Having been in the image licensing business for over thirty years, I have two things to say. First, I thank Lindsay for his transparency and willingness to share this complaint with subscribers and users. Second, almost everything that almost all of us believe we know about copyright law is either oversimplified or untrue. I like to say that copyright law in the public mind "equals what people want it to be," and it's true that most folks who don't have experience negotiating or litigating copyright issues are not aware of some of the complexities of copyright law. Often the wealth of detail some people will mobilize in support of an argument stands in inverse relation to what they really know.
For instance, very few people know that "fair use" is not a right — it's a defense, and a judge will consider four factors when making a decision. See here: https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/. That said, copyright protection is neither eternal nor absolute, and certain uses are protected and certain kinds of information are not copyrightable.
Anyway, I'm glad Lindsay isn't caving to this demand, but I have a feeling that whatever comes of this affair may not quite match what people think the law says.
For instance, very few people know that "fair use" is not a right — it's a defense, and a judge will consider four factors when making a decision. See here: https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/. That said, copyright protection is neither eternal nor absolute, and certain uses are protected and certain kinds of information are not copyrightable.
Anyway, I'm glad Lindsay isn't caving to this demand, but I have a feeling that whatever comes of this affair may not quite match what people think the law says.
