On 4/5/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/5/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/5/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
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).
This isn't a mere list of facts, though. It's a mere list of opinions (what cars are cool, which are uncool, etc).
Actually, it's not a *list* of opinions, because order isn't preserved. It's a mere *collection* of opinions. This is, sadly, probably copyrightable.
Anthony
BTW, regarding the suggestion that we waste any money asking a lawyer about this, I say no way. If we're going to waste money on a lawyer, let's get him or her to explain how the DMCA protects the foundation even *if* this is a copyright infringement.
It's the TV show/ magazine's opinion that gets a car on the Wall.
That it's on the wall is factual.
Any detailed description or justification they give is content, and copyrightable. The mere fact of appearance isn't, under US law, with as I understand it rare exceptions.
It's not a US show, but here we run into the "ok, just what *are* the trans-national copyright law difference practical effects, particularly on the Internet?" hard problems, which nobody really has any firm solution for.