Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You would likely not be able to sue the site itself unless you could show the terms of their site violate the law. There's certainly a disconnect between their disclaimer about "Don't violate copyright." and their disregard for images that are clearly protected. I wouldn't want to defend what they're doing in court should someone get pissed off enough to go after them. Claiming ignorance is not an excuse. If the site is moderated, which Papree.com clearly is, they are responsible.
|
BitTorrent just got hit with $110 million in damages for a similar thing you are claiming. However, I still don't think they (the photo site, not BitTorrent) are violating copyright (I guess that's my opinion though).
I would consider it to be similar enough to this case described in wiki:
A US court case in 2003, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, provides and develops the relationship between thumbnails, inline linking and fair use. In the lower District Court case on a motion for summary judgment, Arriba Soft was found to have violated copyright without a fair use defense in the use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly's website in Arriba's image search engine. That decision was appealed and contested by Internet rights activists such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who argued that it is clearly covered under fair use.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant. In reaching its decision, the court utilized the above-mentioned four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution like the original artwork was. Second, the fact that the photographs had already been published diminished the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a "full" replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase exposure of the originals. In looking at all these factors as a whole, the court found that the thumbnails were fair use and remanded the case to the lower court for trial after issuing a revised opinion on July 7, 2003. The remaining issues were resolved with a default judgment after Arriba Soft had experienced significant financial problems and failed to reach a negotiated settlement.
You can read the fair use wiki for yourself. |
I've read it and other detailed articles on fair use.
You've taken one narrow decision and extended it in a very different way to cover what is happening at papree.com.
Please read the whole article again, particularly the "Common Misunderstandings" section and try again.
Message edited by author 2008-05-13 17:35:29. |
