This is a response I made to an individual trying to educate us on copyright issues. Clearly, it’s an area where there is tons of misunderstanding. When in doubt, get a lawyer.
I think there are some errors here, but heck none of us are lawyers.
On 10 Feb 01, at 15:18, James Mason wrote:
>
> 2. TR-Dev’s “copyright, whatever, TR-Dev” trumps YOUR copyright, unless
> you POST your PREVIOUSLY copyrighted material on the list, and indicate
> the ownership.
No. There is no such thing as “trumping”. Your material is copyright as soon as it is deemed “published”. If putting something on the web anywhere is deemed publishing (which it is), the author owns it UNLESS there is a previous legal agreement otherwise. However, only trdev (which again, has no legal existence) has the rights to the collection of material.
Those who say we “own our own words” are correct, to the
> extent that we notify of an extant copyright at time of post. But if you
> just “POST” to the board, it hasn’t become reduced to a permanent form
> PRIOR, so the rules for affixment of copyright haven’t triggered.
It is a permanent as a website. You are incorrect.
The
> issue of “registration” versus non-registration is irrelevant, since you
> cannot affix copyright to anything that hasn’t become reduced to a
> permanent form, the reduction being the necessary part of copyright to
> become attached. Beyond that, if you don’t identify at post, then
> TR-Dev’s copyright becomes “affixed” to the post. You don’t have to like
> this, but it’s the way it is.
Balderdash. It belongs to you until you surrender those rights willingly. Someone affxing a copyright notice means nothing whatsoever. The default state is copyright to the author.
> 3. Fair Use provisions apply in a varying context. Theoretically, you
> can use up to 10% of the total volume, or 300 words, but you can’t “cherry
> pick” and then apply the 10% rule. There is commentary and CJS, and also
> holdings that say that, given that the purpose of copyright is to protect
> the intellectual property of an author, if you quote only his/her “best”
> stuff and then claim fair use, it defeats the intent of the law. BTW,
> Fair Use exceptions are non-negotiable. It is considered a fair use if it
> IS a fair use; you don’t get to choose.
>
> 4. For the purposes of this forum, I think anything on here is going to
> be considered educational, and therefore prima facie in compliance with
> the fair use exception, but, remember, the fair use limits apply. Again,
> it isn’t up for debate. The exception applies if it applies and it
> doesn’t if it doesn’t. Besides, it wouldn’t trigger a discussion unless
> you could prove that someone not you had benefited to YOUR detriment, from
> your works, and, in particular, secondary to their unattributed use of
> those works.
NOPE. All incorrect. The fair use provision provides fo the use of material educationally on the part of official, registered institutions of learning, and does not apply to any as*hole who claims their endeavor
is educational. Come on folks use your heads here.
Other fair use provisions include the use of small portions for commentary purposes, critique or review.
> A great point, and a significant determining factor as to whether the use
> is educational and therefore subject to fair use.
No. ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
>
> <If one is trying to protect (hide) some proprietary information or fact,
> then don’t include it in this or any other forum …>
On this I agree.
