On 18/11/2010 15:49, Seb Bacon wrote:
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...?
"Fair use" is a US term that doesn't exist in UK intellectual property
law. The UK equivalent is "fair dealing", which is similar to the US
concept but not quite the same.
In both countries, though, fair [use|dealing] doesn't mean what a lot of
people think it means. In particular, it doesn't mean "for personal use
only" or "non-commercial" (although in practice you're pretty much
immune to being sued for copyright infringement is most genuinely
personal use situations as the potential damages would be too low to be
worth it).
However, in your particular scenario (the photo shop refusing to do a
print for you), it isn't you that's infringing copyright, it's them -
and, for them, it's commercial infringement, because you're paying them
to do it. That is a serious breach of copyright, and one for which they
could be heavily punished.
Mark
--
http://mark.goodge.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Mailing list [email protected]
Archive, settings, or unsubscribe:
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
