On 4/5/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/4/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 16:48:48 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I thought you said the Cool Wall list doesn't ever appear in its entirety on the show.
Not as text, it appears as a pictorial representation.
So the use in question is highly transformative. That's one factor in favor.
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'd say there's no way this is copyright infringement. On the other hand, it's not free content either. So the question shouldn't be whether or not this falls under fair use, but whether or not it's the type of fair use which belongs in a free encyclopedia.
I actually think that merely describing lists of photos, or transcribing what is in them, doesn't infringe their copyright at all. We're not transforming artwork (Rogers case), we're transforming a list of facts from one format (images of cars) into another (text); in the US, mere lists of facts aren't copyrightable (cf all the phone book copyright-doesn't-apply rulings).