On 4/5/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 08:54:56 -0400, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Not as text, it appears as a pictorial representation.
So the use in question is highly transformative. That's one factor in favor.
Not really, no. It's no more transformative than transcribing a radio script.
One consists of transforming spoken words in a particular order to written words in that same order. The other consists of transforming a bunch of photos of cars arranged on a wall to a list of the types of cars in each section of the wall, arranged alphabetically per section.
Seems different to me.
Which is, of course, a violation of copyright.
No, that may or may not be a violation of copyright, depending on the details of the situation.
And the Cool Wall *doesn't* appear in its entirety, if you're claiming that is the work in question. Only the text of the wall appears, rearranged in a non-creative order. That's another factor which is neutral at worst.
I miss about one in three, so obviously I have only seen the ones where it does.
I mean that the Cool Wall didn't appear in its entirety in the article. If it had a photo of the wall, that would be a copy of the wall in its entirety.
Anthony