On 07/01/2008, Brian Hammer <hammersoft123(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 7, 2008 2:03 PM, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
When assessing risk, you need to consider not
only the cost of
something going wrong (in this case, clearly quite high), but also the
chance of it happening. How far would a policy of complying with all
but the most outrageous cease and desist notices go towards reducing
that chance? In other words, would be a good idea to not worry about
the borderline fair use cases until someone complains? What's the
chance of us ending up in court even after removing the image in
question?
"They would never sue!" is a very poor position to take.
That's why I'm not taking that position. I'm taking the position that
"They would almost never sue!", there is a big difference. Even then,
that's not my main point. My main point is that even if they do sue
(or, at least, complain), then we can always just remove the image at
that point. I don't know if that would be enough, which I why I'm
asking Mike (who, hopefully, will know).