Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
There is no right of attribution listed in 17 USC 106.
There is no right to payment listed either. That is because the
list of rights lists the things that the rights holder alone may do
or authorize, not the forms of compensation he may elect to
receive.
Awww... com'on Hyman. 17 USC 106(3):
"to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to
the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental,
lease, or lending;"
The implementation (interface with others) of this right is through
contractual agreement. Please remember that even a condition precedent
is a contractual term (compare and contrast with a scope of use
restriction):
1) "I promise to pay you $100 dollars if you let me copy your work"
is a contractual *covenant*.
2) "You must pay me $100 before you may copy my work" is a *condition
precedent*.
3) "You may copy my work for any non-commercial purpose" is a *scope
of use* restriction.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
--"In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely
unremarkable principle that “uses” that violate a license agreement
constitute copyright infringement only when those uses would infringe
in the absence of any license agreement at all."; Storage Technology
Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (CAFC 2005)--
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
