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

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

There is still the distinction between linking and
embedding.

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


<blockquote>
Click 
<a
href="http://www.catslair.com/skating/2001/skateamerica/pics/ladies/KwanFree
.shtml">
here</a> to see Michelle.
</blockquote>

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

To use this:
<blockquote>
Click 
<a
href="http://www.catslair.com/skating/2001/skateamerica/pics/ladies/12-24_23
A.jpg">
here</a> to see Michelle.
</blockquote>

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:
<blockquote>
<h2>Here's Michelle!</h2>
<img
src="http://www.catslair.com/skating/2001/skateamerica/pics/ladies/12-24_23A
.jpg">
</blockquote>

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
hartman@onetouch.com

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.
>