A day in the life of our Friend...

"Skylune" wrote in message
ups.com...

I know of at least one case where a blog site was sued by a major
publication for republishing, in its entirety, a copyrighted article.
No financial loss need be proven in copyright infringement cases --
this is irrelevant. A copyright literally means "the right to copy."

Please quote the case law reference. I'd like to see the judgement for that
one.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...


Just for the record there is no copyright notification visable on the page
I quoted (http://aprenta.blogspot.com/) from and it isn't part of the site
that does have copyright notification on it. Though I sort of like the
idea of you sueing me. I can think of nothing more entertaining than to
get you into a deposition.

The copyright notice, by word or symbol, is no longer required. It is
up to the author to prove s/he did in fact create the property in question.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Just for the record there is no copyright notification visable on the page I
quoted (http://aprenta.blogspot.com/) from and it isn't part of the site
that does have copyright notification on it.

Copyright notification isn't required. Created works are protected by
copyright by default.

Though I sort of like the idea
of you sueing me. I can think of nothing more entertaining than to get you
into a deposition.

Be careful what you wish for.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

You may then feel free to sue me.

It's up to the copyright owner to sue you, or to file a criminal
complaint.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:15:26 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Just for the record there is no copyright notification visable on the page I
quoted (http://aprenta.blogspot.com/) from and it isn't part of the site
that does have copyright notification on it.

You need to research the law (see below).


http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

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)http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107. One of the
more important limitations is the doctrine of =93fair 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:

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

the nature of the copyrighted work;

amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and 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 =93fair use=94 would
clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither
determine if a certain use may be considered =93fair=94 nor advise on
possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable
to consult an attorney.

L-102, Revised July 2006

U.S. Copyright Office
101 Independence Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20559-6000
(202) 707-3000


-----------------------------------------------

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...er0/0-b.html#3


When can I use a work without the author's permission?

When a work becomes available for use without permission from a
copyright owner, it is said to be "in the public domain." Most works
enter the public domain because their copyrights have expired.

To determine whether a work is in the public domain and available for
use without the author's permission, you first have to find out when
it was published. Then apply the following rules to see if the
copyright has expired:

All works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public
domain.

Works published after 1922, but before 1978 are protected for 95 years
from the date of publication. If the work was created, but not
published, before 1978, the copyright lasts for the life of the author
plus 70 years. However, even if the author died over 70 years ago, the
copyright in an unpublished work lasts until December 31, 2002.
For works published after 1977, the copyright lasts for the life of
the author plus 70 years. However, if the work is a work for hire
(that is, the work is done in the course of employment or has been
specifically commissioned) or is published anonymously or under a
pseudonym, the copyright lasts between 95 and 120 years, depending on
the date the work is published.

Lastly, if the work was published between 1923 and 1963, you must
check with the U.S. Copyright Office to see whether the copyright was
properly renewed. If the author failed to renew the copyright, the
work has fallen into the public domain and you may use it.
The Copyright Office will check renewal information for you, at a
charge of $20 per hour. (Call the Reference & Bibliography Section at
202-707-6850.) You can also hire a private copyright search firm to
see if a renewal was filed. Finally, you may be able to conduct a
renewal search yourself. The renewal records for works published from
1950 to the present are available online at
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright. Renewal searches for earlier works can
be conducted at the Copyright Office in Washington D.C. or by visiting
one of the many government depository libraries throughout the
country. Call the Copyright Office for more information.

With one important exception, you should assume that every work is
protected by copyright unless you can establish that it is not. As
mentioned above, you can't rely on the presence or absence of a
copyright notice (©) to make this determination, because a notice is
not required for works published after March 1, 1989. And even for
works published before 1989, the absence of a copyright notice may not
affect the validity of the copyright -- for example, if the author
made diligent attempts to correct the situation.

The exception is for materials put to work under the "fair use rule."
This rule recognizes that society can often benefit from the
unauthorized use of copyrighted materials when the purpose of the use
serves the ends of scholarship, education or an informed public. For
example, scholars must be free to quote from their research resources
in order to comment on the material. To strike a balance between the
needs of a public to be well-informed and the rights of copyright
owners to profit from their creativity, Congress passed a law
authorizing the use of copyrighted materials in certain circumstances
deemed to be "fair" -- even if the copyright owner doesn't give
permission.

Often, it's difficult to know whether a court will consider a proposed
use to be fair. The fair use statute requires the courts to consider
the following questions in deciding this issue:

Is it a competitive use? (In other words, if the use potentially
affects the sales of the copied material, it's usually not fair.)
How much material was taken compared to the entire work of which the
material was a part? (The more someone takes, the less likely it is
that the use is fair.)

How was the material used? Is it a transformative use? (If the
material was used to help create something new it is more likely to be
considered a fair use that if it is merely copied verbatim into
another work. Criticism, comment, news reporting, research,
scholarship and non-profit educational uses are most likely to be
judged fair uses. Uses motivated primarily by a desire for a
commercial gain are less likely to be fair use).

As a general rule, if you are using a small portion of somebody else's
work in a non-competitive way and the purpose for your use is to
benefit the public, you're on pretty safe ground. On the other hand,
if you take large portions of someone else's expression for your own
purely commercial reasons, the rule usually won't apply.

If You Want to Use Material on the Internet
Each day, people post vast quantities of creative material on the
Internet -- material that is available for downloading by anyone who
has the right computer equipment. Because the information is stored
somewhere on an Internet server, it is fixed in a tangible medium and
potentially qualifies for copyright protection. Whether it does, in
fact, qualify depends on other factors that you would have no way of
knowing about, such as when the work was first published (which
affects the need for a copyright notice), whether the copyright in the
work has been renewed (for works published before 1978), whether the
work is a work made for hire (which affects the length of the
copyright) and whether the copyright owner intends to dedicate the
work to the public domain. If you want to download the material for
use in your own work, you should be cautious. It's best to track down
the author of the material and ask for permission. The only exception
to this advice is for situations where you want to use only a very
small portion of text for educational or non-profit purposes. (For
more information, see Getting Permission to Publish: Ten Tips for
Webmasters in the Internet Law area of Nolo's Legal Encyclopedia.)

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Just for the record there is no copyright notification visable on the page I
quoted (http://aprenta.blogspot.com/) from and it isn't part of the site
that does have copyright notification on it. Though I sort of like the idea
of you sueing me. I can think of nothing more entertaining than to get you
into a deposition.


Depositions can be entertaining in and of themselves. I was sued once. My
lawyer told me there were three proper answers to any question: "yes", "no", and
"I don't remember". I followed his instructions and I was out in less than an
hour. Not the bitch that sued me though... she couldn't miss the opportunity to
embroider her testimony. Her deposition took her over 11.5 hours! God knows
what it cost her in legal fees.

We didn't pay her a damned dime and I didn't have to lay out a penny in personal
funds to defend myself. So sad, too bad. She's probably still flipping burgers
at McDonald's trying to pay off her shyster.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:15:26 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Just for the record there is no copyright notification visable on the page I
quoted (http://aprenta.blogspot.com/) from and it isn't part of the site
that does have copyright notification on it.

You need to research the law (see below).



Wouldn't that require me to give a **** first? Jeez... everybody's a lawyer
around here. Here's the bottom line of this whole subthread: when all is said
and done, when every line has been written and read, nobody's going to do diddly
squat. It's all a massive flapping of the lips. You can choose which lips I
mean.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S.
Code)http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107.

Does this cover something written in France?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:15:26 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Just for the record there is no copyright notification visable on
the page I quoted (http://aprenta.blogspot.com/) from and it isn't
part of the site that does have copyright notification on it.

You need to research the law (see below).


Acctually no I don't. I had forgotten that no copyright notification had to
be posted. I knew it but it slipped my mind. But that isn't the reason I
don't need to research the law on the issue. The reason is Anthony couldn't
get a lawyer to take the case in a million years. It would require two
things he doesn't have. Money and the ability to interact with real people.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:15:26 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Just for the record there is no copyright notification visable on
the page I quoted (http://aprenta.blogspot.com/) from and it isn't
part of the site that does have copyright notification on it.

You need to research the law (see below).


http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
....big snip....
-----------------------------------------------


http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...er0/0-b.html#3

.....big snip.....

That was interesting. Also, I could have sworn that I read in the past that
using material for political purposes was also considered fair use, but I
didn't notice that in the snipped text. Of course, if all copyright
violations were ever enforced then the courts, and society, would grind to a
halt.