> OK Bodi, I think we're getting close. I have streamlined the code and
removed
> references to Linda's stuff, so it will work more clearly. Please look at
>
> http://www.amherstrugby.org/myart3.html
>
> Assume that everyone at McDonalds hates this web page. Assume that there
is no
> parody defense, or fair use defense. Assume that I am trying to do harm
to the
> McDonalds corporation with this. Assume that I have asked McDonalds for
> permission to create this page, but Ronald himself denied me, thrice.
Assume
> that I proudly declare myself the owner of the page in open court. In
other
> words, pretend you are a judge, and McDonalds is throwing the full force
of
> their legal department at me.
>
> Question 1: Tell me, Judge Bodi, am I (as creator and responsible party
for the
> myart3 page) or anyone else infringing McDonalds's Copyright?
The viewer of the page is infringing McDonald's copyright. You did NOT create the McDonald's graphics on that page, but even if you did, or modified them, the page is infringing via a derivative work. Further, YOU as creator of the page, are contributing to that infringement, because you have created the code that creates the infringing work. Further, it is assumed that you viewed the work in progress, and thus actually infringed as well.
>
> I'd rather you keep it as close to "yes" or "no" as possible.
>
> Now, look at the following code (between the "<--" and "-->".
>
> <--
> <html>
> <body
> style="background-image:
>
url(http://www.mcdonalds.com/countries/usa/whatsnew/mcgriddles/img/mcgriddle
s.jpg);">
> <font size="+2" style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 51, 204);">This
> is my art. I hope you like it. This is all work of my own
> creation. I think it looks awesome.</font><br><br>
> <img style="width: 100px; height: 500px;"
>
src="http://www.mcdonalds.com/countries/usa/food/img/90x90_nutritionfacts.jp
g"><img
> style="width: 100px; height: 500px;"
>
src="http://www.mcdonalds.com/countries/usa/food/img/90x90_customize.jpg"><i
mg
>
src="http://www.bhs.berkeley.k12.ca.us/departments/Science/anatomy/anatomy97
/digestive/images/vomit.jpeg"
> style="width: 419px; height: 250px;"><img
> style="width: 419px; height: 250px;"
> src="http://www.mcdonalds.com/img/ww_splash.jpg"> <br>
> </body>
> </html>
> -->
>
> Quoting "Robert F. Bodi" <lawlists[_at_]bodi.com>:
> Keith Handley (> >) wrote:
> > > Is the HTML code below an infringement of Linda's copyright?
> >
> > If you copied is from her site, and the code is not purely functional
(i.e.,
> > it has some creative elements), then yes, it could be considered an
> > infringement.
>
> The only parts of the above code that could be said to be copied from the
> McDonalds site are the URLs of the images, for instance:
>
>
http://www.mcdonalds.com/countries/usa/whatsnew/mcgriddles/img/mcgriddles.jpg
>
> Question 2: Is the above HTML code (as part of this email) an infringment,
Judge
> Bodi, of McDonalds's copyrights? If so, who is infringing? Again, as
"Yes" or
> "No" as possible.
The HTML code, if written by you, is probably not an infringement, although the resulting web page is. I assume that the code is your own code, and it is not likely that merely taking an URL is sufficient to infringe copyright.
>
> Now, of course, I'm expecting that you will say "Yes" to Question 1 and
"No" to
> question 2. Then, since they are the same thing
They are NOT the same thing, and qualify for quite different protections under copyright. Your HTML code is nothing other than text. Without the machine to run it, it is NOT infringing. But once the code is run on a machine via a browser, it infringes.
(except one is being read by
> your eyes, while the other is being read by your browser) I will assert
that you
> have violated the law of contradiction,
I have not. By writing the code, you have instruced a computer to create an infringing web page. Thus, you may not be liable for direct infringement, but you are liable for contributory infringement, i.e., you CAUSED an infringement as a direct result of your actions. There is no non-infringing use of the code (i.e., it can be used ONLY to display the result), and thus you have no defense.
The fact that you can't understand that the two are quite different situations shows that you do not understand copyright law. And thus, all of your conclusions are suspect. Also, any child can tell you that the HTML code is NOT the result. They are quite different things. It's like saying that, if you mix all the ingredients of a cake together in a bowl, that is the same as the cake. And, of course, that is NOT the case. The ingredients must be properly "processed" to get a cake, just as the HTML must be executed to get the infringing work. But the code is a contribution to the infringement.
and I expect you to shimmer out of
> existence. If you say "yes" to both, I will think that you have undergone
a
> change of position, and if you say "no" to both, I will ask you to clarify
the
> infringement in the code. I would make sure that you would feel the same
if it
> were writ by hand on paper and distributed.
>
> Thanks.
>
> And to Linda, I think most of us recognize that it is courteous and may
> makes sense for many reasons to ask for your blessing before deep linking
to one
> of your pictures, if your site still allowed it. But also realize that
you have
> no idea where I got the exact URLs of the pictures I linked to.
Where YOU got the URL is irrelevant. The only issue is whether YOU have permission to post the images.
Perhaps I got
> them from somebody who (assuming your "I agree" button is legally
enforceable)
> is violating his agreement. Sure, he violated your contract, but I am not
> violating your contract. Since (as Brian and I claim) my webpage is not
doing
> any copying,
Your web page is CAUSING another device to do the copying. Thus, it contributes to the infringement, which makes you liable for contributory infringement.
> my webpage is not infringing on your copyright. I may be impolite
> or even evil for doing it, but asserting that the web and copyright are
what you
> think they should be does not make them so.
Asserting that an infringement is not an infringement does not make it so. Contributory infringement is infringement.
> You write as if the web and
> copyright were created for the express purpose of digital artists being
able to
> make a living.
Copyright WAS created for the purpose of artists being able to make a living, which, in turn, permits more creativity. The web is what it is. It does NOT give you the right to flaunt the law just because it exists.
-Bodi Received on Tue Aug 26 2003 - 22:30:11 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:50 GMT
