Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Erik Funkenbusch - Libelous creep.

  • Subject: Re: Erik Funkenbusch - Libelous creep.
  • From: mlw <mlw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 08:41:14 -0400
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • References: <f7j6cvosslgc.dlg@funkenbusch.com>
  • User-agent: KNode/0.10.2
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1117158
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has wholesale
> copied from the authors without permission.

Which is a matter to be decided by Ray and the author, of which, unless you
are Roy or the author of the cartoon, is none of your business.

> 
> I noticed this on this article:
> 
> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-given-up/
> 
> Interesting that he credits the image author (for that one), but he
> neglected to actually get the authors permission to copy it.

Depending on the use and origin of the work, may not be a violation of
copyright or defensible as "fair use." In cases like this, it really isn't
a crime until the owner informs the alleged violator of the problem. The
violator has a reasonable amount of time to remove the offending content or
dispute it.

> I was 
> supsicious that this might be the case and emailed the author to find out.
> He confirmed that it was copyright infringement.

The "author" may suspect it is copyright infringement, but that does not
mean it is. That has to be settled between Roy and the author.

> 
> If he had merely linked to the image, it would have been more acceptable,
> since he wouldn't have actually copied the image.  

That has *nothing* to do with it. If you merely deep link to an image on a
web site, there is no legal difference from copying. Granted, this is one
of the more controversial decisions, but it makes sense.

> However, that would beg 
> the bandwidth stealing argument of linking to images on other peoples
> sites.

Have you even looked at the laws and statutes you think you are talking
about?

> 
> In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his site have been
> similarly misappropriated.  Many of them have no credits at all.

"Misappropriated?" 


> 
> Bummer for you Roy.

Like I said in another post, you have no standing in any of this dispute.
There may, in fact, not even be a legitmate dispute. The only purpose in
even writing about it is to malign another person. Since you have accused
him of a crime that you can't prove for a malicious purpose, it is likely
that you have libeled him.

Put it this way, the remedy for inadvertent copyright infringement is the
removal of content. The remedy for libel is damages, and damages to
reputation are costly.



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index