Instead of discussing the copyright law directlywith me,

The University of Chicago's Legal ServicesDepartment contacted one of my Internet Service Providers (ISPs) thathost my web pages, and demanded that the images be removed.

Although, personally, I might be willing to expendthe time and money necessary to defend myself against a law suit byThe University of Chicago's Legal Services Department,

I did not want my ISP to be subjected to that, soI authorized the removal of the material, as well as most of the website (because it contains a lot of personal fair use material) .

After material was removed from that web site, Ireceived an e-mail message from The Oriental Institute of TheUniversity of Chicago.

Here is an edited part of my e-mail reply:


Those web pages have indeed been removed.

The University of Chicago Legal Services Department did NOTcontact me (as I requested) with any citation of law or precedentcases justifying their opinion (with which I do not agree, eitherlegally or philosophically) that my use of the images was a copyrightviolation.

Instead, they directly contacted ... people ... who maintain myweb site. The University of Chicago Legal Services Department did noteven show me the courtesy of copying me with their unilateral demandsthat my images be removed.

When I heard indirectly ... what The University of Chicago LegalServices Department had done, I then decided, since I did not wantthe people [who maintain my web site] ... to be involved withthe inconvenience of a legal controversy, that most of my web pagesshould be removed, since much of my web site involves personal fairuse.

I have also removed web pages from my mirror site athttp://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/

I still believe that my opinion is legally correct.

My legal opinion is based primarily on Title 17, Section 107, ofthe United States Code, which (to the best of my understanding)states:

------------------

Title 17, Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights:
Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

------------------

Here is how I believe that statute is applicable to my case:

My use was for criticism, comment, and my individual scholarship and research.

(1) My use was non-comercial and not-for-profit expression of Free Speech.

(2) The copyrighted work is the Giza Plateau Computer Model, which includes many images and much text.

(3) My use was of only a very small portion of the images of the Giza Plateau Computer Model.

(4) If it has any effect at all, my use probably enhanced the potential market for and value of the Giza Plateau Computer Model, as my web pages did not contain enough information about it to compete as a source with The Oriental Institute of The University of Chicago, and it is possible that people browsing my web pages might thereby ahve been introduced to and become interested in the Giza Plateau Computer Model.

---------------------

If that code section has been repealed, or amended, then I amwilling to consider modifying my opinion.

I deeply resent the fact that The University of Chicago LegalServices Department ignored my request that they communicate with meabout the law.

I consider their tactics to be cowardly,

but

they are successful, and they did achieve their objective,

and

my web pages are off the web.

I do expect that I may in the near future put up a few pagesexplaining why my web pages are gone.

...

Tony Smith 23 Mar 99


On 24 March 1999 (after most of my web site hadbeen removed from the web)

an official of The Oriental Institute of TheUniversity of Chicago who had (on a personal level) been veryreasonable and courteous in e-mail communications with me sent me ane-mail message stating (in part):

"... I will pass your latest email to me on to Legal Services, as you do state very clearly your position. Then we both will see what they have to say about it. ...".

On Wednesday (24 Mar 99) afternoon I received ane-mail from an Associate General Counsel of The University ofChicago, Samuel D. Golden, stating (in part) "... I do notbelieve fair use justifies the reproduction of a copyrighted image ona web site, even where the use is not-for-profit. ...", butit

did not indicate that Section 107 of Title 17of the United States Code has been repealed or amended, nor did itcite a judicial case ruling that my interpretation of Section 107 isincorrect.

However,

the Associate General Counsel of The University ofChicago did state in that message:

"... People license these images. In the licenses they agree to pay a fee ...".

From this, I infer that theofficial legal position of The University of Chicago is that

Money is moreimportant than Truth.

 


However, I did not give up in the hope thatthere might exist an Internet Service Provider with the courage tolet me assert my right of fair use, and

I am happy to say that I have found a courageous ISP, andthat my Web Pages now, in April 1999, have a home at URL

http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/

 


Tony's Home was Off the Web, butNow It's Back.