Lizzer: A Copyright/Hotlinking Disaster

By Jonathan Bailey • Oct 8th, 2008 • Category: Articles, Legal Issues, Products

I’ve always felt that improving the plagiarism/content misuse climate on the Web has been a two-pronged fight. First you have to stop the scrapers, plagiarists and other bad guys from ripping off writers and artists. Second, you have to create ways that legitimate users can access and share content that benefit both the artist and the user.

As part of the second approach, I make it a point to seek out and highlight services that assist and encourage the legal reuse of content. In fact, on Monday I wrote a column for the Blog Herald detailing five sites/services that can help bloggers get images for their posts.

However, when I found out later that day about a new service called Lizzer, which supposedly “is the easiest way to add links and embed content on the Web” I was initially very excited. But as I used the service and saw first hand how it works, my optimism turned to horror as I realized that Lizzer does not enable legitimate reuse of images or content, but rather, encourages both copyright infringement and image hotlinking.

Lizzer, sadly, shares very little in common with the services that I featured in my Blog Herald article and, instead, gives Webmasters, especially those who work with images, a lot of reason to worry.

All Rights Reserved

When I first logged in to my new Lizzer account, I instantly noticed an issue with the service. From the very first page load I could start searching for content. But, while most of the content was innocent, YouTube embeds and links to articles, one of the options was to use a Flickr search.

While that sounds great, without knowing what licensing terms I wanted, the service had no means of telling which images I could use legally. As such, I knew that there was a decent chance it could return images not appropriate for my sites.

Still, I performed a search for the term “plagiarism” and opened up the Flickr dropdown. Below is a snapshot of what I saw, notice the first image, which is highlighted.

It seemed odd to me because I’ve done a similar photo search using Photo Dropper, which filters for my CC licenses, and have never seen this image in the results. After clicking the “Preview” button followed by the “Source” link, I was able to see why. I was taken to this page, where, at the bottom, I saw the following copyright notice.

The image is “All Rights Reserved” and is marked so clearly in the Flickr API. This image should never have appeared in these search results as embedding it could land a Webmaster in trouble should the owner of the image decide to complain.

However, Lizzer wasn’t done. There were still other features to explore and the worst was yet to come.

Hotlinking from Google Image Search

Though the Flickr issue seemed serious to me, it only affected a small number of photographers and artists, namely those who post all rights reserved images to Flickr, and, since Yahoo! was paying the bandwidth tab, it seemed unlikely many would complain.

However, as I looked through the service’s options, I noticed that I had the ability to add Google image search. I immediately cringed because I know well that the vast majority of images displayed in Google Image Search are protected by copyright. Though Google itself is protected by fair use, it is unlikely that any full-sized use of the content by a user of Lizzer would have the same benefit.

I performed a similar search for “plagiarism” and opened up the Google Search list. The results I saw are below. Again, pay attention to the first image, the highlighted image of Bart Simpson.

I once again followed the image to the source and was then taken to this page. Once again, there was no mention of Creative Commons or any other license to use the image. From a legal standpoint, copying and pasting the whole image is potentially very dangerous (Note: I’m completely ignoring the use of the copyrighted character in this work and treating it as a wholly original image for the sake of originality).

However, the real surprise came when I used the fake blog post to try and embed the image. Clicking the link caused the image to appear in the post, exactly as planned, but then I looked at the code that the embed feature created. I saw the following:

The image, as you see below, is hotlinked straight from the original server, in this case, pandemiclabs.com.

In addition to raising a series of issues about copyright infringement and content misuse, we now also have to worry about abuse of resources. If I were to actually use this image code, not only would I be using the image without permission, but I would be using their bandwidth and server resources to do it.

Obviously, a lot of Webmasters are not going to be happy about this. Not only is Lizzer making their content available for use when no license was granted but, in many cases, is encouraging bloggers to hotlink images straight from the original server without permission. The worst part is that, someone using Lizzer, might think that the service is like Photo Dropper or Zemanta and that they have permission to use everything they see.

Clearly though, that is not the case.

Defending Lizzer

In Lizzer’s Defense, the service is currently in alpha and the version that you see today will likely change before the final release. However, a bookmarklet is already available for wide use and works well with all major blogging platforms, including WordPress, Blogger, MovableType, Tumblr, etc. This means that Lizzer is currently in use by at least some bloggers, many of whom are likely unaware of the copyright issues.

Fortunately though, most of Lizzer’s functionality is centered around finding links and videos to embed. Due to the way YouTube sets up their service, disabling embedding is easy for those that chose to do so, an issue that Flickr has not been able to address.

Out of all the search features they offer, only the Flickr search and the Google Image search seem to have any serious issues. However, they are pretty big problems that are both very easy to see and even easier to avoid. Flickr offers an API that allows you to look for CC-licensed work and there are many ways to search for licensed images.

I’m not going to be so bold as to say that finding licensed images is a “solved problem” but it is clear to me that Lizzer is a step backwards from well-established solutions.

However, what is most disconcerting to me is that I emailed Lizzer on Monday to raise these issues. At that time, the Google Images search feature was not working correctly and the hotlinking issues were not present. Unfortunately though, as of this writing, no one has written me back and the Google Image search function has come back online.

Though I grant that Lizzer is currently very buggy, I experienced multiple issues trying to take these screenshots, it is more than usable and that is bad news for content creators, especially those who work primarily with images.

Conclusions

The simple truth is that Lizzer, in its current form, is very dangerous both for Webmasters who publish content and its members that use Lizzer to find content to embed. With so many great tools already available for finding and embedding licensed content, Lizzer not only seems risky to use, but also dated.

Hopefully Lizzer can correct these issues and make itself a respectable content location tool. However, in its current form it not only misses many of the best sources of licensed material, but leads users to embed things that they do not have the right to.

There simply is no reason to use Lizzer right now, there are much better services available. Granted, Lizzer is in an alpha state, but it has already shown a great deal of disregard for Webmaster content and the legal safety of their service.

Unfortunately, in my experience, these aren’t so much “bugs” as they are flaws in the thinking of the developers. Thus, they are much harder to fix.

Hopefully though, they will be able to resolve these issues, for their sake and ours.

Short URL to this Post: http://copybyte.com/z/7y

Jonathan Bailey is The Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today, which he founded in 2005 as a way to help Webmasters going through content theft problems get accurate information and stay up to date on the rapidly-changing field. He is also a consultant to Webmasters and companies to help them devise practical content protection strategies and develop good copyright policies.
Email this author | All posts by Jonathan Bailey

  • I think your spot on here for the hotlinking directly to images. I know plenty of people who not only disable hotlinking on their own servers, but go so far as to serve a completely different image to those who choose to hot link it.

    Not to mention its poor form in the webmasters style to have images coming from lots of hosts...

    As a photographer I would be furious if someone hot linked my images. The images I put on flickr are lower resolution and the ones people are free to use say so in the CC area.

    Shame on Lizzer for not making their searches just search things are that usable by the public under CC from flickr.

    Hopefully they will make some changes.
  • I hope so too, as it sits right now it is only a matter of time before many of their users wind up in a very bad place thanks to Lizzer's "service". I hope they make the needed changes.
  • Hi Jonathon, I had such a problem with my old links blog Pig Pen and Myspacers hotlinking to images that I ended up first feeding them advertisements, and then when it got too time consuming I just closed the site and deleted the database.

    Google Image Search has a lot to answer for.

    I did want to mention my other concern. While doing subcontract web design / template work a few months ago the organisation who contracted me almost demanded that I just get free images off Flickr. Whereas I usually would use iStockphoto, or my own stock photography collection that I take myself.

    This same demand came very early in the year from a multinational corporation as well.

    Now my concern with Flickr. Does someone necessarily ( I don't mean legally, but morally ) understand that they are making these images available to be used? I'm of the opinion that regardless of what they are tagged on Flickr the majority of users are not super clued into tech, law or even common sense. For example, look at the number of family / children photos, or crowd shots of people. or any number of images that would both surprise and outrage someone if they turned up in a Coke ad or a Cigarette commercial or on someone elses desktop or private collection.

    My concern is that people, being unaware to a great extent, have made available all these private images without "wanting" them to be displayed, used or ogled over. Ignorance I admit, but this is essentially a non-tech world.

    So, I just won't use images that are out there for "free" because I am very aware that the vast majority weren't explicitly put there for people to use. They just chose Flickr to upload images, didn't read the fine print and hey their 3 year old is being viewed by old men in Russia.

    I have also been a Google Images victim on numerous occasions, although by deleting my old blogs and starting again it's improved.

    Interesting article. I'd like these tools to clearly find ways to ensure that only images "intended for reuse" are shown, as opposed to just legally available.
  • I understand your worry, especially with Flickr. I agree that there are many who upload their images to Flickr, as well as other sites, that may not fully appreciate the consequences of their action. Some of that is the fault of the sites involved, such as Flickr making their API terms vague and hard to understand, and some of it is just flat out stupidity, people who don't realize that if you post something to the Web anyone can view it.

    Forgetting the legalities for a second, I agree that it is ethically wrong to use a legal loophole to take advantage of people's confusion. However, there is a fine line between someone who is legitimately confused and merely stupid.

    For example, if someone posts an image to Flickr, is it wrong for me to link to it? They might not have known it would be available to the world and wanted it to be kept private. However, if that is the case, they should have set their account to private or the image to friends only. Flickr provides tools and controls to help with that. Just because someone didn't think through every consequence of their action does not mean it is my responsibility to ensure that they never suffer any ill effects from it. If that were the case, then the whole Web breaks down.

    Personally, I realize that the Flickr API is insanely confusing so I don't use images from it. That is, unless, it has been clearly marked with a Creative Commons License for such use. The user has to reach in and change that themselves. That is a deliberate action to set that flag.

    Do some people not realize what it means to CC license a photo? Sure. Ask Virgin Mobile about that, But when you license an image it is your responsibility to research what you are doing, not the person on the other end who is following the terms of the license.

    All in all, I think it is unwise for a company with deep pockets and a big budget to use Flickr. Not only is it unnecessary, but it can lead to court dramas and a damaged reputation. I don't encourage the behavior myself, especially with mainstream stock photos being so cheap.

    That being said, there are dangers with iStockPhoto as well, I know many artists who have had their works ripped off and sold there, forcing them to file DMCA notices with the service.

    Nothing is 100% safe I am sad to say.

    Thank you for the food for thought!
blog comments powered by Disqus