Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber
Now, if someone takes it and uses it for their own gain (which this is undeniably doing) it is infringement. This is a really simple case.
|
Can we assume this is true? I'm not sure.
Rogers v. Koons showed that selling a sculpture based on a picture is infringement, but in this case, WFN is not selling anything (except an ad, which might be a point of contention). It's always the same ad, too, which seems to suggest that the money from that ad is not for commercial reasons, but merely to pay for web hosting.