[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [dvd-discuss] An interesting case from 9th Circuit Appeals court

While I sympathize with the plaintiff somewhat(I like to know what website 
I am accessing DIRECTLY.), "linking good, embedding bad "<"four legs good, 
two legs bad"?> is unsatisfying. Given that linking, referencing, and 
embedding are all part of the technology of the Internet and NOBODY forces 
you to put ANYTHING on the internet, I don't have too much sympathy for 
the plaintiff who suddenly discovers that he doesn't like the ALL the 
ramifications of his voluntary act. He doesn't have to post his photos on 
the internet and having found this out, he is free to remove them as well. 
Or he is free to change his own internal links daily if he chooses <you an 
imagine a whole cyberwar going on with people changing the names and links 
daily and the webcrawlers checking out what they are daily>

By analogy, if he put them in his studio store front, and I took a picture 
of them and put it in a travel brochure does he have a claim?

Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
02/08/02 10:20 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

        To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] An interesting case from 9th Circuit Appeals court

There is still the distinction between linking and

To say that I have a picture of michelle kwan on
my web site w/ some HTML like this:

here</a> to see Michelle.

Would clearly be legitimate, as it directs the user to my page
which they can then load themselves.

To use this:
here</a> to see Michelle.

Is a little more borderline IMO.  Even though it still directs
the user to load an image from my site, it is taken in isolation
from the surrounding material, perhaps depriving me of advertising
revenue (if I had advertising on that page ...)  To be honest, I
don't know which way to fall on this one.  Taking the image out
of it's context _may_ be fair use, and it may not.

Finally, there is embedding, where your page contains this:
<h2>Here's Michelle!</h2>

Now, even though the image is still being fetched from my
server it is being presented in _your_ page, with _your_ 
advertising.  This is no different IMO than if you had
made a copy of that image on to your server and used it
in your page.  The effect is the same.

So, in summary: linking good, embedding bad.

-Richard M. Hartman

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:arromdee@rahul.net]
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 10:09 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] An interesting case from 9th 
> Circuit Appeals
> court
> This decision bothers me.
> If someone had a painting hung in their room and a big open 
> window where people
> could look in and see the painting, I wouldn't be violating 
> the right to
> display by pointing to the window and saying "Hey, look at 
> the painting in
> there".
> Nor would I be violating copyright if I charged people for 
> tours of the
> neighborhood and in the process pointed out many windows 
> where tourists could
> look through and see paintings.
> In a non-computer context, it's blatantly obvious that any 
> judge would say
> "if you don't like it, put curtains on your window".
> Those images are on the Internet and publically accessible. 
> Telling someone
> where to go look at them isn't "displaying" thenm; they're 
> already being
> displayed to everyone.