and have them appear on my blog without attribution. Would you feel the same then? I’d use the same defense you’re using against you.


  14. This is the stupidest most specious “argument” I’ve ever read. No way you could be a lawyer. Let me guess; you didn’t pass the bar. And most of the comments here are so dumb I’m not going to even read them.

    Without an image that someone ELSE made or invented or took, you and every other blogger are up sh!t creek, aren’t you? What would the net be without images? But the DMCA has rules about copyright, which you SAY you know, but you don’t quote it. Under those rules, no image can be copied or used, none, unless it’s fair use, and you’ll have to look up that, too – it always involves a review of some kind.

    As for confusing copyright with hotlinking, how idiotic are you? One is stealing intellectual copyright, one is stealing bandwidth. Are you so ignorant that you don’t know that images take up bandwidth? IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LINKS OR LINKING!!!!

  15. AntiSocial says:

    @ #94
    you’re right it’s theft.
    If i throw away food in the bin i poison it so that the bums who get it out and eat it get sick of it and hopefully die (antiHotEatFeature). It’s my crap not theirs!

    Seems a little AntiSocial, but hey, it’s my right!

    Even though bandwith is cheap today…

  16. Sam says:

    How about linking to webcam feeds directly?

    I own a site where I accumulate webcams from the area that I find online.
    Those cams stream either like jpeg image updating very 30 seconds or like motion jpeg.

    For example – I find, and I would add it onto my site like this:

    Thus – video shows up directly on my page….

    Would that be a theft or copyright infringement on my part? Can they sue me?
    How about if the owner has a webcam policy, that says no direct linking allowed?
    How about if owner has “Limitations on Use.” in terms of service that prohibits doing anything with their content – can they sue you for direct linking to their video feed.