On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 04:08:35 GMT, Dewitt
wrote in Message-Id: :

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:27:02 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

Such a line contained in the eBay orchid seller's auction page would
only display the photographic image without automatically attributing
it to the photographer. But faulting the eBay seller for failing to
attribute the photographer is groundless, as it is the photographer's
responsibility to copyright his work, not the eBay seller's. It would
be courteous for the eBay seller to attribute the photograph to the
photographer, but not required by law, IMO.

It's simple; works that contain _no_ copyright notice are not
copyrighted.

Larry, clearly the internet presents some interesting copyright
issues, but your last statement above is absolute[ly] untrue. Works do
not have to contain a copyright statement or notice for copyright law
to hold.

Do you have any idea when that became fact? I was under the
impression, that the author had no right to the work unless s/he
placed a notice within it.

Obviously, your mind is pretty well made up and I doubt my
comments will sway you, however I would suggest others do some
research before adopting your position.

I'm swayed. :-)

Regardless if the necessity to place a notice within the work is
mandatory to claim a right to it or not, you've got to admit that
phonographs that do contain such a notice are automatically attributed
to their creator unlike those that don't.

In any event, I still see no copyright infringement occurring as
result of an eBay seller imbedding links to images located on
another's web site. I could be wrong about that too. But until
someone provides a credible citation to the contrary, such a belief
seems grounded in reason, IMO.