Colin Work wrote -
>
> 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 would agree, insofar as references are concerned, but hypertext
links are rather different I suspect as they actually cause the
reader to take a copy of the fragment. A bibliographic reference on
the other hand would cause them to obtain access to the entire work
before taking the extract and therefore the work would be seen "in
context"?
> 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.
>
I would have to disagree. Published work is only in the public domain
if so placed. Otherwise it is covered by copyright. See the
"Copyright Myths page at http://www.templetons.com for a good
explanation.
Regards
Paul Chimicz
I.T. Services
University of Warwick
[log in to unmask]
01203 524300
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|