RE: Displaying pictures

["John T. Mitchell" <John@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Coincidentally, this very day the Supreme Court is considering whether
to grant cert in a case that could answer the question.  According to
the petitioner in the Video Pipeline case, the use of images from a
copyrighted work as a "catalog" to the real McCoy should not be
infringing (i.e., should be fair use), and the circuits are split.  I
think there is an excellent argument that if the college is, for
example, using low-res thumbnails to show the public what they can find
in the collection on lawful display, it would constitute fair use,
provided it was not creating a "destination site" as a substitute, or
deriving revenue or other economic benefit  from page visits.  The devil
is in the details.
See http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/03-763.htm

I have a copy of the petitioner's brief if you are interested.

John
___________________
John T. Mitchell
http://interactionlaw.com



>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: clarkjc@xxxxxxx [mailto:clarkjc@xxxxxxx]
>  Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 12:16 PM
>  To: digital-copyright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  Subject: Re: Displaying pictures
>
>
>  Joe,
>
>  By "more expansive public display", I meant to indicate more
>  prominent or widespread display because of the exposure that
>  the painting receives when it's no longer limited to a
>  specific physical location.
>
>  From the responses I've received the critical issue appears
>  to be the reproduction, or publishing, involved in the
>  Internet environment--which isn't surprising after all.
>
>  I'm wondering from your closing comments, though... Do you
>  think that in the case I proposed, there's unlikely to be a
>  supportable fair use defense (sans permission) for a college
>  library "publishing" images of paintings they own in
>  connection with their service web pages?
>
>  Jeff
>
>  >------------------------------
>  >
>  >Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 09:08:10 -0800
>  >To: <digital-copyright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>  >From: "Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>  >Subject: Displaying pictures
>  >Message-ID: <002f01c3f70a$fa3b4db0$6501a8c0@jesposito>
>  >
>  >>1. If rights for display and/or reproduction are not
>  >normally granted when a painting is donated, commissioned
>  or sold to an
>  >institution b should the institution even have
>  the
>  >leeway to mount it in a physical public place to begin
>  with? Is it the
>  >more-expansive public display on the Internet that places
>  such display
>  >in questionb-and/or perhaps the additional need to
>  reproduce the work
>  >in order to make such an electronic display? All of which would
>  >require, Ibd assume, a still more solid bfair useb
>  defense if one
>  >can be argued.
>  >
>  >JE:  Rights for display and posting/serving on the Internet
>  are two
>  >different things.  The former does not involve making
>  copies, the latter
>  >cannot be accomplished without multiple acts of
>  reproduction.  Presenting
>  >something on the Internet is not a "more-expansive [sic]
>  public display" but
>  >publishing.  Not necessarily good publishing, mind you, or
>  effective
>  >publishing, but publishing nonetheless.  The copyright laws
>  may be
>  >wrongheaded, immoral, out of date, or opposed to the
>  interests of civic
>  >culture, but they are still on the books.  There is a limit
>  on the
>  >plasticity of the "fair use" doctrine.
>  >
>  >Joe Esposito
>  >
>
>  ===========
>  Jeff Clark
>  Director
>  Media Resources MSC 1701
>  James Madison University
>  Harrisonburg VA 22807
>  clarkjc@xxxxxxx (email)
>  540-568-6770 (phone)
>  540-568-7037 (fax)
>