On 4/5/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 08:54:56 -0400, Anthony
<wikilegal(a)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