- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:27:13 -0500
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>, www-tag@w3.org
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote: > http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative/faq.cgi#QID380 reports on a > case where frames were used to place ads around content picked up > elsewhere. This seems very similar to your example #1 of image > inclusion. If so a court may very well one day find <img> links to > unlicensed material to be infringing. I don't think that's unreasonable because its meaning in the document is not the same as an anchor link; it's linking with transclusion semantics which could be considered as a republication of the referenced content. Other HTML features such as frames/iframe, object, some uses of stylesheets, and XHR of course, could be similarly interpreted. And yet other HTML features fall somewhere in between, such as the cite attribute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transclusion Mark.
Received on Friday, 17 December 2010 00:27:48 UTC