08-29-2011, 03:39 PM
|
|
|
Too lazy to set a custom title
Industry Role:
Join Date: May 2004
Location: West Coast, Canada.
Posts: 10,217
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenigo
This absolutely is NOT the case. NOT "technically", and NOT in any court of law. You can't trim a pixel off the height and width and call it your own, you fucking tool.
You aren't legally allowed to use anything you didn't produce yourself without the permission of the person who created it. That is the letter of the law.
The color of the law is that your business can't profit off the sweat of another business. That's the basis behind all IP laws including trademark, patent law, and laws governing domain misspellings, etc.
I'd love to see you trim a millisecond off a pop music track and go against the RIAA in court with that defense. They'd rake you over the coals.  |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Quote:
A US court case in 2003, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, provides and develops the relationship between thumbnails, inline linking and fair use. In the lower District Court case on a motion for summary judgment, Arriba Soft was found to have violated copyright without a fair use defense in the use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly's website in Arriba's image search engine. That decision was appealed and contested by Internet rights activists such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who argued that it is clearly covered under fair use.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant. In reaching its decision, the court utilized the above-mentioned four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution like the original artwork was. Second, the fact that the photographs had already been published diminished the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a "full" replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase exposure of the originals.
|
|
|
|