"Lance Birch" <-> wrote:
> "ABX" <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote in message
> news:0mm9515ict6011sftktggcdiup23olkb7e@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:46:33 -0400, Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> > > Here's the original for comparaison:
> >
> > Hmm, wasn't it copyrighted image (regarding posting here)?
> >
> > http://www.mcescher.com/Copyright/copyright.html
>
> I imagine, given that the image looks like it's been scanned (and therefore it
> looks like Alain owns a copy of the image), it could be argued that this would
> fall under fair use.  However, the safer bet would be to link to the image, I
> suppose.
>
> Lance.
>

Back in a saner day, this (posting of a single image for comparison with a
"replica") would have clearly fallen in the "fair use" category, since it
in no way is intended to, nor can it be reasonably be expected to, diminish
the capacity of the copyright holder to profit from said copyright. In
addition it has not been altered in any way, so it cannot be argued that it
can denigrate the original.  And it is clearly for educational purposes.

Back in a saner day, it would have been a slam-dunk.

Back in a saner day.

Sigh.

Dave Matthews (who had several run-ins over fair use, back in a saner day.)

Post a reply to this message