Given that Model Mayhem isn't an educational institution and is a "for profit" institution, I suspect we can't rely upon "educational use."

Just so we are very clear, this is a curiousity question only. I have zero desire to turn this conversation into a heated or emotional discussion. I am not "outing" anyone. If I had serious concerns, I would address a moderator offline and let him or her deal with it. I am just curious if this bridge has been crossed before. And if it has, what justifications have others used.

First, I've wondered about related issues myself.  Personally, if I choose to link to someone else's work in the forums, I make it a direct link, rather than embedding it in the thread.  There might be an exception, but it's very rare.

And, second, with regard to the portion of your comment that I quoted; I think images are different.  I'd certainly rather people post my images as a whole (with credit) than crop them to suit their purposes.

Agreed, linking to an image shouldn't be a big deal or any deal at all.

My question concerned embedding an image using the other person's server or "taking" the image and hosting on a different server before embedding the image.

I am the same.

Here my view is slightly different than yours. If you show the whole image, then you've taken that photographer's complete item of work. If your concern was to demonstrate that the photographer focused on the eyes, then could you not just show that the eyes are sharply focused. However, if you wanted to show a model's pose, then you have to show the entire image in most cases. Perhaps as the photographer, as you suggest, you'd prefer that the whole image were used. The key question remains though, can you use an entire image?

With regard to giving credit, my view is again slightly different. I once had a woman steal seven images from my Flickr account. She then downsized and degraded (used a lower level of file compression), and rehosted the images at their company's hosted web service in the U.S. She and her husband ran a hotshot trucking service (fast delivery service). She took seven of my Alberta pictures and used them to demonstrate the beauty of Alberta while promoting her business. When she hosted my pictures, she linked back to my Flickr site and gave me credit. I assume she believed that giving credit was all that was required. In my view, her giving me credit was her admission that she stole my pictures. In the end, I filed a DMCA with her web host in the U.S. to remove my pictures. Within 24 hours, the pictures were removed. The point of this long story is that credit doesn't necessarily mean much.

My situation above was clearly different. I had an individual that attempted to use my work to drive traffic to her commercial site. My MM question is a much different question.

Although I have some different viewpoints than you, I am not anchored to them. I honestly don't know what is and is not ethical or permissible.

users don't post the entirety of the photo; that would be enormous. it's almost always a sized-down version.

I will grant that further sizing down would be a good idea, to illustrate the fact that only, say, 10% of the original pixels were used (for a 12Mpxl image, that means a ~300x400 example)

I think we're speaking past each other. Yes, agreed, using a prosumer or above camera will generate generally 10Mpxl or above. And, yes, there's no point putting that size of an image on the internet because it is too big for a browser/computer screen to show as a complete picture. We agree.

However, if a photographer shows a 800px by 1200px of an image, then that is his complete image he has chosen to display. Let's say it's pivotal moment the 7th game of the Stanley Cup or whatever. If someone were to take the photographer's 800px by 1200px image and "rebroadcast" it, they have taken his entire image. He didn't isolate on just a portion of the image that was shown. He took the entire image that the photographer chose to show on the internet. Perhaps the photographer works for or is part of a news organization that only broadcasts on the internet. Their published images are their works that are copyrighted.

For images that are displayed on the internet, yes, they are downsized. My question is, Can someone else use the entire "internet image" elsewhere?

To do as I endorsed, she would have linked to your Flickr *instead of* posting the copies of your images, and said something like "here are some beautiful images of Alberta by Stecyk" . . ..   

As far as the "part or whole," I consider cropping just a portion of the image to be (an offensive) derivative work.  Again, they can just link to my page and say "I like what you did with the eyes here."

And, I just thought of the exception to my earlier statement.  I have posted the MM forum link version of someone else's images to illlustrate a point.  But, that would be the version that links back to the portfolio, like this (which happens to be my work, just something SFW)

Art of the nude wrote:
To do as I endorsed, she would have linked to your Flickr *instead of* posting the copies of your images, and said something like "here are some beautiful images of Alberta by Stecyk" . . ..   

As far as the "part or whole," I consider cropping just a portion of the image to be (an offensive) derivative work.  Again, they can just link to my page and say "I like what you did with the eyes here."

And, I just thought of the exception to my earlier statement.  I have posted the MM forum link version of someone else's images to illlustrate a point.  But, that would be the version that links back to the portfolio, like this (which happens to be my work, just something SFW)

We're on the same page.

There doesn't seem too much disagreement, yet I frequently see other people's images from servers outside MM embedded in forum posts. I remain curious as to ethics and legality. Perhaps a moderator will weigh in.

Uh, it's not a criminal matter. It's a civil matter. Unless it's organized crime, the FBI won't be involved. Thus, I doubt anyone has been extradited to the U.S. Foreigners caught breaking copyright laws are most likely tried in their own jurisdiction.

Regardless, you'd be amazed at how pissy some people get when their copyrights are violated.

Here's an example where a small time blogger had his article copied by a small time newspaper. See how this blogger reacts and handles his situation:

YouTube: Blogger Asserts Copyright, Newspaper Editor Gets Irate

That's my intuitive guess as well. As mentioned in my opening post, I was curious. When I need or want to refer to other images, I will continue to post links.

Thank you for your input.

OP I'm not sure why you've posted links to sites that refer to US copyright laws / fair usage being as you live in Canada where copyrights are much different.

~ MR

Because most, but not all, of us using this forum are Americans. As you might note in my original question, I was curious about the ethics and legalities. My purpose is not to out others. Rather, I was and am curious when I see others posting images in their posts and threads. In other words, I am trying to cast the (inter)net as wide as possible so that it addresses most posts that contain embedded photographs that don't belong to the poster.

Now, with regard to Canadian copyright stuff, I have registered some of my images with the U.S. copyright office. And, as you might have read in my earlier post about an Alberta woman using my Alberta pictures hosted on her blog's American server, I used the American DMCA to get my images off her company's web site. Surprised that I relied on American legislation to solve a Canadian problem?

And if that weren't enough, because we are dealing with the internet, it's questionable as to which jurisidiction applies. As as an example, we can look to Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick. Gutnick was/is an Australian. Dow Jones wrote some not so complimentary things about him. Gutnick sued in Australian courts. Dow Jones countered that an American newspaper for an American audience using American equipment, including servers, doesn't belong in Australian courts. Unfortunately for Dow Jones, the Australian courts agreed with Gutnick. Isn't the internet wonderful, where it opens the possibility to forum shopping?

Going back to your comment about my living in Canada, so what? And given that the Canadian copyright stuff is being reviewed/rewritten, do you even know which parts are different and by how much? Are you legally qualified to address those differences?