On Saturday 12 April 2008 18:29, Ralf Gerlich wrote:
> Hi!
>
> LeeE wrote:
> > I would argue that we need to keep track of copyright issues
> > because all of the FG aircraft and their colour schemes,
> > perhaps with the exclusion of Oleg, are copyrighted and FG has
> > no clear rights to use the
Hi!
LeeE wrote:
> I would argue that we need to keep track of copyright issues because
> all of the FG aircraft and their colour schemes, perhaps with the
> exclusion of Oleg, are copyrighted and FG has no clear rights to
> use them (Oleg's 'components' i.e. the bricks are copyrighted but
> t
LeeE wrote:
> On Friday 11 April 2008 12:17, Ove Kaaven wrote:
>> LeeE skrev:
>>> I was thinking more along the lines of publicly displaying the
>>> photo in an exhibition, which I don't think could be regarded
>>> as distribution,
>> I suspect the RIAA and MPAA would disagree...
Why are we discus
On Friday 11 April 2008 12:17, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> LeeE skrev:
> > I was thinking more along the lines of publicly displaying the
> > photo in an exhibition, which I don't think could be regarded
> > as distribution,
>
> I suspect the RIAA and MPAA would disagree...
>
> > as opposed to selling copi
LeeE skrev:
> I was thinking more along the lines of publicly displaying the photo
> in an exhibition, which I don't think could be regarded as
> distribution,
I suspect the RIAA and MPAA would disagree...
> as opposed to selling copies of it, which would be
> classed as distribution.
-
On Thursday 10 April 2008 15:46, Ralf Gerlich wrote:
> Hi!
>
> LeeE wrote:
> > [...], there should be nothing to prevent a photographer from
> > taking a photograph of the Eiffel Tower lights and exhibiting
> > it to others, as long as they don't do so for profit, because
> > it's their personal vi
Hi!
LeeE wrote:
> [...], there should be nothing to prevent a photographer from taking
> a photograph of the Eiffel Tower lights and exhibiting it to
> others, as long as they don't do so for profit, because it's their
> personal view and artistic expression of something they've seen in
> the
* LeeE -- Thursday 10 April 2008:
> Thanks for posting that.
BTW: the discussion about the first link is also interesting:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/21/wwii-bomber-trademar.html
m.
-
This SF.net email is sponsored
On Thursday 10 April 2008 11:33, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> http://www.johnmacneill.com/WWII_Bomber.html
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/liberate-b-24-liberator
>
> m.
Thanks for posting that.
I think the EFF article has the best take on it - it was not
appropriate grant the term "B-24" as a
9 matches
Mail list logo
