I designed my avatar image myself.- gee i remember neil diamond sue by the makers of e.t. about heartlight song just inspired by the movie. neil lost.
as for pics on amiga org
1.Fair Use. A search engine’s practice of creating small reproductions (“thumbnails”) of images and placing them on its own website (known as “inlining”) did not undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of those images. Important Factors. The thumbnails were much smaller and of much poorer quality than the original photos and served to index the images and help the public access them. (Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 03 C.D.O.S. 5888 (9th Cir. 2003).)
they are not of lesser quality you click on them their full size and not link(full size image) to artist website. limiting the artist ably to sell those images again. example sachs pics.
2.By not limiting the time images are in libirary in time stored they might violate these.
Not a fair use. A television news program copied one minute and 15 seconds from a 72-minute Charlie Chaplin film and used it in a news report about Chaplin's death. Important factors: The court felt that the portions taken were substantial and part of the "heart" of the film. (Roy Export Co. Estab. of Vaduz v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. , 672 F.2d 1095, 1100 (2d Cir. 1982).)
Fair use. The makers of a movie biography of Muhammad Ali used 41 seconds from a boxing match film in their biography. Important factors: A small portion of film was taken and the purpose was informational. (Monster Communications, Inc. v. Turner Broadcasting Sys. Inc., 935 F. Supp. 490 (S.D. N.Y. 1996).)
Not a fair use. A television station's news broadcast used 30 seconds from a fourminute copyrighted videotape of the 1992 Los Angeles beating of Reginald Denny. Important factors: The use was commercial, took the heart of the work and affected the copyright owner's ability to market the video. ( Los Angeles News Service v. KCAL-TV Channel 9, 108 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1997).)
. Internet Cases
Not a fair use. Entire publications of the Church of Scientology were posted on the Internet by several individuals without Church permission. Important factors: Fair use is intended to permit the borrowing of portions of a work, not complete works. (Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 40 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1569 (E.D. Va. 1996).)
Fair use. The Washington Post used three brief quotations from Church of Scientology texts posted on the Internet (see previous case). Important factors: Only a small portion of the work was excerpted and the purpose was for news commentary. ( Religious Technology Center v. Pagliarina, 908 F. Supp 1353 (E.D. Va. 1995).)
As for photographs submitted do you know the person submitting the photo is the taker. Their is no way a website can know this.
A swag i was refencing the t-shirt amiga org is selling it contains 2 images copywrighted by Amiga inc. the checkmark and the ball. Amiga might allow to use logos on your website nonprofit, but selling a t-shirt is a profit business. no way it can be underfair use.
I am not a lawyer but neither or you guys. I am just making the point unless you are and own the rights to items in question or a laywer for them. you have no right to say what violiates copyright. All you know the owner might have given premission. If you have a problem report it to the owner not ebay. Ebay has no idea whos contacting them or why? If you own the right to item in question or not. The better question if you mess up a legal sell of a item because author does have the copywright or ownership can you be sued and not only for value of item for damage of his online business? I the case of those demo i think it would be too difficult to prove who made them most writers used fake names and were involved in groups that cracked games at the time. If they used a fake name It would be near impossible to prove it is them now.
