Thomas Dowling wrote:
Contrariwise, Wikipedia includes book and DVD covers and movie
posters, with a pretty verbose explanation of why they think
they're allowed to do so (see for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:StarWarsMoviePoster1977.jpg).
I guess they just define their use
Tim Spalding wrote:
I really hope this—or more probably what comes of this—ends the
selling of covers to libraries.
Probably not, with all the restrictions you attached.
Still, this is a most interesting experiment. Commercial sellers
supposedly have a legal backing from contracts with
Both the law and the real world situation is unclear.
Clearly, publishers own the intellectual property of a cover graphic.
Could using thumbnail images of lots of covers in aggregate be
considered fair use? Maybe, the law is not clear (there is some case
law to suggest it could be, but it's
First, IANAL, obviously.
Clearly, publishers own the intellectual property of a cover graphic. Could
using thumbnail images of lots of covers in aggregate be considered fair
use? Maybe, the law is not clear (there is some case law to suggest it
could be, but it's hardly settled).
Publishers
I am actually pretty certain that Amazon _has_ licensed their covers,
and particularly from Syndetics.
Where Syndetics gets their covers remains a mystery to me, one I am very
curious about.
Jonathan
Tim Spalding wrote:
First, IANAL, obviously.
Clearly, publishers own the intellectual
On 08/07/2008 04:04 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
I am actually pretty certain that Amazon _has_ licensed their covers,
and particularly from Syndetics.
Contrariwise, Wikipedia includes book and DVD covers and movie posters,
with a pretty verbose explanation of why they think they're allowed
Publishers make their covers available to them and to others because
they desperately want their covers out there. You can get covers from
publishers with amazing ease. I do not suspect Amazon or Syndetics
have licensed the covers in any way.
Having worked for a number of years for a
I think the lawsuit you are talking about is the image linking suit, Perfect
10 v. Google. Information on this lawsuit can be found at:
http://www.eff.org/cases/perfect-10-v-google
I haven't read the decision, but the EFF says While it leaves some
questions open, the bottom line is that the Court
Yeah, the law is pretty unclear.
I don't think LT or Wikipedia are taking an unreasonable risk. Odds are,
the publishers aren't going to complain. If they do, and you are willing
to go to court, it's a toss up as to whether you'd win or not.
Jonathan
Thomas Dowling wrote:
On 08/07/2008
David Pattern wrote:
On the subject of copyright, wasn't there a recent case brought against
Google's Image Search where the judge ruled that thumbnails do not violate the
copyright of the original image?
Yes, but the facts in that case weren't quite the same as the facts in
the
10 matches
Mail list logo
