Paul Chimicz said ...
> This all raises an interesting point which is "Should web sites be
> seen as copyright entities rather than just the pages that they
> hold?"
I would think they are without question - websites are a compiled work
with intellectual effort required (really!) to produce the navigation
method, style etc. etc.
> i.e. by linking to a page on someone else's site directly are
> we technically infringing their copyright anyway? Sometimes the owner
> will encourage this sort of use but I suspect that case law may one
> day forbid it without explicit permission. Comments welcome.
I don't think creating a link is in itself an infringment of copyright
anymore than citing a work in a bibliography. But just as a
bibliographic reference does not automatically confer the reader with
the right to get a copy of the work, neither does an HTML link.
I believe publishing a web page on an "open" site is effectively making
material available in the public domain, and thus *available* for
copying but note that material in the public domain STILL RETAINS
copyright unless explicitly waived.
My interpretation of the situation is that web pages may be freely
linked to as public domain resources (the default status) but the
copyright owner is free at anytime to alter conditions of availability.
This may be done through a request as per London Transport, or through a
statement on the web page itself. But until such a statement is made I
doubt any case for infringed copyright could be made.
Regards,
Colin
> Paul Chimicz
> I.T. Services
> University of Warwick
> -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> [log in to unmask]
> 01203 524300
>
--
_________________________________________________
Colin K. Work
Computing Services
University of Southampton
email [log in to unmask]
tel. 01703 593090 (direct line)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|