[jim201]

“This undermines the entire point of the open graph protocol (at least for images). If you have to manually review every image that you include then what's the point in it being a machine protocol?”

Bingo.

Ianal but it feels like if you provide an image via an open graph link, you’re implicitly licensing that image to consumers of the Open Graph protocol to be displayed alongside a link/link metadata.

If the media company didn’t have the rights to relicense that image for consumption via Open Graph and/or the original licensor didn’t want their images appearing via Open Graph, that media company shouldn’t be using Open Graph.

That is such a frustrating situation. I hope the courts would have ruled in your favor but I understand why you chose not to test it.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Wonder if it was like that law firm that Ars Technica wrote about[0], that seeded porn videos, then went after people who downloaded them.

Things did not end well, for that lot.

[0] https://arstechnica.com/tag/prenda-law/

[wombatpm]

Prenda Law. They ended up disbarred and in jail eventually. But it took a Federal Judge calling bullshit in open court and making personal referrals to the IRS, the DOJ, and the various State Bar Associations.

[hofo]

The use of opengraph doesn’t change the usage rights on the content that the opengraph tag refers to