Skip to main content

View Diary: Florida Bill To Attack Philosophy (241 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But wait (none)
    I left her credentials and her authorship at the end of the article (even the common dreams website).  I did not take credit for anything, just passing the word around.  Is that still illegal?  I wouldn't do anything to take credit from someone, but it seems like passing a NYT article around.  Nor am I making money.  Please clarify.
    •  just to clarify (none)
      You should cite the author and source at the begining.  That would erase ambiguity and allow others to go directly to the original source.  I never pass anything I read here without verifying it myself.
    •  Primer on Copyright law (none)

      I am not currently Licensed to Practice in this State. Or Yours.

      by ben masel on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 04:34:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  where is the common dreams reference? (none)
      I'm scanning but I don't see any website reference.
    •  don't even think (4.00)
      of taking this diary down. An edit if you feel so inclined but this is a critical issue.

      Here's hoping it makes the recommended list

      'Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it'. - GBS

      by stevej on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 04:45:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  To address these issues (none)
      You might want to read the directions for posting PARTS of the article in boxes (I think it's in the FAQ), with your original commentary in between.

      I believe you can simply EDIT the diary that already exists, rather than taking it down.  It is an important topic.  Good luck!

    •  To elaborate (none)
      When taking an item from a commercial source, even if you don't profit, you deprive the owner of the revenue from ad views. Even with a non-commercial site, you deprive them of the views of links to the rest of their copy, etc.

      it's legal to show people the copy of the NY Times you've purchased, but not to forward their stories, unless you've secured permission.

      I am not currently Licensed to Practice in this State. Or Yours.

      by ben masel on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 06:12:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Please update (none)
      You can update the diary and add the attribution to the beginning.
    •  From the US Copyright Office (1.00)

      I can use this work in it's entirety, because as a Govt Document it, unlike the article you lifted, is in the Public Domain.

      One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright act (title 17, U.S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years.      This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

      Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

      1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

      2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

      3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

      4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

      The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

      The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."

      Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

      The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.    

      When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of "fair use" would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered "fair" nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

      Now instead of whining, you might thank me for taking the effort to explain this stuff.

      I am not currently Licensed to Practice in this State. Or Yours.

      by ben masel on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 10:36:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site