On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:05:28 +0000, Edwards wrote:
> On 2006-06-14, flatfish+++ <flatfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> As for what Erik did, I'll bet the author of the images would have a
>> completely different opinion than you.
>
> Speaking as an academic scientist -- for whom copyright is just as
> much "the name of the game" as for any other writer or artist -- I
> will say for the record that if I were ever involved in a dispute over
> copyright with someone, I would absolutely object to some third party
> calling them a "criminal" or accusing them of "criminal copyright
> violation" without evidence thereof.
>
> (I.e., maybe the author _does_ share Erik's (unsupported) opinion that
> Roy is guilt of _criminal_ copyright infringement, but of course the
> plaintiff's opinion in any case is no more the "last word" in a
> dispute than the defendent's.)
Well we finally agree when all the words and terms get filtered out.
I've never been in that situation as a primary party, but I have been as a
secondary party where some work I played keyboards on was being used by a
very large soda company without permission from the person that owned it.
I got *scale* so it didn't matter to me but I was notified of it.
The problem was the tune was public domain but the performance was not.
It was an honest mistake and was fixed quickly.
--
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
|
|