Waldo Jaquith

links for 2010-04-23


2 Comments

Hmm, the NYT article says Current TV used the photo by “inlining or framing”. I’m not a big fan of framing, but it’s different from what I’d call inlining. Framing would include the original HTML context of the image (though that might not include credits). It’s strange that neither Current TV nor the judge gave any explanation of their side. Presumably Current TV’s lawyers made some sort of argument for the defense.

Posted by KCinDC on 24 April 2010 @ 10am

That’s a good point—the two are totally different things technologically. I’d seen the second word (“framing”) and dismissed it as an explanatory word for the great majority of readers not familiar with inlining. But, of course, it’s plausible that they displayed it in a frame. Even that raises a whole thicket of issue. If they used an iframe of the width and height of the image in question, with contents that consisted solely of that image, that’s functionally the same as inlining. OTOH, if they had a Digg/About.com-style top frame on the top 10% of the page, and the bottom 90% was simply turned over to The New Yorker’s site, then that’s an entirely different matter.

Yeah, an explanation here would be good.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 24 April 2010 @ 12pm