Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 07:27:10 -0400, mlw wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:02:20 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's very ironic, coming from someone as ethically-challenged as
>>>> you, Erik.
>>>
>>> Well, nice to know that you condone and approve of illegal behavior,
>>> Chris.
>>
>> I'm not sure I would consider it illegal. There are probably good
>> arguments on both sides as to whether or not the use falls under fair
>> use, but this is between the author and the alleged violator.
>
> There is no possible fair use test this would pass. 1) It uses the
> complete work.
The "portion" of the work used is subject to interpretation. If the work is
small, say a cartoon, "whole" may be the only portion reasonably usable as
fair use.
> 2) He does not own a copy of the work in any form.
The only people who "own" the work are the people who "own" the work.
Everyone else has access rights as assigned by copyright law. If the work
is published publically, he has certain rights to it.
> 3) The
> work is deliberately posted with details on how to license it.
Assuming you can prove the site you claim is the origin and that the noticed
was posted at or before the time of acquisition.
> 4) He is collecting revenue via advertising through the use of the image.
Fair use does not prohibit making a secondary profit. Works, such as an
article which makes use of content via "fair use," can and do make money.
Not from the sale of "fair use" work, but because of the work of the
article's author. It does get sticky if it can be proved that the body of
the work is primarily fair use, but that's a matter for the courts.
>
>> What is clear, is that *you* have no standing in this case.
>
> Irrelevant.
Not at all.
> That doesn't stop people like Harald Welte from filing GPL
> lawsuits against companies violating the GPL, especially considering he's
> not the author of the works in any way.
Harald had to create a theory for his supposed standing, and while absurd,
was legally defensible. Had he not had standing he could not have brought
action. Suffice to say, his point was absurd but he had the right to bring
the case.
>
>> You are not
>> party to any dispute and can't even claim to be a stake holder. So, in
>> fact, it is you that are being libelous. (1) You are making public claims
>> that you know you can not prove. (2) You are doing it for the express
>> intent of harming someone's reputation or malice.
>
> Iam not making claims I cannot prove.
To make those claims you must be privy to facts and circumstances that you
are not. There are plenty ways that this not copyright violation or at a
minimum not even a crime. Even if it was a copyright violation, the author
merely has to say "please remove that" and as long as Roy does as
requested, there is no crime.
> I have email from the author of the
> work stating that Roy iis violating his copyrights.
Well, is he a lawyer? District Attorney? He may think anything he likes,
that does not make it so. Has he contacted Roy and asked him to remove the
content? Until that happens, it is not likely Roy has broken any laws.
>> So, if he wanted to sue you, it probably would be his right.
>
> Let him.
He should.
|
|
