The compact oxford English dictionary (2005) defines ethics as a set of principles that influence conduct. Here we attempt to analyze whether Ditto.com uses ethical practices on its website. The photographs on the internet are the intellectual property of the photographer or their owner. The case illustrates that Ditto.com uses its spider to collect images as it crawls across the internet. It then selects ranks, filters, and rates pictures and indexes the website from which the images were taken. If a user generates a query, Ditto.com displays thumbnail versions of the original image to the user. Doing so Ditto.com only picks up images and indexes them to the users. It does not give Ditto.com the ownership to these images and in my opinion, should be subjected to copyright protection. Ditto.com does not acquire the right to collect these images and distribute them through its website. Its crawler does not differentiate between commercial websites and other websites. For example, it picked up pictures from Leslie Kelly’s website that actually generates business from those very images.
In my opinion, reducing the size of the photograph does not actually transform it. I do not agree with Judge Taylor’s argument described in the case. Even a thumbnail-sized image of the original image is actually a miniature copy of the original image. Photography is an art in its self, a picture captures the view of the world that a professional artist wants it to capture. It shows the world through the photographer’s point of view and therefore uses the artist’s creative potential. Therefore, even if it is reduced in size it, in essence, shows the same viewpoint of the artist and should be classified as the intellectual property of the artist.
Moreover, the site also allows the viewer to save and download the images that are retrieved from the website. There are a number of software available nowadays that allow a user to enlarge an image and redefine its pixels to improve image quality. Therefore, even from a reduced thumbnail picture reforming a detailed bigger version is a possibility that could not be ruled out. Therefore, images should be protected by copyright laws that govern copyrighting of text and similar intellectual property.
In my opinion, simple indexing of the photographs (without the consent of the artist) carried out by Ditto.com does not qualify for a copyright offense. However, indexing that allows duplication and copying of images are objectionable. Otherwise indexing the photographs can actually help in creating web traffic for the original website provided that Ditto.com redirects the users to the websites where the original content is stored. Ditto.com should combat its critics by coming clean on its indexing of images. It can easily restrict downloading of images by setting up controls on its website. If a user generates a query for images Ditto.com can index the images but restrict access to retrieve images and instead direct users to original websites. The users can see for themselves if an image is accessible for free or carries a price tag. If Ditto.com is ethically sound it should reconsider its image viewing status. It should address this issue and by queries to the original artist’s website, it will not even bypass the home page or other promotional material of the related website. If Ditto.com builds such ethical Webhosting of images collected by its spider artists or related stakeholders will not object to it. In fact, Ditto.com can charge for indexing search results prior to other searches for websites and generate revenues from its ranked index.
However, subsequent copying and distribution of the images after indexing them on its websites is an infringement of copyrights. In my opinion, Ditto.com should be penalized for this particular offense.
Ditto.com claims that it transforms images by reducing them in size as it is not a real transformation. It should be held accountable not for indexing the images but for permitting their duplication online without the consent of the artist who took them.
References
Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English (2005) 3rd ed. Oxford, Clarendon.