> 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.
His piece of HTML does not include the image itself and therefore cannot be a derivitive work, because it does not include any elements of original expression owned by McDonalds. See Feist for the standard needed to prove infringement. See Ticketmaster for the fact that a link is not a copy. There is no display that is present in the literal HTML.
When **I** load the page, on my single machine, the image is copied and displayed with the other content. I posted my licence. You can pretend that it doesn't exist or bury your head in the sand and refuse to read it, but aside from nihilistic denial of reality, the text of what I posted says it is "OK" for me to retrieve their image to my machine for use with "http://www.amherstrugby.org/myart3.html".
When I put "OK" and the URL in quotes, that is because it is a literal quotation from the licence.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:50 GMT