Re: TotalNEWS & Derivative Works

Jeff Norton <nortons[_at_]erols.com> wrote:
>
> Phil Stripling <philip[_at_]crl.com> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> > I think frames meet the second definition of public display of a work:
> >
> > (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of
> > the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by
> > means of any device or process, whether the members of the public
> > capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the
> > same place or in separate places and at the same time or at
> > different times.
> >
> > What am I missing here?
>
> <SNIP>
> What you seem to be asserting is that TotalNews is performing the
> transmission or display of the linked content. This is not precisely
> correct. The frame simply divides the browser screen into two (or
> more) parts. The part(s) with the links and the ads stays constant.
> The remaining part acts as a new browser window, with the user
> requesting the content from CNN, for example, just as if he had
> browsed there on his own.

I am saying that the display of my work to the public is my exclusive right. For someone else to display my work to the public without my permission is a violation of my exclusive right. The public display of my page by TotalNews is the issue. I don't care about ads, I don't care about links, I care about the public display of my copyrighted content. I have the exclusive right to control the public display of my content, and if you incorporate it into your Web page as part of your site, it seems to me to be an infringement of my right to control the public display of my page. It's as if you took my copyrighted photograph of of Jane Roe and put it on the front page of a newspaper without my permission. You might give me credit, even say the photo is copyright 1997 P Stripling, but if you publicly display that photo without my permission, isn't it a violation of my copyright?

> <SNIP>
> A second related example would be me linking to a cool-looking clock,
> for example, on a site from my site with no attribution. The clock
> simply appears on my intro page as if loaded from a directory on my
> site. As I am not copying it, I am not infringing. As the user is
> simply accessing a publicly available file, she is (arguably) not
> infringing.

I'll disagree with that, too. If you're publicly displaying my cool-looking clock on your page, a copy doesn't have to be made. The act says "display," not copy. I can _perform_ a copyrighted play without copying the script, but I have infringed on the playwright's copyright by not paying a license fee for the performance -- the language says "to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work." It doesn't say copy.

> Copyright, therefore, is not a good theory for legal redress.
> <SNIP>

You haven't convinced me yet, Jeff.  

> Sorry for the long posting, I have just finished my finals in a semester
> steeped in just these issues. ;)

No problem for me. But I'm still keyed in on display, and we disagree on the effect of the public display of copyrighted material.

Phil Stripling
philip[_at_]crl.com Received on Sat May 17 1997 - 05:01:57 GMT