The question is the same as the title. The reason that I ask is because I had a screen shot of a site. The screen shot itself was not altered in any way and in fact that's the way the site looks now. The image was not interactive or flash. It was merely a regular image. I was suspended by my host BlueHost for "copyright violations" (bluehost does not hesitant to take the smallest controversy off) and had to remove the infringing images before my site was up and running again. It is wrong to have a sceenshot in and of itself or was it because I was being critical of the site and had a screenshot to add weight to my critical claims?
I don't get that (your host) I mean look at my web directory in the sig. I have over 5,000 screenshots. Maybe its because I'm a directory, giving me certain rights. Dunno.
You may have grounds to use a screen shot, however, the site probably filed a DMCA with bluehost and had to take action to protect themselves. You might be able to counter the DMCA, but you should consult an attorney before you do so. Probably not worth the hassle.
There is a difference between a full-size screen shot and a thumbnail - which I am guessing if what you are talking about.
It's really going to depend on how the screen shot was used. If you are willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars to litigate it in a court of law, then you should really consult an IP attorney.
If it is a thumbnail what you are doing is more likely to fall under fair use. Even then though you have to ask yourself if it's worth the money/hassle to fight it in court. Unless the image is integral to your website I would just remove it and move on.
It sounds like yours was very likely fair use. The DMCA notice was probably misused by the website whose image you were using. In fact, without knowing any of the facts, I suspect that the website even knew that your use was a fair use and bet (correctly) that you would take down the screenshot rather than have your own site taken down by your host. Your host has nothing to gain and a lot to lose if it ignores the DMCA notice, so its reaction is predictable. While the DMCA notice procedure largely helps expedite the process of challenging infringers, it sometimes is used to quell uses that are valid. You could probably challenge the notice, but is it worth it?
I would think that to safeguard yourself in the future, always get explicit permission from the site you want to use a screenshot of their site or any other content. This would prevent any misunderstanding in the future. I do not think that it is good to try to wiggle yourself out because of a loophole in the law or something. The truth is that you replicate a site without permission. I don't think I am able to see your website but was there any words associated with the screenshot which may in any way identify the website in question either in a positive or negative light ?
It is completely legal and you have nothing to worry about... see the following articles: http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2002dltr0006.html http://www.out-law.com/page-8065 (regarding Google's thumbnails) We (ShrinkTheWeb) also have thousands of sites (some of which are major) using our thumbnails without issue. Cheers, Brandon
As previously pointed out, it depends on the size of the screen shot. A thumbnail is different that a full-page screen shot.
Yes, I saw your comment and agree with it, but the original poster never confirmed if it was a fullscreen capture or not. Even IF it was a fullscreen capture, that is not illegal either. I agree with another post of yours that the owner of the other website probably complained and Bluehost simply won't spend time dealing with things like that. However, we have one client which I cannot name due to NDA who is using our thumbnail service at full resolution (1024x768 at 100% quality) and there have been no issues whatsoever. IMHO, I don't think anyone could successfully push any kind of case in regards to a screenshot, even if full-size, unless it was cropped to a specific copyrighted image and was not recognizable as a screenshot. I suppose that would be treading thin ice at that point. However, in my experience, if the complaintant cannot prove that you are blatantly copying their "publicly available" image, then you are OK. The only way for them to prove you are stealing is by embedding some sort of stegonography or checksum. If that were the case, then you would still be OK, because your screenshot cropped to just that part of the image would not contain that stegonography and would therefore not be the same copyrighted image. That is, however, just my opinion and no precedent of that nature has been made in a court of law yet. I'm sure it will at some point, though. Best regards, Brandon
Illegal or not, it won't stop someone from suing you. "Therefore, if one uses a screenshot of a copyrighted work without the proper license from the copyright holder, it is copyright infringement. One defense may be fair use, however, depending on the use of the screenshot and the extent to which the copyrighted work is the sole subject of the screenshot. Another possible defense may be that substantial changes were made to the original work so that the screenshot is a "new" piece of work." http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/notice.cgi?NoticeID=6222