He's the one specifically replacing one thing with another under some circumstance. Not the person embedding it or the one hosting the image.
Yep, I think the wording might be "caused to be delivered".
If a man is using a telescope to look into my house to watch the football game, he does not get to be upset when I change the TV to weird inflation porn.
In a lot of jurisdictions, he does, especially if you did that knowing that he was watching.
Do you have a link to such a case? Genuinely asking because I want to know how the lawyers argue this in court without bursting into giggles from embarrassment.
Maybe the article is slanted, but he sounds like an exhibitionist, not someone minding their own business.
"in a place that can be seen through a telescope" is very different from "standing in front of a window clearly visible from the street" in a way that a court would, imo, not have trouble distinguishing.
Could this be solved by just adding some TOS to his site?
The UK law is a bit more subtle than that. Can't speak for other jurisdictions.
Third party site asks user's browser to request an image from the author. User requests an image from the author. Author says "sure thing", distributes an image of goatse to the user.
Author says "sure thing" and instructs the user's browser to request an image of goatse from someone else. User's browser does so then displays the image to the user.
The image is hosted on his site, so it seems reasonable that he is