Terry, this is off-topic to the point of the ridiculous, but *what* is the
"Baltimore Ravens v. Bouchat" case-law you quote? As a Cleveland-area
native, I'm no big fan of Art (Take the Browns and Run) Modell, and I'm
curious as to what the case was, and why it was denied.
BTW, I'm not a lawyer (but I play one on television, har-har :-) ), and my
take on web thumbnails of photos or artwork for sale is "fair use," as a
brochure would be. Imprinting a watermark is, however, a very good (and
"doable") solution, allowing the web presentation to be larger, without much
implication of copyright infringement.
Best regards--LRA
>From: Terry Carroll <carroll@tjc.com>
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: "Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. Uk" <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: Copyright on Photo's
>Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 15:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
>
>On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Frank Nichols wrote:
>
> > My question is: "Can I scan them, and display a small picture of them
> > on eBay for advertising without violating the copyright of the
> > original photographer?"
>
>A definitive answer is not clear. To be on the safe side, I would say no.
>
>There's a provision of the copyright act (I'm talking US, here, other
>jurisdictions may be different) that says:
>
> In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that
> have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public,
> copyright does not include any right to prevent the making,
> distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles
> in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the
> distribution or display of such articles...
>
>But this is talking about "useful articles." An example of a useful
>article would be a can opener with an ornamental handle subject to
>copyright; under this exception, it would not be an infringement to show
>the can opener, including the handle, in the ad.
>
>But it is limited to works in useful articles, and by implication, that
>means that copies that are not useful articles (as in your query) would
>not be covered.
>
>My sense is that you have to rely on the copyright owner not raising an
>objection. One way of doing that may be to deliberately deface the scan
>with a watermark or something, so that it clearly can't serve as a
>substitute for an authorized copy. That doesn't technically make it
>non-infringing, but makes it less likely that the copyright owner would
>object.
>
>
>--
>Terry Carroll | "Denied."
>Santa Clara, CA | Baltimore Ravens v. Bouchat, no. 00-1494,
>carroll@tjc.com | (U.S. Supreme Court, May 21, 2001)
>Modell delendus est |
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
