Jerry, what the Law actually says trumps what the copyright office says.<br><br>I quoted the law itself which outlines restrictions on Copyright for fair use. I also quoted the Law which justifies 'derivative works' even where Copyright applies.<br>
<br>If copyright doesn't apply to certain types of work - you need to show that the source material I've used is NOT THAT TYPE OF MATERIAL. (I'm not making use of someone's novel. I'm making use of their research.)<br>
<br>If derivative work is permitted - you need to show I've not met the conditions of derivative work.<br><br>The source material I've used is both exempt (according to the law) and the derivative work in accordance with the law even if it weren't exempt.<br>
<br>~A<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:39 PM, jhphx <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jhphx@cox.net" target="_blank">jhphx@cox.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="im">
<div>On 11/8/2012 9:26 AM, Andrew wrote:<br>
</div>
</div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="im"><br>
The US definition of 'Fair Use':<br>
<a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107" target="_blank">http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107</a><br>
<br>
<h2><font><a name="13ae2672cc62c605_13ade66ed9733722_107">§
107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use</a></font></h2>
</div><p><font>Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106<font>a,</font>
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by</font>
... is not an infringement of copyright.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
It should be noted that the doctrine of fair use existed before this
section of law was coded. This section does not define the doctrine
but only gives guidance for applying the doctrine. <br>
<br>
If there was a section of law that said something like: <font>"Notwithstanding
the provisions concerning the guilt of killers, a deadly act of
insanity involving shooting, stabbing, poisoning, or strangling
is not an act of guilt," it would NOT mean that any act of </font><font>shooting,
stabbing, poisoning, or strangling was an insane act. It would
not be defining insanity. Likewise, 107 is not defining fair use.
Thinking it does is a common mistake.<br>
<br>
The fallowing quotes are from:<br>
The US Copyright Office<br>
Cir21<br>
Reproduction of Copyrighted Works<br>
by Educators and Librarians<br>
<a href="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf</a><br>
<br>
'Although the courts have considered and ruled upon the<br>
fair use doctrine over and over again, no real definition of<br>
the concept has ever emerged. Indeed, since the doctrine is<br>
an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable definition<br>
is possible, and each case raising the question must be<br>
decided on its own facts. On the other hand, the courts have<br>
evolved a set of criteria which, though in no case definitive<br>
or determinative, provide some gauge for balancing<br>
the equities. These criteria have been stated in various ways,<br>
but essentially they can all be reduced to the four standards<br>
which have been adopted in section 107:'<br>
<br>
'For example,<br>
the reference to fair use “by reproduction in copies or<br>
phonorecords or by any other means” is mainly intended<br>
to make clear that the doctrine has as much application to<br>
photocopying and taping as to older forms of use; it is not<br>
intended to give these kinds of reproduction any special<br>
status under the fair use provision or to sanction any
reproduction<br>
beyond the normal and reasonable limits of fair use.<br>
Similarly, the newly-added reference to “multiple copies for<br>
classroom use” is a recognition that, under the proper
circumstances<br>
of fairness, the doctrine can be applied to reproductions<br>
of multiple copies for the members of a class.<br>
The Committee has amended the first of the criteria to<br>
be considered—“the purpose and character of the use”—<br>
to state explicitly that this factor includes a consideration<br>
of “whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for<br>
non-profit educational purposes.” This amendment is not<br>
intended to be interpreted as any sort of not-for-profit<br>
limitation on educational uses of copyrighted works. It is<br>
an express recognition that, as under the present law, the<br>
commercial or non-profit character of an activity, while<br>
not conclusive with respect to fair use, can and should be<br>
weighed along with other factors in fair use decisions.'<br>
<br>
If one understands that last sentence then one understands that
non-profit and educational do not guarantee a fair use claim.<br>
<br>
Jerry<br>
</font>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
sword-devel mailing list: <a href="mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org">sword-devel@crosswire.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel" target="_blank">http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel</a><br>
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page<br></blockquote></div><br></div>