Subject: Re: Open Content woes
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 15:01:45 +0900 (JST)

>>>>> "Brian" == Brian Bartholomew <bb@wv.com> writes:

    >> It is standard practice in publishing that these images are the
    >> property of the company that makes the product, and can be used
    >> in books only with the permission of the company.

    Brian> Kinda kills that whole "free press"
    Brian> reporting/criticism/parody thing.  We can say "Microsoft
    Brian> sucks", but only in words, not with pictures and arrows?
    Brian> Would this be a look and feel copyright?

"There you go again."  (Thanks, Ron!)

This has nothing to do with "free press".  The copyright law in
practice (and perhaps explicitly) gives permission to use works for
purposes of criticism and the like, quite sufficient for the needs.
Reprinting the work for other purposes (as explicitedly permitted
under free licenses) is disallowed.

This is one case where the viral clause simply shoots itself in the
foot because the necessary freedom for the purposes of the work in
question is already granted, but the viral clause goes on to
appropriate other ownership rights in works incorporated into the work
in question.

This is not merely interesting, this goes right to the heart of how
the viral clause works.

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
What are those two straight lines for?  "Free software rules."