Quote:
Are people suggesting that a link to a publicly available picture, direct from the picture's source, used for non-commercial purposes is a copyright infringement? It's not like he downloaded the picture, placed it on his own site and failed to give credit. Everybody who saw it, saw it directly from the source. And, the link was right there for everyone to see.
Did anyone else notice that Goose and Duck Farm called this a "Bard rock"? If I were them, I would claim some hacker entered their site and placed the picture there, how else could a "Bard rock" make it onto a chicken site?
Yes that is exactly what I am saying, just because a pic or logo is up for viewing does not give you the right to use it for any means without the owners permission. commercial or non commercial make no differnece - ask the people that got busted for downloading movies and music - it was on the net and availible.
One big difference is that the people who got busted downloaded the music, rodriguezpoultry merely linked the picture (and this forum displayed the image).
Another difference is that the music downloading was a systemic attempt to avoid paying fees. rodriguezpoultry's use of gooseandduckfarm.com's single image surely falls within the doctrine of fair use.
Are people suggesting that a link to a publicly available picture, direct from the picture's source, used for non-commercial purposes is a copyright infringement? It's not like he downloaded the picture, placed it on his own site and failed to give credit. Everybody who saw it, saw it directly from the source. And, the link was right there for everyone to see.
Did anyone else notice that Goose and Duck Farm called this a "Bard rock"? If I were them, I would claim some hacker entered their site and placed the picture there, how else could a "Bard rock" make it onto a chicken site?
Yes that is exactly what I am saying, just because a pic or logo is up for viewing does not give you the right to use it for any means without the owners permission. commercial or non commercial make no differnece - ask the people that got busted for downloading movies and music - it was on the net and availible.
One big difference is that the people who got busted downloaded the music, rodriguezpoultry merely linked the picture (and this forum displayed the image).
Another difference is that the music downloading was a systemic attempt to avoid paying fees. rodriguezpoultry's use of gooseandduckfarm.com's single image surely falls within the doctrine of fair use.
Last edited: