Joseph Testagrose wrote in
:

For example if I had a web site (I don;t) and used copyrighted
pictures on it I could claim it is for educational purposes such as
teaching people the history of aviation I would probably win on One.

Wait... you mean all I have to do is CLAIM that it's for educational
purposes and I'm covered? Really? So I can post photos of naked women
and call it an anatomy lesson and be covered? That's great!

Ok, sarcasm aside, I wouldn't bet the farm on you winning that first test
if all you've done is post some photos and called it education. What are
you teaching? Are you giving information in a structured manner? Are
you adding anything to help people understand the photos in the context
of the history of aviation? Posting 1,000 photos starting with the
Wright flyer and ending with the F-22 isn't education, it's a photobucket
account. You yourself said that you would probably lose on the third
test (Amount & substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole) so without that, how could you possibly
support the claim of education? And the fourth test, effect of the use
upon the potential market for the photo is only going to keep you from
being sued for damages.

I'll agree that Wikipedia isn't the law... call it legalese for dummies.
But I also cited a section of the Copyright Act of 1976. All you've done
is say "read case history." CITE your sources. Give us an actual
example. Show us how any tom, dick or harry can take photos from here,
drop them on a website and call it "education" and get away with it.



.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-