Caveat: This is applicable only within the U.S. YMMV elsewhere in the
world based on whose laws have jurisdiction.
In my wanderings to find out more about "fair use" and "unfair use" on the
internet, I discovered that "ditto.com" was challenged in a Federal
District Court about thumbnail use for its version of an image search
engine. The court essentially rendered a decision split between the two
parties. However, one of the salient aspects of the decision was the
ligitimacy of their thumbnails based on use to index the images for the
searcher. U.S. copyrights extend to "derivative" works if a link to the
original can be shown, or it is clearly present upon examination (this
keeps someone from changing a few pixels and claiming it's
different). Other results of the suit appeared to be specific to the case
at hand.
The logic is that a thumbnail used for indexing to aid a search is
legitimate "fair use." I (and these are my words now) would look at this
type of use the same as an abstract within a library catalog to aid someone
searching for works in their holdings. My interpretation is thumbnails
used for some purpose other than this could be construed as derivative
works, and therefore not "fair use."
My problem was not really the thumbnails, or setting up a search engine to
find images. As others have pointed out it's the direct link to a jpeg
never intended to be viewed absent its html page, thereby stripping the
full-size image of its credits, ownership and copyright notices.
Of course, another lawsuit in a different Federal District Court could
render yet different logic and decision-making. To my knowlege, no court
has yet stepped up to rendering a decision that would have truly widespread
applicability. It's why my conclusion is the lawsuits are not yet over and
that we would see them in the next few years. Firms such as Lycos will
push the envelope for everything they can get until a court decision
somewhere sets clear boundary lines.
What makes it even more interesting is Lycos not limiting itself to images
on servers within the U.S. . . . which pushes their activities into an
international arena and into whatever international treaties/laws apply
beyond U.S. law.
-- John
At 20:01 1/18/01, Chris O'Neill wrote:
On 18 Jan 2001, at 14:07, Scott Nelson wrote:
> Haveta disagree. Displaying someone else's work at a degraded quality is
> not only a copyright violation but perhaps a more serious one as it
> involves actual *copying* and fails to respect the artistic integrity of
> the original.
Point taken, and I accept your point-of-view. But I fail to see how a 1" x
1" thumbnail could be considered "art" instead of "just a button?" I
doubt someone's gonna print-out the thumbnail, frame it, and try to sell
it.
JMHO, though. You could be right.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|