On 1/30/06, J. Noble <jfnbl[_at_]earthlink.com> wrote:
>
> While it's "possible" that the student has a fair use defense, we
> don't "need to give the student the benefit of the doubt," and in
> fact we can't -- he has the burden of proof.
While you are entitled to your own thinking, that kind of thinking assumes that everyone is a copyright infringer until proven otherwise. By quoting a portion of your post, I am assumed to be a copyright infringer until I prove I am not in a court. That kind of thinking is simply unhealthy.
> On its face, the
> description of the personal study guide provided by the original
> poster strongly indicates infringement.
I beg to differ. The original poster did not give us enough details. Two very important things that are missing from the post are 1) that the original poster did not provide us the actual material for all of us to see ("Seeing is believing" - I am not going to provide attribution for the quotation) and 2) that the original poster did not describe much about the notes that the student added to the images.
> ... that implicates the artist's moral rights.
On what basis do you assume that there is an issue of artist's moral rights? You did not even see the images. This is one very strong reason to give the "copyright- -until-proven-otherwise" student a large dose of benefit of doubt.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<josephpietrojeungriolo[_at_]gmail.com>
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>
Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923 in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright owners' prisons: 4,711
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. Received on Mon Feb 06 2006 - 22:15:01 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:56 GMT