# What city is shown in this photograph? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 26, 2010, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837 "2010-03-26T02:38:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/41 "2010-09-10T15:37:03Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > But neither side is wrong here. Only \*\*Spark240 \*\*is. No, he’s not wrong. You are. You’re correct that pirating someone’s material and then claiming that you’re doing them a favor by giving them exposure is wrong and silly. But, given that you’ve conceded that no-one has pirated anything here, and that all the OP did was _link_ to the site, the fact is that the OP _did_ give the site some free publicity. He provided a link to the site on a board read by thousands of people a day. It might not have been very _much_ publicity, in the big scheme of things, but **Spark240** was not wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/42 "2010-09-10T15:51:23Z")
Good grief if you don’t want people to direct link your images then YOU (the website owner) should put a code on it that will prevent this. You get a code that in order to bring up the image you have to have a referer first otherwise it won’t link to the image. A lot of cartoon sites do this. You can’t get the cartoon image without a referrer. ---
**Author:** ![envirocr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f475e1/32.png) [@envirocr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/envirocr)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/43 "2010-09-10T16:10:17Z")
Direct links are fine. It is just important to say where they came from or link to the entire article where they were used. Especially in the case of original photos when the site is under copyright. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/44 "2010-09-10T16:23:58Z")
> [@envirocr](#): > > Direct links are fine. It is just important to say where they came from or link to the entire article where they were used. Especially in the case of original photos when the site is under copyright. Thanks. Why do you keep talking about copyright? Copyright is irrelevant here, because no-one is copying your images. Linking to them without attribution might, in some people’s opinion, be discourteous, but it’s not a copyright issue. [Here is a link to a picture.](http://www.myurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/%C2%A9_BHHC2006_MelbFlinders1917.jpg) If you think i’ve violated your website’s copyright, i suggest you take the appropriate steps to remedy the situation. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/45 "2010-09-10T16:26:07Z")
> [@envirocr](#): > > It is just important to say where they came from or link to the entire article where they were used. It’s _polite_ to attribute, I agree. But there are billions of photos out there in internet world, and billions of links to them, so I would argue that it isn’t _important_ at all, except to the person up on their high horse. ---
**Author:** ![envirocr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f475e1/32.png) [@envirocr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/envirocr)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/46 "2010-09-10T16:33:02Z")
Thanks. Appreciate the wide range of comments. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/47 "2010-09-10T16:36:39Z")
The URL appears in the address bar of your browser when you click the link. I think that’s plenty of attribution. ---
**Author:** ![envirocr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f475e1/32.png) [@envirocr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/envirocr)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/48 "2010-09-10T16:37:19Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > > [@envirocr](#): > > > > Direct links are fine. It is just important to say where they came from or link to the entire article where they were used. Especially in the case of original photos when the site is under copyright. Thanks. > > Why do you keep talking about copyright? Copyright is irrelevant here, because no-one is copying your images. Linking to them without attribution might, in some people’s opinion, be discourteous, but it’s not a copyright issue. > > [Here is a link to a picture.](http://www.myurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/%C2%A9_BHHC2006_MelbFlinders1917.jpg) > > If you think i’ve violated your website’s copyright, i suggest you take the appropriate steps to remedy the situation. The photo you linked to is under copyright of the Burton Holmes Historical Collection. It is so labeled and digimarc protected. Thanks for showing how you can push the envelope. Others who have reproduced it have been kind enough not to. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/49 "2010-09-10T16:41:17Z")
> [@envirocr](#): > > The photo you linked to is under copyright of the Burton Holmes Historical Collection. It is so labeled and digimarc protected. Thanks for showing how you can push the envelope. Others who have reproduced it have been kind enough not to. No, you still don’t get it. _It’s not being reproduced_! It’s just being linked to! [http://www.google.com/images/logos/ps\_logo2.png](http://www.google.com/images/logos/ps_logo2.png) OMG! ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/50 "2010-09-10T16:41:59Z")
He didn’t reproduce it. He _linked_ to it. He has not violated any copyright provisions. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/51 "2010-09-10T16:43:29Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > [Here is a link to a picture.](http://www.myurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/%C2%A9_BHHC2006_MelbFlinders1917.jpg) > > If you think i’ve violated your website’s copyright, i suggest you take the appropriate steps to remedy the situation. That’s an interesting case. The context is [this entry on myurbanist](http://www.myurbanist.com/archives/4000). The photo was taken by Burton Holmes in Australia in 1917, and so the copyright would belong to Mr Holmes and his estate (he died in 1958). However, the myurbanist website claims copyright this way: “©2006 BHHC”. I don’t understand how they can attach a date of 2006 for a photo taken in 1917. ---
**Author:** ![envirocr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f475e1/32.png) [@envirocr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/envirocr)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/52 "2010-09-10T16:44:56Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > He didn’t reproduce it. He _linked_ to it. He has not violated any copyright provisions. I get it. Totally. Am a lawyer by day. ---
**Author:** ![elninost0rm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ed655f/32.png) [@elninost0rm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elninost0rm)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/53 "2010-09-10T16:46:43Z")
> [@envirocr](#): > > > [@mhendo](#): > > > > Why do you keep talking about copyright? Copyright is irrelevant here, because no-one is copying your images. Linking to them without attribution might, in some people’s opinion, be discourteous, but it’s not a copyright issue. > > > > [Here is a link to a picture.](http://www.myurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/%C2%A9_BHHC2006_MelbFlinders1917.jpg) > > > > If you think i’ve violated your website’s copyright, i suggest you take the appropriate steps to remedy the situation. > > The photo you linked to is under copyright of the Burton Holmes Historical Collection. It is so labeled and digimarc protected. Thanks for showing how you can push the envelope. Others who have reproduced it have been kind enough not to. I’m sorry. Like others have said, this happens billions of times per day on the internet and that’s just the way it is. _Discourteous_, yes. Illegal, no. ---
**Author:** ![envirocr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f475e1/32.png) [@envirocr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/envirocr)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/54 "2010-09-10T16:47:20Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > > [@mhendo](#): > > > > [Here is a link to a picture.](http://www.myurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/%C2%A9_BHHC2006_MelbFlinders1917.jpg) > > > > If you think i’ve violated your website’s copyright, i suggest you take the appropriate steps to remedy the situation. > > That’s an interesting case. The context is [this entry on myurbanist](http://www.myurbanist.com/archives/4000). The photo was taken by Burton Holmes in Australia in 1917, and so the copyright would belong to Mr Holmes and his estate (he died in 1958). However, the myurbanist website claims copyright this way: “©2006 BHHC”. I don’t understand how they can attach a date of 2006 for a photo taken in 1917. The photo is owned by others. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/55 "2010-09-10T16:49:58Z")
> [@envirocr](#): > > > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > > He didn’t reproduce it. He _linked_ to it. He has not violated any copyright provisions. > > I get it. Totally. Am a lawyer by day. Good. The URL of the image includes the copyright information, so we don’t have a problem. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/56 "2010-09-10T17:16:53Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > That’s an interesting case. The context is [this entry on myurbanist](http://www.myurbanist.com/archives/4000). The photo was taken by Burton Holmes in Australia in 1917, and so the copyright would belong to Mr Holmes and his estate (he died in 1958). However, the myurbanist website claims copyright this way: “©2006 BHHC”. I don’t understand how they can attach a date of 2006 for a photo taken in 1917. My initial thought was similar to yours, except in the US i would go even further: a photograph taken in 1917 is not in copyright, period. Presumably, though, the original picture was not in color. The colorization of the image probably constitutes creative work, which would allow the person who did the colorizing to claim copyright over it. But they still can’t claim copyright over the original image. Our new friend claims to be a lawyer, and to understand these issues, but in this thread he’s coming across like any one of thousands of other internet who actually have no clue about what copyright is, or what constitutes a violation. In his most recent post to you, he notes: > [@envirocr](#): > > The photo is owned by others. This, of course, completely misses the point that physical ownership and copyright are not the same thing. My wife collects old tintype photographs. Most of them were taken in the second half of the nineteenth century, and some in the first couple of decades of the twentieth century. We own the physical tintypes, and if anyone wants a copy of those pictures they would need to come to us and request access to them. But these images are well out of copyright, and even owning the physical objects does not allow us to claim copyright over them. In fact, claiming copyright over them would, in itself, actually be a violation of Title 17, punishable by a fine of up to $500 per instance: > [@](#): > > TITLE 17, CHAPTER 13 > > § 1326. Penalty for false marking > > (a) In General.— Whoever, for the purpose of deceiving the public, marks upon, applies to, or uses in advertising in connection with an article made, used, distributed, or sold, a design which is not protected under this chapter, a design notice specified in section 1306, or any other words or symbols importing that the design is protected under this chapter, knowing that the design is not so protected, shall pay a civil fine of not more than $500 for each such offense. [Link](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001326----000-.html) Of course, the word “knowing” is important here, allowing people who falsely claim copyright over non-protected works to avoid penalties by claiming that, rather than being dishonest, they were simply clueless. Back to the tintypes: Furthermore, if we decided to scan these old tintypes and put the images up on the web for anyone to see, we would have no legal right to prohibit people from using copies of the images. The act of scanning and posting out-of-copyright images, even if it was done in 2010, does not give us new copyright over them. While there is no controlling case in this matter, the most relevant decision was Bridgeman Art Library, LTD. v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), in which the court found that copyright is not available for slavish copies of two-dimensional artworks. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/57 "2010-09-10T17:26:29Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Presumably, though, the original picture was not in color. The colorization of the image probably constitutes creative work, which would allow the person who did the colorizing to claim copyright over it. But they still can’t claim copyright over the original image. Actually, upon further investigation, it appears that even the color portion of the slides is most likely out of copyright. According to [this bio](http://www.burtonholmes.org/life/bio.html), Burton Holmes had his glass slides hand-colored for use in his lectures. So the coloring on those old images was also most likely done before 1923, meaning that the whole image is out of copyright. Not only is **envirocr** whining about copyright over simple linking, but he’s also claiming copyright on out-of-copyright works. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/58 "2010-09-10T17:34:36Z")
Basically, **envirocr** seems to be unhappy with the [deep-linking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_linking) of the images from his site (assuming that it is, in fact his site). As that article mentions, some companies (Ticketmaster for one) object to the practice. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/59 "2010-09-10T17:42:12Z")
Billing someone for these posts? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/60 "2010-09-10T17:42:45Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > Basically, **envirocr** seems to be unhappy with the [deep-linking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_linking) of the images from his site (assuming that it is, in fact his site). As that article mentions, some companies (Ticketmaster for one) object to the practice. We’ve all worked that out, i think. The problem is that he keeps using the word “copyright” as if it actually has some relevance. I do agree that, in some cases, deep linking might be a minor breach of etiquette. On the other hand, anything that Ticketmaster objects to strongly enough to file a lawsuit has to have some redeeming value. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837.md?page=4)