[Web4lib] copyright declarations

[James Capobianco]

This is a good direction for the conversation about copyright.

Of course, companies will make people think they always have to ask
permission for any use of a whole work or part thereof because it is in
their interest to do so. I bet much of the business that the Copyright
Clearance Center gets, mostly through libraries, no less, would not be
required if the library did a thorough Fair Use analysis instead of
relying on minimum standards (such as agreed upon in CONFU) as maximum
non-negotiable amounts (10% of a work; one article from a periodical,
etc.).

There is nothing wrong with these copyright statements, since Fair Use
is a limitation on exclusive rights, but must be determined on a
case-by-case basis, not only depending on how much of a work is used,
but for what purpose that part is used for. They are not binding, as
they only attempt to give one perspective of what copyright means. The
statements don't influence the actual law.

If one were taking even a small bit of creative content from the Nature
Publishing website and intending to make money with that small bit, it
might well be that it would not fall under fair use, especially if it
would hurt Nature's market for the work. Even the tinyest part of it.

walt wrote:
>1. From a copyright perspective, the statement is not unusual but is
nonsensical. It's a classic case of trying to spread > the "permission
culture" from films and music to written literature.

This is not really a constructive idea here. There is also an FBI
warning on videotapes, but if I am showing the videotape to a class as
an instructor, I can ignore that notice, because it doesn't apply to me.
The law for Fair Use and copyright includes works "fixed in any tangible
medium" not just films and music. I think what you are confusing is
performance rights permissions, which, believe it or not, also includes
"literary" works (See Section 106 of the copyright code)

James


----------
There are two issues: One relating to copyright and fair use, one
relating to licenses.

I am not a lawyer, but I'd guess lawyers would agree on this one:

1. From a copyright perspective, the statement is not unusual but is
nonsensical. It's a classic case of trying to spread the "permission
culture" from films and music to written literature.

Macmillan cannot forbid you from exercising fair use rights. They're
pretending that fair use doesn't exist (a fairly common stance, with
some Big Media types going so far as to say in public that there's no
such thing, despite its existence as written law).

If the material in question is on the open web, or in printed
publications, or anywhere else where you have not personally agreed to a
more restrictive license in order to gain access to it, then "(or any
part of it)" is simply wrong.

Check the title leaf of books; you'll see a similarly misleading
stastement in many cases. For example, -some of my published books
included the statement "No part of this book may be reproduced without
the written permission of the publisher," which is false.I should note
that ALA Editions uses a legitimate copyright statement - "All rights
reserved except those which may be granted by Sections 107 and 108 of
the Copyright Revision Act of 1976." Section 107 is Fair Use; section
108 includes other exceptions to copyright, including those for academic
use.

2. If you were required to agree to a license--to click on a EULA--to
see the material, then it's no longer a copyright issue. Whether such a
license would be legally conscionable or enforceable is quite another
question, but you're dealing with contract law, not copyright law.

I'd guess it's unlikely that #2 applies.

-walt crawford-

_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4lib at webjunction.org
http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/