A recent judgement makes it a breach of copyright to sell pre-owned eBooks. Do publishers really want to deter everyone from buying eBooks?
copyright
Version numbers are simple, aren’t they? So how come so few of Apple’s own apps conform to its own rules? And as for copyright info, forget it, as so many Apple apps seem to.
Bridgeman Images has acquired rights to images for all the 439 state-owned museums and galleries in Italy. Why this is bad are art historians, art, and culture.
Contains arbitrary copyright information which remains ‘sticky’ and is not stripped when most metadata are removed from files.
How can a blogger (or website author) ensure that they do not infringe copyright when using images of artworks? Here are some suggestions.
Copyright should protect the creators and their work. It has been turned on its head, to generate immoral earnings for companies who have no rights in much of the content they sell.
Is it right that image libraries should charge their customers for the use of content which they know is in the public domain?
Current law does not help websites such as this, or Wikipedia – or the original artists.
Two current cases show how messy copyright can become: it is not a Happy Birthday for Harry Potter.
The most important question is what “harm” the ‘music industry’ in the UK suffers by personal copying of audio CDs etc.
