Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 13:51:50 +0100, Jamie Hart wrote:
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
Roy did willfully infringe because he linked to the authors web page which
clearly spells out that he is required to contact the author for permission
to use the works. He can't claim to have not known, because he he
explicitly links there.
No argument there.
Ok.
Roy has obtained commercial advantage, because he collects revenue from
advertising on the page.
Here I will argue. You would have to prove that the image itself was
responsible for the revenue, i.e. that more advertising revenue was
generated with the image on the site than would be otherwise.
I disagree.
What a surprise :)
The image need only be used as part of the revenue generation.
For example. Talk radio regularly uses various bits of music in their
shows as intro and incidental music. This is not considered fair use, and
they have to pay for royalties to use that music.
Nice try at switching the argument, I have already agreed that Roy
infringed copyright (if your story is accurate). What we were
discussing is whether Roy obtained commercial advantage by using the image.
I still say that you have yet to prove that.
Actually, you're probably right by now, with the added interest in the
site generated by your original post the advertising revenue could well
have increased.
Maybe you could suggest to Roy which charity the extra revenue should go
to, otherwise it'll go to whichever charity he usually sends revenue
from the site to.
|
|