Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RawAlex
Sorry, but the person putting up the free site would still be the publisher (Not the domain owner, as they will have contractually given the space to the end webmaster - so the end webmaster would once again be liable to provide 2257 information (major entry point).
Further, free hosting is now a huge risk business, as webmasters can post up graphics and images that are not 2257 compliant, and can put the domain holder into a lot of shit. Freehosting is the answer to a question everyone should have stopped asking a long time ago.
Alex
|
I don't think the gallery maker would be 2nd publisher if he neither owns the content nor the domain and publishes the images on a domain owned by the publisher.
That would be like calling someone working in a print factory the publisher of a newspaper. He would simply be a commission based sales person working for the company.
Alot of major sponsors have freehosting for their webmasters, and simply if by default they add an include file at the bottom of every .html page I don't see why the webmaster should have anything to worry about.
The sponsor should clearly be very strict about people only using content they provide.
Anyway, I am not too worried about it since I don't live in the USA, but I hope for you guys this has a happy ending and get's fixed so it is not as unfair as it is at the moment.