Digital BW, The Print

Kevin,

> I can't believe you really believe this.

Now hold on, Kevin.  This is hardly a serious violation (if really at all)
that you need to get all "puffed up" about here, and ESPECIALLY for you to
make a direct claim of image theft is entirely inappropriate.

From this web page:

http://www.benedict.com/info/fairUse/fairUse.asp

"In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a
fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and

4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work."

Obviously, 1) it is non-commercial in nature, 2) yes, it is copyrighted, 3)
I would say this work stands on it's own as a copyrighted piece, and 4)
pretty much zero, and not worth a note really...especially, since the person
owns a copy of this work in the first place, and this could be considered
the same as making a cassette compilation from a bunch of CDs that you own.

I, personally, see nothing wrong with making a copy of a work that I own (as
in an image in a book, or a song on a CD) and scanning and printing it for
display on my kitchen.  This is entirely different than borrowing or
stealing a copy of a book and making a copy of it.

Obviously, taking someone's image that you just find on the web, and
reproducing it for display, except as noted for fair use, is a copyright
violation, and I believe is entirely different than the case here.  Yes, I
know that he didn't scan in the image from his book...but I do not believe
that mitigates fair use in this case.

Austin