|
Welcor:
Yes, the use was infringing because of its specific circumstances.
Ah, but I wasn't: I was using it to prove that KaVir's initial claim that short uses get an unconditional 'free pass' on infringement is false. This particular use may or may not be ok, but KaVir's supporting argument was incorrect. A very short phrase is capable of infringing.*
Stilton
*To address the quibble about whether it's the phrase or the expression of the concept behind it that's protected: you could reword that to read "a very short phrase is capable of causing infringement." This is an angels-on-the-head-of-pin argument, though: If by using a phrase one can infringe a copyright, the terminology describing the infringement is a matter for lawyers, not us.
|