Fair Use

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent

Fair Use
by Burrhus on Saturday 01/Nov/2003, @07:30

> If a GPL'd set of icons had been used, would we now be
> legally able to modify, sell and distribute the episode
> under the terms of the GPL over the internet?

I doubt it. If what you suggest were true, movies would violate copyright every time they show anything (a can of Pepsi, a screenshot of Windows, a newspaper, etc.). That would be ridiculous. Such a display would fall under fair use.

Related Links

·   Articles on KDE Success Story
·   Also by Burrhus
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Re: Fair Use
by Jilks on Saturday 01/Nov/2003, @09:43

Actually, I think they pay big bucks to display that stuff. I don't think Pepsi would want their product displayed in offensive ways. For example, a serial killer carves up some people and once the killer is done, she/he pulls out a Pepsi and downs it, then tosses the can saying "Ahhh, the taste of a new generation." This might be why the X Files had the smoking man smoke the off-brand Marlboro... Marlow(?).

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Fair Use
by Thomas on Sunday 02/Nov/2003, @07:42

> Actually, I think they pay big bucks to display that stuff.
Not really; more the other way around; ever heard of advertising ?

> I don't think Pepsi would want their product displayed in offensive ways.
Probably true (maybe); but totally separate from the former line.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Fair Use
by dh on Monday 03/Nov/2003, @13:34

Morley :)

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Fair Use
by HTH on Monday 03/Nov/2003, @15:57

Sorry, but Morley is a fake brand, and C.G.B. Spender's cigarettes were herbal, containing no tobacco.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Fair Use
by red5 on Tuesday 04/Nov/2003, @02:22

Actually, I think they pay big bucks to display that stuff. I don't think Pepsi would want their product displayed in offensive ways. 
 
Not really. In the industry they call this product placement and advertizing agencies pay big bucks to major studios for the privilage. The studios then require their productions to show these products on screen. 
 
In Fightclub for example they made a point of putting all the obligitory pepsi vending units in the most unlikely places. Like the ally out back of the convenice store during the "human sacrifice" scene. 
 
I think the reason X files uses an off brand of smokes is becase tabco companies are baned from advertizing on TV in the US.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Fair Use
by icon heini on Sunday 02/Nov/2003, @02:05

Actually KDE icons are released under the LGPL so there's no problem here.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Fair Use
by Venkman on Monday 03/Nov/2003, @14:49

Actually, I believe the GPL only covers stuff that you change. For instance if they modified the icon, or the code used to display the icon, they would have to distribute it. However, simply reusing the icon in another product does not constitute a change, therefore would not require redistribution. For instance, if I bundled KDE with my propietary operating system, I would have to redistribute any changes I made to KDE... but I would not be obligated to distribute the entire operating system.

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"KDE: Get Over It!" -- Ivan E. Moore II
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.