On 12 Jun 2006 11:43:35 -0400, Ray Ingles wrote:
> Now that we've gotten the sarcasm out of the way (what, you thought I
> was serious?) maybe we can actually talk here. Copyright infringement is
> *not* okay, but there are degrees. Roy did not claim the work was his
> own (which is why the charges of plagiarism are obviously baseless) and
> indeed linked to the original author explicitly. This alone indicates no
> malicious intent.
I didn't say he was plagerizing. Malicious is also not the right word, as
that would indicate some kind of attack. You probably mean no criminal
intent, and that might have been true initially, but now that he's been
informed (by me) that he's infringing, his refusal to remove the infringing
work signifies deliberate and willfull infringement.
> Now, once the artist had been appraised of the situation, did he
> contact Roy? That is an indication of his perception of the situation -
> infringement, faux pas, or traffic driver.
Whether or not the author contacted him is irrelevant. Roy knows he's
infriging, yet he continues to do so. That seems to indicate that he
believes it's ok to infringe until he's ordered not to.
> The original posting was definitely a mistake, but I have seen no
> indication - whatsoever, even from the trolls - of a *pattern* of
> similar behaviour on Roy's part. I have also seen no indication - from
> *anyone* - that he refused to take it down despite the request of the
> artist, which to my mind would be a far more serious infraction.
I don't know if the artist has contacted him or not. But regardless of
that, Roy now knows he's infringing, yet he's done nothing.
> Basically, I fail to understand why this is such a big deal. A
> regrettable mistake, but not the crisis you and others have presented it
> as.
It would be a regrettable mistake if he took it down when it was pointed
out, but the fact that he continues is just pig headed stubborness. Can't
let us "win". He'd rather continue to infringe than admit he's wrong.
> Here, if you really want to attack someone, hit me up for this:
>
> http://ingles.homeunix.org/presos/quake/index.html
>
> Look at those header graphics. I'm using Id Software's graphics! Heaven
> forfend! You'd better let them know right away that someone is referring
> to them with instructions on how to run their games on Linux, helping
> them to sell their games!
This looks like a good case of fair use. You're using the images to
advertise the open source quake that id themselves have made available
(likely with implied permission to use the graphics as well).
|
|
