Printed from www.pcpro.co.uk
Posted on August 6th, 2008 by Barry Collins
Computeractive: an apology
Yesterday, we ran a blog post suggesting that Computeractive may have gleaned the inspiration for its latest cover from a recently published copy of PC Pro.
Make your own mind up from the picture below:
Last night we received an email from the group publisher of Computeractive, reminding us that “scanning our cover falls into copyright infringement”.
We would like to take this opportunity to apologise to the publisher of Computeractive. Copying content from a rival publisher is, of course, utterly reprehensible.
Tags: Computeractive, PC Pro
Posted in: Newsdesk
Follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
3 Responses to “ Computeractive: an apology ”
Leave a Reply
Categories
- About the bloggers
- Green
- Hardware
- How To
- Just in
- Microsoft Office 2010
- Newsdesk
- Online business
- Random
- Rant
- Real World Computing
- Software
- View from the Labs
- Windows 7
Authors
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
advertisement
August 6th, 2008 at 10:40 am
I really hope that Computeractive’s publisher was responding with at least a little irony.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:35 am
I see what you’ve done there… Is it buy-one-get-one-free on PC Pro news *stories* today?
August 6th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Computeractive are even bigger ninnies than your first article gave them credit for.
It’s highly unlikely that a court would agree with Computeractive that your use of their cover was copyright infringement. It’s easy to argue fair use. You copied only a small part of Computeractive’s work. You copied only the minimum necessary to support your argument. Blanking out sections of the cover would lead a reader to wonder what had been removed, and may have cast Computeractive in an even worse light.
What’s the difference between a scan and a photograph? As far as copyright infringement goes, not a lot. The new photo is at a fractionally lower resolution. If the scan had been at a similar resolution, would that have been ok?
(It’s strange that Computeractive didn’t like the free advertising. PCPro seem to be pointing out that Computeractive’s magazine contains similar material at only £1.50, compared with PCPro’s cover price of £4.99.)