Phil won't tolerate incivility!!!

**Sam Browning** · Posted On: 12/03/2004 3:48pm

Originally Posted by afronaut

Sam,

I am not a lawyer, but have done legal research before, so that would make me an amatuer to your professional. My understanding is that there are liberal exceptions to copyright in cases of humor, opinion, criticism and satire, e.g. our photo edits. Also, since Title 17 says that whatever constitutes infringement has to take into account how much of the whole work was used, a few pictures from a whole run of 'zines and a large website would fair on that count. Plus the fact that no one made any money off it.

Ok, I'm telling you about the law now. [/hubris]

I positive repped Afronaut for his post which was more specific and better, then my comment. Despite being a pro, I have to admit I've never read Title 17. These all sound like reasonable defenses, the question is how generously a federal court will construe them.

**Meex** · Posted On: 12/03/2004 6:39pm

Originally Posted by Phrost

This is why I've resisted the overwhelming temptation to add him to the Header of Shame.
Damn, he'd fit in there nicely.

Add that avatar someone made of him. It's totally an original caricature, and shouldn't be a problem. . .and we all know who it is!

`~/

**Meex** · Posted On: 12/03/2004 6:41pm

Originally Posted by Samuel Browning

I positive repped Afronaut for his post which was more specific and better, then my comment. Despite being a pro, I have to admit I've never read Title 17. These all sound like reasonable defenses, the question is how generously a federal court will construe them.

In the case of copyright for images. . .would that 10% change thing apply as it does to trademarks & logos?

`~/