Joseph wrote:b23, spoken like those in the holding tanks of every jail in America.
So touchy about getting caught breaking the law.
But, as a Mormon/former Mormon(most likely) you still don't think the laws apply to you.
No one cares about your little obsession. You're like bcspace and his obsession with "official" doctrine, or Why Me and his obsession with light cotton. Let the obsession go. You'll be happier.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant. In reaching its decision, the court utilized the above-mentioned four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution like the original artwork was. Second, the fact that the photographs had already been published diminished the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a "full" replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase exposure of the originals. In looking at all these factors as a whole, the court found that the thumbnails were fair use and remanded the case to the lower court for trial after issuing a revised opinion on July 7, 2003. The remaining issues were resolved with a default judgment after Arriba Soft had experienced significant financial problems and failed to reach a negotiated settlement.
Emphasis added.
Note the bolded part. I don't think anyone has to worry too much about copyrighted avatars. Of course, it is just Wikipedia, which is not exactly the last word in legal issues.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant. In reaching its decision, the court utilized the above-mentioned four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution like the original artwork was. Second, the fact that the photographs had already been published diminished the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a "full" replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase exposure of the originals. In looking at all these factors as a whole, the court found that the thumbnails were fair use and remanded the case to the lower court for trial after issuing a revised opinion on July 7, 2003. The remaining issues were resolved with a default judgment after Arriba Soft had experienced significant financial problems and failed to reach a negotiated settlement.
Emphasis added.
Note the bolded part. I don't think anyone has to worry too much about copyrighted avatars. Of course, it is just Wikipedia, which is not exactly the last word in legal issues.
does this mean we all can use "mustache ride" for a avatar?