Not to beat a dead lawyer, but here is one of my favorite examples of the difficulty of copyright law:
Jones, a photographer and graphic designer, creates a poster for a band to use on a concert tour. The next year, another poster, another tour -- and so on for many years. Smith, an author, decides to write a history of the band covering 30 years of its career. He discovers the posters produced over the years by Jones, who still holds the copyright.
Smith negotiates with Jones to use the posters in his book, but they can’t agree on a fee. So Smith decides to use the posters anyway. He places reduced copies of the images throughout his book to illustrate the group’s concerts over the years.
Jones sues Smith for copyright infringement. Smith claims it’s fair use, so he didn’t violate the copyright.
I think most laymen would say that Jones should prevail, because Smith used Jones's images without permission or compensation and even published them in a book that Smith then sold for profit. But in fact (and this was an actual
case), Smith prevailed twice -- once at the trial level and again on appeal. Both courts ruled that it was fair use, no copyright violation.
If you find that perplexing, take it as a lesson in the perplexities and complexities of copyright law.
