Re: TotalNEWS & Derivative Works

Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> I think IMG links and framing are indistinguishable for copyright
> purposes. However, I agree with John's intuition that image inlining
> is somehow "worse" than framing; I suspect the difference is in how
> the viewer perceives the resulting page, something which will be
> critically important in resolving a *trademark* dispute arising out
> of such a link.

The only problem with this analysis is that, in many cases, there is not going to be anything which even vaguely looks like a trademark. Say that I decide to decorate my home page with a bunch of image links to www.corbis.com (Microsoft's image licensing company) I don't think that Corbis could claim that any and all of the images they license act as trademarks. Perhaps they could claim some sort of business tort, similar to the crime of theft of services, but I find it hard to believe that the availability of recourse in this circumstance depends solely on the business of the party to whom I link.

John Kasdan
<kasdan[_at_]columbia.edu> Received on Tue Jun 17 1997 - 23:10:32 GMT