>
> --- "Robert F. Bodi" <lawlists[_at_]bodi.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
I didn't say that the HTML was a derivative work. The resulting image/web page displayed on a browser is a derivative work. The image was created via the HTML directions, and thus CONTRIBUTED to the infringement. Thus, contributory infringement.
>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.
You are NOT merely making a link. You are embedding the image in a NEW page using a link. If you read Ticketmaster, you will see that an important issue was whether there was any misrepresentation of where the info was originating. In the middle of the case, the defendant changed the way they displayed information because they knew that were losing.
And I did NOT say the HTML was infringing. In fact, I said quite the opposite.
>
> 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".
Your "license" is not a license by any definition of the word. A license must be intended by the licensor. In this case, it doubt it is, but only McDonald's can say for sure.
>
> When I put "OK" and the URL in quotes, that is because it is a literal
> quotation from the licence.
Only by the most distorted and strained interpretation could this be considered true. Thus, cite a case that has so found. I doubt that you will find one.
Further, from a policy standpoint, your approach will fail. Copyright licesnes are not easily considered implied, and NOBODY is going to find an explicit license in a situation you discuss. There is no intent there. And it must be ACTUAL intent.
-Bodi Received on Wed Aug 27 2003 - 23:43:07 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:50 GMT