>
> My personal opinion is that inline linking is different from framing,
> and that the type of framing you describe should not be a COPYRIGHT
> violation. Putting something on the Web must be considered an implied
> license to display it on the user's computer. So long as the complete
> display can be seen by scrolling up and down or right and left, the fact
> that it is framed by another site should, in my opinion, be a matter of
> unfair competition law, not copyright. But courts that enforce "terms
> and conditions" on a site, whether there is actual consent or not, would
> disagree.
My argument that the image is NOT being displayed as intended. The web page author intends that the entire browser window display the image, including any ads or popups. Framing can give a misleading impression of origin, etc. Thus, it is not enough to display the entire page, one must display it as the author intended. The frame might be considered an unauthorized derivative work, and thus violate copyright. Displaying an entire page, but adding material, as in framing, is still a violation of copyright, IMHO. There is no implied consent for such displays.
>
> I think the more applicable theory is unfair competition, i.e., that
> framing that might confuse the user as to sponsorship or origin. If it
> is confusing, it definitely should not be done. But I think most web
> users are saavy enough to understand that the framed site is not
> endorsing or giving permission to the framing site, so I don't think
> this theory should be upheld either, as a general matter.
I agree that unfair competition is also a strong cause of action under the facts, but so is copyright infringement.
-Bodi Received on Sat Apr 05 2003 - 04:44:23 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:48 GMT