>Hi Curt, > >Thanx for posting this. I learned a bit about copyright law & the net. Did >EFF get back to you?
Yes, I've been talking with their chairman of the board. It's been very enlightening for me as well. Turns out I can (probably) link to the image in the context of the subsequent posted email dialogue, since that constitutes fair use. But "inlining" the image in the quilt, even though it's not stored on my machine, and even though I have permission from its creator to do so, is fairly equivalent to me "using" the image myself. The law is more interested in the human intent and the end result than in all the particular technical nuances of it. Linking and "inlining" (calling an image into your page from another machine) are not equivalent, because their intent is different, and their results are different.
Basically, all this stuff is right on the edge of what is legal and what isn't. It turns out there are few legal precedences for my particular situation.
In a message dated 7/18/2002 8:47:14 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
> brilliant way to deal with this (but will Mary appreciate it?)
I'm worried Mary might depreciate the value of my paintings by contacting inside art traders and dealers. That type of collusory BS burns me up.
Is it corporate misfeasance at least? Compliance practices run amok because of a idiotic expansionist budget? I mean Malibu Getty, come on now people. She just don't add up right.
Comments
>Hi Curt,
>
>Thanx for posting this. I learned a bit about copyright law & the net. Did
>EFF get back to you?
Yes, I've been talking with their chairman of the board. It's been
very enlightening for me as well. Turns out I can (probably) link to
the image in the context of the subsequent posted email dialogue,
since that constitutes fair use. But "inlining" the image in the
quilt, even though it's not stored on my machine, and even though I
have permission from its creator to do so, is fairly equivalent to me
"using" the image myself. The law is more interested in the human
intent and the end result than in all the particular technical
nuances of it. Linking and "inlining" (calling an image into your
page from another machine) are not equivalent, because their intent
is different, and their results are different.
Basically, all this stuff is right on the edge of what is legal and
what isn't. It turns out there are few legal precedences for my
particular situation.
peace,
curt
http://www.lab404.com
_
_
> a copyright story:
> http://www.playdamage.org/getty/
brilliant way to deal with this (but will Mary appreciate it?)
In a message dated 7/18/2002 8:47:14 AM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
> brilliant way to deal with this (but will Mary appreciate it?)
I'm worried Mary might depreciate the value of my paintings by contacting
inside art traders and dealers. That type of collusory BS burns me up.
Is it corporate misfeasance at least? Compliance practices run amok because
of a idiotic expansionist budget? I mean Malibu Getty, come on now people.
She just don't add up right.
Burnin' for Love,
Max Herman
genius2000.net
++