Re: another worthwhile idea (correction)

[Doug Brown <debrown@kodak.com>]

The issue at hand is copyrights of electronic images. If you link to a
photo at a site (even without copying it) you are still duplicating or
publishing it, so the attorneys tell me you must get the owner's permission
to do so. You should also credit the copyright owners on all photos. The
proposal is to build a library of images so linking to an entire site is
not an issue here.

IMO, if you have to get permissions to use images, you might as well just
copy them all to one server.

This complicates things but it's still worth doing eh?

>There's been a lot of legal wrangling recently over whether someone has the
>right to link to someone else's web site without permission; see
>http://www.netscapeworld.com/nw-06-1997/nw-06-bestpract.html.  The biggest
>blast came last year when Ticketmaster sued Microsoft over it.  The safest
>thing is to just ask.
>
>--Mark
>
>From: Randy or Deb Carey <carey@spacestar.net>
>
>>Doug Brown wrote:
>>
>>> If you're willing to administer it it's worth a try! Randy rightfully
>>> reminded me about copyright issues of copying photos to a site and you
>>> also shouldn't link to sites without their permission.
>>
>>Clarification:  I feel it is alright to link to a web site as a whole site,
>>(even if the owner of the site doesn't want you to do it). What is
>>published on
>>the web is public and available for public viewing.  (For example, I
>>doubt "Web
>>Pages
>>that Suck" gets permission for what they post:
>http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/
>>.)
>>
>>However, I don't think it is right to link in a picture from a sight and
>>use it as if it is yours.
>>
>>--Randy

- -Doug Brown
debrown@kodak.com