OT: eHow Copyright Infringed Me

[Doug Miller]

It's not just university students:

[GarageWoodworks]

Because it's "Fair Use" this there is no infringement.

[J. Clarke]

Use of someone else's work in a student assignment is not automatically fair use. In fact it is often plagiarism and that is grounds for a failing grade and disciplinary action by the institution, over and above any legal remedies sought by the copyright holder.

[krw]

If the work is copied in total, it's plagiarism (the penalty for which is becoming VP). If it's excerpted or referenced, it generally comes under "fair use". Of course fair use still requires an attribution.

[Jack Stein]

SED AWK GAWK all come to mind...

[Morris Dovey]

I kinda like the speed of gcc. :)

[ROYNEU]

The student may not need to pay a fee for use of the image. But it is still required for them to give credit for the image. But even publishers sometimes use photos that they have not gotten permission for. If they can show due diligence in trying to find the owner of the image the owner can't sue them but only collect the fair fees for use if noticed.

Roy

[Ralph E Lindberg]

Thanks, I thought you were doing some kind of hack that Sean S is proposing....

[Charlie Self]

He knows better. That's why he didn't reply. Probably another preacher who thinks he's above it all.

[Robert Bonomi]

It's fairly easy for a -smart- server to check the 'referrer' field in a request, and do one thing if the referrer is the same site (i.e. 'yours') as the object being requested, and do 'something different' if somebody has embedded a direct link to an 'internal object' of yours in _their_ page on a different site.

This stops direct linking _only_. Doesn't prevent copying the image out, storing it elsewhere -- e.g. on =their= server -- and using it.

[Robert Bonomi]

If it is copied into the work which is submitted to the teacher _only_, then yes, it clearly comes under the scholarly research fork of 'fair use'.

If it is 'published' to the world-at-large, the situation is _very_ different.

I used to make web searches for the (trademarked) name of a company I did sys admin work for, and would contact the parties using the name 'without license' (It was a _good_ name for a particular line of work and lots of people came up with it 'independently', *including* several Universities.) Most of the time, my phone call was enough -- especially with the Universities -- The 'unreasonable' ones were forwarded to the corporation counsel, who (most of the time) sent a cease-and-decease demand that was complied with. Occasionally, counsel decided that the other party was in a line of work that was 'enough different' from what the company did that it was arguably _not_ infringement, and ti was let slide. One party _did_ get *really* testy about it -- at least until they consulted _their_ legal counsel -- whereupon their tune changed, shall we say, radically.

The point remains, you've got to be prepared to take action to defend your rights, or the 'others' _will_ trample you.

[Robert Bonomi]

There is no guarantee that that use _is_, in fact, exempt as fair use.

'Fair use' is a notoriously complicated subject, and one which the courts have gone out of their way to _not_ clarify, for *many* years.

The copyright statutes specify some criteria to 'be considered' in determining 'fair use', but do not specify 'how much' consideration is to be given to any particular point. This is just one of the reasons that copyright infringement cases are so expensive to pursue in court.

[-MIKE-]

I answered your email, but it bounced back. I sent it again... hopefully it got through. Let me know if you never get it.