In a message dated 3/2/2008 1:20:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
There are many areas where it repeats the law. The case we were dealing with was one of them.>>
------------------------------------------------- False. The law is quite clear on the ability to use fair-use images. The Non-Free policy does not repeat the law, it extends the law quite dramatically, in my opinion.
The case we were dealing with, would fall under a fair-use. The law does not define, except by silence, what is *free use* at any rate.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duf... 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
On 02/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/2/2008 1:20:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
There are many areas where it repeats the law. The case we were dealing with was one of them.>>
False. The law is quite clear on the ability to use fair-use images.
If you follow the conversation back you will find that this particular line was nothing to do with fair use law but instead the elements of contract law involved in asking someone to take a picture for you.
The Non-Free policy does not repeat the law, it extends the law quite dramatically, in my opinion.
It is meant to. Gets you off most of the grey areas and switches over to hard black and white ones.
The case we were dealing with, would fall under a fair-use.
Evidences? Relevant case law?
The law does not define, except by silence, what is *free use* at any rate.
No as far as we are concerned the foundation does and they use http://freedomdefined.org/Definition .