Replies

Understood, but not applicable. What Jeff Head is doing is publishing, not "fair use". He's collecting and redisributing a significant quantity of copyrighted material, not for particular discussion (say, to discuss whether the second explosion required conspiratorial enhancement) nor for very limited distribution (say, to students in a class), but instead is publishing many clearly copyrighted works to an audience of 100,000+. Wherever the line was, he crossed it.

Comparable to my experience with "the Elian snatch photos": I took the 7 snatch photos, made an animated .GIF (greater impact than the static photos), and put it on my web site with "fair use" intent - I did it for my amusement and the edification of the few visitors to my site. Drudge Report discovered the animation and linked to it, changing my intended "fair use" distribution of ~50 people to a "copyright infringement" distribution of ~50,000 people. Likewise with Jeff Head's site: he assembled it for his own amusement and a few friends, but it is rapidly expanding to hundreds of thousands of viewers - not "fair use".

Argue the point if you like. Jeff Head probably does not want to fight it in court, and I predict he will have to if he does not take it down soon. Associated Press et al must defend their intellectual property or lose it.

You sound like you have an axe to grind.

It is spreading on its own and I hope as many people can see it as possible.

No profit is intended, and no attempt is being made to do anything but share information that is already out there.

If a bunch of lawyers come after me, I will talk to my own and follow there advise. I will aslo find it incredibly sad.

At that point thought, my guess is this stuff is going to be mirrored all over the place. At the same time, I am of little means and there is no "blood" to be squeezed from this old turnip.

We'll see. In the mean time, we'll let it run als long as it will.