Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
Roy did willfully infringe because he linked to the authors web page which
clearly spells out that he is required to contact the author for permission
to use the works. He can't claim to have not known, because he he
explicitly links there.
No argument there.
Roy has obtained commercial advantage, because he collects revenue from
advertising on the page.
Here I will argue. You would have to prove that the image itself was
responsible for the revenue, i.e. that more advertising revenue was
generated with the image on the site than would be otherwise.
On the kind of site we're talking about, I can't see how you could do
that. People go to his site (assuming they do) for what he has to say,
not what images he uses. If the site was offering images, including
this one, for download then you would have a point.
|
|
