Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Be my guest. It's *NEVER* had any images of any kind on any public pages,
> and the private pages were test pages for clients i was working on. So
> please, spare me the conjecture.
I'm sure thats true and I have no intention of puting it to the test.
I was actually trying to make a point (poorly perhaps) about how petty
that sort of activity would be.
>> As for Roy's alleged transgression, we need to consider scale
>> and intent before passing any moral judgment.
>
> No, we do not. He deliiberately copied the image to his local server, and
> is hosting it on a site (which he gains revenue from, by the way, via
> advertising). Yes, he credited the original author, and linked to his web
> site which explicitly outlines the rules for using his works. He must
> contact the author.
Yes, and it is exactly because he linked back to the original authors
site and did not try and claim the work as his own that I am willing
to cut him some slack when passing moral (not legal) judgment. This
looks like an honest mistake. Many people do it. Not everyone is an
expert in copyright law.
> Irrelevant. Plenty of people have violated the GPL and not claimed the
> work as their own, that doesn't stop the GPL community from condemming
> them.
Yup, sometimes people get in a tizzy over unintentional abuse of the
GPL and will go on a witch hunt. That doesn't make it right, and it
doesn't mean you need to grab your own pitchfork.
>> The original author might even benefit from some additional
>> exposer.
>
> The classic pirate justification.
Perhaps, but there is actually some evidence to suggest that piracy is
less of a problem than the labels and studios would have you believe,
and is in fact counterbalanced by the increased brand exposer. For
example, a recent study suggests that people who download music via
file sharing also legally purchase more music. I mention this not to
defend copyright infringement, just to suggest that a less draconian
approach to combating it would be more productive. DRM is more likely
to kill the traditional content industry than help it... but I digress.
>> It might be copyright infringement in the strictest sense
>> (though sometimes you can make a fair use argument if it is part of
>> a larger body of work)
>
> You can't use fair use. Fair use would be if, for example, he was
> critiquing the artwork (even then, it would be difficult to justify
> including the whole work).
I'll concede this point, having not viewed the image in question or
the context it was displayed in.
>> and if the author tells him to remove it, he probably should;
>
> The author shouldn't have to.
In a perfect world, yes, but humans make mistakes. That is why copyright
law is written with some flexibility allowing for the self policing of
this sort of thing before ever progressing to the courts. [1]
>> but this is hardly a hanging offense. In short,
>> cut Roy some slack, let him and the original author sort this out
>> on their own. If you want to criticize his posts in COLA, then
>> do so, but keep the personal attacks out of it. It only makes you
>> look bad.
>
> Roy has no problem making personal attacks against anyone else, including
> the very article in which the artwork is present on.
Perhaps that is so, I haven't looked at the article in questions. You
have no control over the person Roy chooses to be, only the person
you choose to be. I personally have no problem with most of what you
post on COLA, in fact I welcome your opinions even when I disagree with
them. Hell, I've even stepped up and defended you when I thought you
were being ripped on unfairly. I only ask that we try to keep the
discussion at least slightly relevant to linux advocacy. When you
resort to attacking the messenger instead of the message, you really
just end up damaging yourself.
Peace,
Thad
[1] I've never been involved in a copyright dispute, but I've had some
similar experiences defending a trademark. I tend not to take it
personal as long as it can be resolved with a few friendly letters
back and forth.
|
|
