 |
 |
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 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%