Subject:
|
Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 18 Dec 1999 00:17:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
677 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Miller writes:
> > It is Todd's call, but in the case of linking, it would be an arbitrary
> > adminstrative act not justified by the current terms of service. (There is
> > no legal basis behind Lego's claims on this issue.)
>
> As far as I am aware, Matthew is correct. If the URLs were originally
> contained in pages encountered via normal click-navigation[1], then the only
> legal issue would be the terms of use regarding images at the originating
> site. (And conventional netiquette wisdom says that hyperlinks should not
> be made directly to images on other sites without permission, especially in
> the case of embedded images. At the moment, I can't find anything one way
> or the other on this issue at www.lego.com, so out of respect, it's
> reasonable to assume a don't-link-to-images policy.)
Does Netiquette = illegal or does Netiquette = polite? That's a question, not
a challenge. Is the same information without being a clickable hyperlink okay?
Mind you, I'm willing to go along with Lego's request based on politeness,
regardless.
>
> Now, if the links were obtained by snooping (hand-modifying URLs, that is --
> as opposed to normal click-navigation), then even though making links may be
> technically legal from a linkage standpoint, it's still possible to that the
> *act of snooping around* (i.e., not following proscribed links) might
> arguably be an invasion of privacy, which would be bad.
I don't quite see how looking at a billboard put up in public (not matter how
secluded the location) is snooping. Perhaps I simply don't understand the
legal fine points.
> Also, a JPEG image served by a webserver but not linked to from anywhere
> might not actually have been "published" from a legal standpoint. I'm sure
> it's a gray area, but I certainly would not automatically equate "serving"
> with "publishing."
>
> And the trumpeting of unpublished information obtained via snooping is
> probably also an infringement of publicity rights, which is probably also
> very bad.
>
> --Todd
>
> [1] and many of the ones Remy published in his list were in fact encountered
> via normal navigation last week before www.lego.com took down the images.
It seems more to me that Lego made a mistake. Being a reasonable person and
liking Lego, I'm willing to respect their wishes and have deleted the scans
from my computer nor will I make it available to others. But at the same time,
if it is posted publically I'll certainly look at it. If they don't want me
looking at it, put it behind a firewall. Otherwise, someone could stumble onto
it innocently without specifically "snooping", and we could all spare each
other some accusations. With all due respect, if Lego had used some sense,
none of this would have happened. I suspect it won't happen again. :-)
Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
| (...) If Lego changes their statement to be: "Out of politeness, please don't publish URLs not clickable through links on our pages", I would also be inclined to respect that. The "don't do this because it violates our legal rights" stuff is what (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
| Bruce Schlickbernd wrote in message ... (...) and (...) Now here, we're talking about a different issue. I read the above as that you copied the images. If so, deleting them, and not sharing them is NOT just "being a nice guy", it is obeying the (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
| (...) As far as I am aware, Matthew is correct. If the URLs were originally contained in pages encountered via normal click-navigation[1], then the only legal issue would be the terms of use regarding images at the originating site. (And (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
