from Krishnamacharya's Yogasanagalu
It made quite an impression seeing these pictures after Studying with Ramaswami on his Vinyasa Krama course. Ramaswami had studied for over thirty years with Krishnamacharya, when anyone brought up a different approach to a pose he would just say that he could only teach how his teacher taught him. He never said a different version was incorrect just that it wasn't how he learned it from his teacher.
Not that we ever doubted that this of course but how marvelous to see these pictures of Krishnamacharya in the different vinyasa, just as Ramaswami had in turn taught us.
Parampara began to resonate a little more the day I saw these.
I looked into fair use on the Internet regarding the thumbnail use of these pictures brought together in this way and came across this ' ...it ( 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution like the original artwork was'.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant. In reaching its decision, the court utilized the above-mentioned four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution like the original artwork was. Second, the fact that the photographs had already been published diminished the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a "full" replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase exposure of the originals. In looking at all these factors as a whole, the court found that the thumbnails were fair use and remanded the case to the lower court for trial after issuing a revised opinion on July 7, 2003. The remaining issues were resolved with a default judgment after Arriba Soft had experienced significant financial problems and failed to reach a negotiated settlement.