|
No, it's fairly specific, although you can argue symantics if you wish - but your link provides pretty much the same explanation as mine. Either way, the example you cited for me was not a straw man.
It's neither - it's a "yes, I'm infringing on your copyright, but I think I can get away with it as 'fair use'". Fair use is so vague in definition that you can never automatically assume something is or isn't fair use - it's up to the courts to decide on a case by case basis (although in some cases the chances are so weighed one way or another that you can make a pretty good guess). See here:
Full rights to use the material can be given without a signed contract. It's only exclusive rights, or an actual transfer of copyright, which requires a signature. Furthermore, it is possible to give limit rights even without any form of contract (aka "an implicit license"). AFAIK such licenses are unlikely to be the case in the situation, however.
There are very few clear-cut cases, particularly when you start talking about things like "fair use".
You may want to re-read the thread then - the_logos has compared Traithe to Vryce right from the beginning, then attacked myself and others for not treating his mud in the same way as Medievia. At one point the_logos even suggested that Traithe was worse than Vryce, although I cannot seem to find the post any more (presumably the offending comment was edited out).
But it's the author of the work who is tolerating it! If the author of a work tolerates it being used in a certain way, why should we enforce it differently?
I have never seen a the LOTR licence. Are you sure it's not a copyright notice?
And the reason has been given.
|