On 02/03/2008, WJhonson(a)aol.com <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 3/2/2008 1:20:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)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 .
--
geni