<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Andrew, I don't wish to sound mean but
I don't know how to soften this. I can only hope that some day you
appreciate the guidance people here, are giving you.<br>
<br>
On 11/9/2012 9:37 PM, Andrew Thule wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAM9DYGBHjYig5BpEacyzDwQdwKN3niPDP061W0i7xGpdULO2fw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Jerry, what the Law actually says trumps what the
copyright office says.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
What you are implying here is that the quotes I posted from Cir 21
do not reflect what the actual intent of the law is. You may be
surprised to know that the Copyright Office is not the source of
those quotes from Cir 21. In fact the source is the 1976 report of
the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee on the House
amendments to the bill that became the Copyright Act of 1976 (H.R.
Rep. No. 94-1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., September 3, 1976). If those
quotes don't reflect what the law actually is then the House report
does not reflect what the House passed into law. There was an
earlier Senate report which differs on some points but in the case
of these quotes the House report should reflect changes in the
proposed law after the Senate report and should reflect the will of
not just the House but also the Senate. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAM9DYGBHjYig5BpEacyzDwQdwKN3niPDP061W0i7xGpdULO2fw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
I quoted the law itself which outlines restrictions on Copyright
for fair use. </blockquote>
<br>
And it was addressed and also your interpretation. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAM9DYGBHjYig5BpEacyzDwQdwKN3niPDP061W0i7xGpdULO2fw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">I also quoted the Law which justifies 'derivative
works' even where Copyright applies.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Where you quote you also misinterpret. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAM9DYGBHjYig5BpEacyzDwQdwKN3niPDP061W0i7xGpdULO2fw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">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>
</blockquote>
<br>
You contrast novel with research. That shows a fundamental flaw in
your logic. Novels and research publications are equally entitled to
copyright. Perhaps the bases for your misunderstanding is a common
one, that copyright does not protect facts and research is about
facts so not protected. The facts from research are not protected
(not by copyright but other laws may apply) as also any fact
discussed in novels are not protected either, but while the facts,
ideas and information in works are not protected by copyright the
ways they are expressed are, even in research publications as much
as in novels.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101</a><br>
17 U.S.C. § 101 - Definitions<br>
'“Literary works” are works, other than audiovisual works, expressed
in words, numbers, or other verbal or numerical symbols or indicia,
regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as books,
periodicals, manuscripts, phonorecords, film, tapes, disks, or
cards, in which they are embodied. '<br>
<br>
Novels and research publications are equally "literary works" under
this definition.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAM9DYGBHjYig5BpEacyzDwQdwKN3niPDP061W0i7xGpdULO2fw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<br>
If derivative work is permitted - you need to show I've not met
the conditions of derivative work.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
A derivative work can not be published without the permission of the
copyright holder of the original work, because that copyright holder
has the copyright to the original and any material from that
original in any derivatives of it.<br>
<br>
17 USC § 103 - Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and
derivative works<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/103">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/103</a><br>
'(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102
includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a
work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does
not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been
used unlawfully.<br>
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only
to the material contributed by the author of such work, as
distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work,
and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material.
The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or
enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any
copyright protection in the preexisting material.'<br>
<br>
According to (a) above your rights to produce copies of a derivative
of your own making, do not, extend to any part of it that was used
unlawfully (being without proper permission or exception). <br>
<br>
17 U.S.C. § 101 - Definitions<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101</a><br>
'A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, ...'<br>
<br>
The DSS texts, because of age, are PD, but modern translations are
derivatives protected by copyright being the unique expressions of
the translators. The ideas expressed we hope are true to the
original PD DSS texts but each translation has it own way of
expressing the ideas which is the bases for copyright. Using these
modern expressions without permission or license is a violation of
copyright unless the the use falls under an exception in the law.
Educational, scholarly, research, personal, translation or
derivative use do not simply qualify as an exception. Fair use is an
exception, but just being such things as educational or personal do
not guarantee that a use is fair use, as I have already pointed out
and as others have pointed out.<br>
<br>
Jerry<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAM9DYGBHjYig5BpEacyzDwQdwKN3niPDP061W0i7xGpdULO2fw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org">sword-devel@crosswire.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org">sword-devel@crosswire.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel">http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel</a>
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>