SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Is it legal running a fusker script?

    Hi there,

    I was just wondering, is it legal to run a fusker script?

    When people fusk site for images, it's not like I'm hosting anything on my site. So I know for sure that that's not a law I will be breaking.. but it it legal to hotlink to other images, like most fusker tools do?
    My Blog
    Latest project: Romantikk.com (No)

  2. #2
    SQL Consultant gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    r937's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    39,341
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    thanks for the wikipedia link, i had never heard of that term before

    so basically you're asking whether hotlinking, leeching, piggy-backing, direct linking or bandwidth theft is legal?

    what do you think?
    rudy.ca | @rudydotca
    Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL
    "giving out my real stuffs"

  3. #3
    SitePoint Zealot detzX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There is not illegal about it but it's frowned upon. I don't understand why anyone would want to do this but I can't see someone suing as long as the images are not copy written and you're displaying them as your own.

    If I read it correctly this is what Google images is, they don't host all of those images.
    www.invoicejournal.com - Invoice clients for Free

  4. #4
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by r937 View Post
    thanks for the wikipedia link, i had never heard of that term before

    so basically you're asking whether hotlinking, leeching, piggy-backing, direct linking or bandwidth theft is legal?

    what do you think?
    When you say it like that, of course it sounds bad..
    But isn't this just what Google Images and several other search engines does? They don't host them, own them or ask for the rights to display them.

    The only different between these services and a fusker, is that with the fusker you deside what site you want the images from?
    My Blog
    Latest project: Romantikk.com (No)

  5. #5
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy bluedreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Middle England
    Posts
    3,404
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Some adult sites I worked on had some content "fuskered" and it took up a sizable chunk of their bandwidth (hotlinking to generate thumbs). The fusker sites were asked to remove the content and ensure the hotlinking wasn't repeated, howver this didn't happen and then the lawyers got involved - I'll say no more

  6. #6
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,870
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Displaying images from other sites uses the bandwidth from that other site that the site owner is paying for - it is in effect stealing.

    Sites are unlikely to complain about a search engine displaying their images since that is basically a form of advertising for the site.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  7. #7
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy C. Ankerstjerne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Kingdom of Denmark
    Posts
    2,702
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In addition to the possible legal implications, it is easy for the victim server to send different output to one specific site. I'm quite certain that your visitors would not appreciate being slammed with hardcore porn, where they were expecting baby pictures (which could also get your site shut down, depending on your ISP).
    Christian Ankerstjerne
    <p<strong<abbr/HTML/ 4 teh win</>
    <>In Soviet Russia, website codes you!

  8. #8
    SitePoint Zealot beejereeno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Saint Paul, MN - USA
    Posts
    132
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yeah I agree this isn't good. It's people who do this image fusking/hotlinking that constantly frustrate webmasters/website owners and we are seething with rage knowing that all these image hits are not only keeping us from seeing good numbers in our stats, but that we also have to develop .htaccess and other texts/scripts to keep this from happening again. What a headache.
    -Bobbi Jo
    -----------------------------------------------
    www.bwoodsdesign.com

    Your Website Solutions Start Here

  9. #9
    Follow Me On Twitter: @djg gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Grossman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Philadephia, PA
    Posts
    20,578
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DreyerMedia View Post
    When you say it like that, of course it sounds bad..
    But isn't this just what Google Images and several other search engines does? They don't host them, own them or ask for the rights to display them.

    The only different between these services and a fusker, is that with the fusker you deside what site you want the images from?
    Google does host its thumbnails; it doesn't leech bandwidth off the sites to display its search results. They walk the line on copyright with both the image caching and full webpage caching, but no judge would order them to stop since it's to the greater benefit of society that they continue doing so.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •