flatfish+++ wrote:
>> In point of fact, Roy does not need "permission" to show copyrighted
>> work. Sure, having a contract or written permission does indemnify him
>> for any possibility of infringement, but there are many perfectly legal
>> ways that a copyrighted work may be used without explicit permission.
>
> I'm not a lawyer so I will not attempt to debate this point but I suspect
> you are incorrect.
You would be wrong then. A copyrighted work can be reproduced in part for
the purposes of review. This falls under the doctrine of fair usage which
has been under attack in recent years by RIAA, DRM, and friends. More
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
This is not to comment on whether or not I think Roys use of certain
materials falls into this category.
--
Stephen Fairchild
|
|
