Re: (c) & the Web

On Oct 25, 1995 15:44:53, 'dpote[_at_]IMAP1.ASU.EDU' wrote:
>
>Chris Rusbridge wrote:
>>>
>>> If I put up a web page, it is copyright, and anyone who downloads it
>>> (under the stricter interpretations in the US and practically any in the
>>> UK) infringes my copyright. But since there is no other purpose in
>>> putting it up other than public access (or at least, no other purpose a
>>> reader could know without having down-loaded it first), the assumption is
>>> that I would lose any court action against a reader on the basis of the
>>> implied licence.
>
>
> This is an excellent point. Copying is the raison d'etre of the Web: to
> generate a page, the client must duplicate and interpret the host's HTML
> (HyperText Markup Language). Many Web authors, I suspect, learned how to
> create pages by peeking at other programmers' code. The ability to
> appropriate structural features and bits of formatting from other pages
> has, I believe, been a major factor in the exponential growth of the Web.
>
> And, judging from the recent explosion of web sites, there is apparently
> no risk of underincentive to produce (not yet, at least).
>
> In addition to questions regarding duplication, the Web presents a number
> of interesting problems over and above those presented by traditional
> protocols (FTP, Telnet, Gopher, E-mail, etc.) Consider, for instance, the
> singular problem of remote "inline images." I can very easily include, on
> my Web page, a link to an image on someone else's server. When a user
> then reads my page, that user's browser reaches out and grabs the image
> from the owner's server and displays it on the user's screen (the image
> is not transmitted through or anywhere near my server). Is my act of
> merely "pointing" to someone else's copyrighted image -- effectively
> including it by reference -- an infringement of an exclusive right?
> Surely not reproduction, since I'm not making a copy (the user is).
> Display? Derivative work? Perhaps. This is an interesting puzzle, and
> it's not just academic: see http://seidel.ncsa.uiuc.edu/copyright/ for
> an interesting account of Peter Leppik's tangle with United Media over
> the "Dilbert" comic strip.
>
> Daniel R. Pote
> 2L Arizona State College of Law
> dpote[_at_]imap1.asu.edu
 

-- 
My view, no, the mere act of pointing to someone else's page or work is no
different than a footnote in a book or citation to a case in a brief.  We
had some discussion on this thread about a month ago you ought check the
archives as it was a good one.  My point, was there is a however and that
is as a matter of unfair competition or trademark law, not copyright. 
Whilst indeed pointing (as you say) in my view does not violate copyright,
the misuse of a link could well violate trademark and/or unfair competion. 
I have a real life exercise in mind.  We act for amongst others several pop
music groups who have acheived substantial fan recognition, including some
fairly zealous folks who have been putting together their own home pages
with links to various publically available pages, etc. dealing with the 
pop group. Most of these are unoffensive and to some extent encouraged 
(it sells records arguably.) Some of them however clearly cross over into
commercial efforts, one going so far as to use one of our clients'
significant trademarks as their home page title and tying our client with
various products, including a link to someone selling sunglasses!  From our
point of view this activity crosses over and creates liability.  Misuse of
trademark to catch the eye of a browser or fan, thence unfair competition
with the unauthorized tie in to other commercial products. 
Sorry for the rather long response, but there is a difference between
theory (no liability for links) and practice (sometimes one crosses over.) 

harley 


harley i. lewin 
Lewin & Laytin 
Intellectual Property Protection and Issues of 
Trade on a Global Basis 
Lewin & Laytin, PC 
1776 Broadway 
New York, NY 10019 
tel 212.586.3490 
fax212.956.3972