From: Brian Ellis (bellis60@earthlink.net)
Date: 03/07/01-07:18:59 AM Z
"Fair Use" is a more complex and uncertain principle than many of the
messages in this thread would indicate. There are no fixed rules - each case
stands on its own facts, as the four criteria for fair use set out in
Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 are applied to those facts. There
certainly is nothing like the 10% principle mentioned here, nor is there any
absolute prohibition against an instructor copying a chapter from a book and
passing it out to the class, as someone else said (the opening language of
Section 107 specifically refers to making multiple copies for classroom
distribution or words to that effect as a potential fair use).
In a school or other non-profit situation the difficulty is compounded by
the fact that there are very few court cases interpreting the statute
because of the cost of litigation. What university is going to spend the
kind of money it would take to establish in court that Professor X can copy
a chapter out of a book as a class hand out? Most of the court cases that
I've seen (such as the Kinko's case someone else mentioned) arise in a
profit context because it's the potential profit that make litigation
feasible. And, finally, the internet has pretty much thrown the world of
copyright into a tizzy.
I hope that anyone reading this thread doesn't rely on anything said here in
deciding whether a particular use is a fair use. Much of what has been said
is misleading, some of it is incorrect.
It might be best to let the lawyers practice law and the photographers talk
about photography.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: COPYRIGHT
>
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 FotoDave@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > - it is used for educational purpose
> > - the person who makes the copying does not derive any profit from the
copying
> > - the copied materials is less than 10% of the total work
>
> That last line is important -- but what if you copy one entire chapter
> from a book of 10 chapters???
>
> If you copied a chart from an article, as Dave suggests, and give the
> source -- that is a plug of a sort or validation for the rest of it. But
> if you copy a full chapter, that's rather a taking. And WHAt is
> "educational"? What's clearly verboten is resale -- I take your photo
> and put it on a tote bag or calendar to sell. But everything that's not
> *pure commerce* is educational in one way or another... Would that mean if
> it's a private workshop? If it's a commercial workshop? If it's a degree
> granting institution? If it's a discussion group? A think tank? A task
> force? A class in how to compete with the writer? An "alternative"
> school? A mail order school? A private tutorial?
>
> Etc.
>
> However, as I understand it, if you aren't making money from it, they
> can't do too much to you. ON THE OTHER HAND, the school and teacher ARE
> making money from it, via the student's tuition.
>
> I suspect it can't be controlled except by social pressure -- if the
> students disapprove (is that possible?). But I succumb to social pressure
> myself -- I promise NEVER to tear those old albumen prints out of books in
> the NY Public Library again.
>
> best,
>
> Judy
>
>
> > Legal stuffs aside, I personally feel that if there is a good chart or
> > drawing in a book, it is fine to copy only that if the rest of the book
is
> > not suitable to be used as a textbook for the class, but some
instructors
> > copy whole one or two chapters of a book. I think that is rather
unethical
> > even if it can be covered by the above guidelines. It's just my opinion,
of
> > course.
> >
> >
> > Dave S
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:25 AM Z CST