Playboy Can Block Links to Celebrity Pictures

[HardOCP News]

So how is this even going to work? You know the drill, we post a headline and a small blurb to pique your interest, sometimes with a photo or video and a brief quote so that you know whether or not you want to click the link to the content. So, by sending traffic to a website, we are in danger of being sued?

“An eye on profit, that’s something dirty, according to the European clowns,” GeenStijl said in a statement on its website. “The consequence is that from now on, you always run the risk of being sued, just for placing a hyperlink."

 

[lilbabycat]

So how is this even going to work?

Playboy goes out of business, porn continues to be free. Random 10/10's on the internet are better anyways, not to mention every niche/fetish imaginable.

 

[viscountalpha]

Playboy has been irrelevant for years. They stopped producing the good mags before I was born.

 

[amddragonpc]

Google will lower the search rankings of the sites who choose to sue for linking. Better yet, make it look like they don't exist. These sites are bad for business.

 

[lcpiper]

Thursday’s ruling, which guides a Dutch court making a final decision in the dispute, says the website may fall foul of copyright rules because the links were posted for profit in the full knowledge that the photos were published online without consent.

I think the operative words here are "for profit in the full knowledge that the photos were published online without consent."

If it get's too bad, post "placeholder images" a generic image for gaming news and another for hardware news. Instead of the admittedly sexier image of the newest video card you post a image of a generic 3D render of a video card. Or you go through the trouble of making sure your pics are safe for linkage meaning it's almost time for websites who post source / original images should be required to mark that the image can be published with consent.

If I put a pic up, I should be required by law to mark the image in a prescribed manner that says "I am OKing the image for linking. If the image isn't marked, consent isn't given and can't be inferred just because I posted it. Or the other way around but I think the first way is safer if you are going to allow people to sue over this shit.

 

[ruffbytes]

I can see the point here... someone created content and someone else is making money from the content by simply posting the link.

The argument I would make is that there is value (and in my mind content created) when someone assembles interesting links.

 

[lcpiper]

I can see the point here... someone created content and someone else is making money from the content by simply posting the link.

The argument I would make is that there is value (and in my mind content created) when someone assembles interesting links.

If it were me at Playboy, instead of my lawyer sending threats and take-down notices, I'd simply ask that credit be given where credit is due. If you link to my content, tell people it's my content, and your welcome. Advertising isn't cheap and advertising you don't have to pay for, or manage, is pretty good advertising. And even better, it's targeted. If it weren't of interest to the other site's customer base why would they link it?