[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] An interesting case from 9th Circuit Appealscourt
The case itself is at
I don't see anything in the case that threatens ordinary linking such
as in your message. The quote in the slashdot article about the "end
of linking" was, I think, referring to inline linking, where you
place an image in your web page using a link to the original site
where the image is stored, rather than copying that image onto your
server. The court invoked the right of display to get around the fact
that the defendant didn't copy anything. But it would be quite a leap
to suggest that publishing a link is equivalent to displaying a work.
At 11:42 PM -0600 2/7/02, Stephen L Johnson wrote:
>I just found a like to this store on Slash Dot (www.slashdot.org). Here is
>the link to the story on law.com (which might be not be permissible in the
>The gist of the decision is that creating thumbnails of images is fair use.
>But displaying the full image is a violation of copyright. The case stems from
>an Internet image search engine which displayed thumbnails and inline linking
>to the full size images.
>The case seems tangential to the 2600 case. But it's interesting. According
>to the article, it looks like it lays the foundation that link and framing
>can't be done with permission.
>It is a refreshing decision to me. At least one court "get's it". Not every
>new digital technology is a tool for "Piracy!!!" aka copyright violation.
>Stephen L Johnson <email@example.com>