|
|
Posted by jacobjames on 08/01/07 16:38
On Aug 1, 8:59 am, Bill <tr...@chromehorse.net> wrote:
> Those amazing lawyers! The "substantiality" of the portion.... That
> is truly a bizarre line. You could sit on a mountain top for three
> years and think about what a "substantiality" of "I am the Walrus" is.
>
> And then the guy on the next mountain top would have a different opinion.
>
> And they could each get lawyers and sue each other.
>
> Just to show I'm not entirely cynical, I could suggest, as an
> alternative: "size matters".
>
> Larry in AZ wrote:
>
> ure of the copyrighted work;
>
>
>
>
>
> > (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
> > copyrighted work as a whole; and- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bill,
I totally agree, the wording of the law leaves much room for
interpretation and I am no legal expert by any means. I suppose all of
this really translates down to the realization that someone with deep
pockets has the privilege of challenging any supposed infringement, be
it actual or otherwise.
If I understand all of this 'size matters' wording correctly then does
that mean that I can talk about just portions of songs, and not an
entire song?. For example, I have derived a unique interpretation of
the song Penny Lane. I would like to present my interpretation of the
song by going through the song on a line-by-line basis while providing
an explanation of each line. I can do this, right?
Thanks for taking the time on this. It is really appreciated.
Jacob
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|