That's interesting about parody, I didn't know that. Although I mainly thought it was nonsense on the grounds it was fair use -- am I wrong on that too...?
Seb On 18 November 2010 15:46, Francis Davey <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18 November 2010 15:40, Seb Bacon <[email protected]> wrote: >> I expect they're just being absurdly over-careful about copyright. I >> sent a picture ro a high street photo shop to make a single print for >> my own private use. It was a parody of an LP cover from the top 80s >> TV series (and film) "Fame", and they refused on copyright grounds, >> which is clearly nonsense. > > Nonsense (in the sense that you really ought to be able to do it) it > may well be, but its not *legal* nonsense. There's no "parody" > defence. If the parody infringes on the original work (which it may or > may not do depending on how much is copied and to what extent) then > its an infringement. "Own private use" doesn't save it from being an > infringement. > > -- > Francis Davey > -- skype: seb.bacon mobile: 07790 939224 land: 0207 183 9618 web: http://baconconsulting.co.uk _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
