Re: URIs, deep linking, framing, adapting and related concerns

On 2010/12/17 23:25, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 5:46 AM, "Martin J. Dürst"
> <>  wrote:
>> I fully and totally agree with Mark here. While often both a@href and
>> img@src are called links, anchor links and links with transclusion semantics
>> are completely different from what they achieve. IANAL, but including an
>> image, a frame, or whatnot in a Web page without permission is a pretty
>> simple and straightforward copyright violation. If there are no court cases
>> that say so,
> IANAL, but don't the cases I forwarded (mentioned on
> say so? You don't need the "if".

Yes indeed. So there is actually some support there.

> You would include scripts, too, yes?

Yes, of course.

> The license under which a
> Javascript module was made available (e.g. GPL) would constrain uses
> of it, regardless of whether the script were protected by access
> control?

Yes. I also wouldn't want to print out a collection of Web pages and 
sell them as a book, unless that was allowed by the license, regardless 
of whether the Web pages were protected by access control.

IANAL, but for the record, on average, there is quite a bit of 
difference between scripts and images. Scripts are made of less 
"expression" and more "utility" than images, and copyright only protects 
the former. So it can be perfectly okay to copy some snippets of 
javascript code from a script, given that there is just one or very few 
ways of doing a certain thing or somebody would independently come up 
with pretty much the same code. That's why people discuss code snippets 
on their blogs,... and don't mind when somebody uses them.
That's also why some companies obfuscate their javascript. But linking 
in a whole script from a third-party site, except if so licensed, is a 
different thing.

Regards,   Martin.

#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University

Received on Monday, 20 December 2010 09:49:43 UTC