On two different occasions, I have had to respond to authors whose works have been reproduced without permission on Chiff & Fipple related websites. Happily, both cases worked out well. But, I've done some light reading on fair use and copyrights and message boards and it leaves me with the impression that I'm at some risk when we copy the text of articles from other publications and paste them on these forums. So, if you find something copyrighted that you want to share with others, please provide an external link to the piece, rather than cutting and pasting it.

Thanks,

Dale

My reading of the law of intellectual property
is that excerpts need to be properly acknowledged
(sourced) and may be quoted for the purpose of discussion.

There are conventions about percentage thresholds for excerpts.

With regard to my common law copyrights in relation to original material I post here I am happy to see most people who quote me source me.

My understanding is that the manner and form of the presentation of posts here are copyright Dale W. whereas the content is copyright the poster. For me, this means that if I write a poem, or a distinctive witticism, here, it is my common law copyright and I am entitled to publish it anywhere else but I cannot publish it in the form that it appears in this forum without our gracious host's permission.

Expressions I have used advisedly in this post include:-
conventions
common law copyright (vis a vis statutory)
original material
publish

_________________
qui jure suo utitur neminem laedit

Unfortunately, fair use in copyright law in the US is a grey area that is always decided by the courts. There are no hard and fast rules.

However, C&F is hosted in Canada..I'm not sure exactly how they interpret the Berne Convention or how much that would actually shield Dale.

I've done my fair share of quoting articles, and I believe most of the time I've added discussion to the quotes that would make them fair use. But again, there's no hard and fast rule on that..

Whatever, dude. I'm sure Dale is eager to get into the details of the Berne Convention . Just don't copy an article about it to here. Post an external link.
I'm just pulling your leg, Wanderer.

I have one question, a serious one. I guess actually it is the same thing talasiga was talking about.

May we quote from and properly acknowledge articles? As one might when writing a paper, for example. Does the rule apply to entire articles or to just a few sentences as well? Should we paraphrase the few sentences and give the proper source?

Anyway, no problem here.

_________________
Diligentia maximum etiam mediocris ingeni subsidium. ~ Diligence is a very great help even to a mediocre intelligence.----Seneca

I appreciate your comment Wanderer.
My post was not meant to detract or derail
Dale's request.
I find this area of the law interesting.

I feel that Dale's approach would be the most workable for him.
There are indeed too many posts here for it to be reasonable
for him to be making fair use judgements on exotic excerpts.

There are two things that would make me apprehensive about being an
internet publisher (such as being an owner of this forum):-

1. copyright and moral right breaches
2. defamation.

I have noticed in a lot of forums on the internet that a poster will quote a renowned person (who is not a member of the forum) and then attack that person (in their absence) in a way that could be reasonably seen to evince a lesser opinion of that person by those that read the poster's comments. The elements of an action for defamation exist in a such a scenario, IMO.

_________________
qui jure suo utitur neminem laedit

I had a good deal to do with understanding fair use policy
and copywrite law when I was on the library committee
at The University of New Orleans. I'm afraid there is a great
deal of over-reaction and misunderstanding here,
which leads to over restrictive policies. Our library
became so concerned about violating fair use that it
neutralized itself when it came to professors
putting photocopies on reserve. This to avoid the possibility
of legal difficulties that were, in fact, very
remote. When I visited major
universities, these restrictions were not in place.


Generally political and legal commentary, published online,
isn't going to lead to trouble--the goal of these publications
isn't to make money but to be readily available. Courts
have themselves noted this even about scholarly work
in hard copy journals.

Operating in a grey area, there is a good deal to be said
for erring on the side of posting and listing.
Erring the other way creates a culture in which communication
and discussion are hampered, often for no good reason or to minimize
slight risks. Whether grey
turns to white or to black may well be up to us.

I've been moving, furniture, a U-Haul truck, for four days,
the entire catastrophe, and so I'm even more psychotic
than usual. Probably I'm making a mountain out of
molehill. Still...

let me say something about why I think this matters:

generally communication and discussion happen best
when the material to be discussed is right up there
in public view, as it were. Hence when teaching, it is
helpful to project the material we're discussing so that
everybody can see it, even though we all can look it
up in our text book, say. This facilitates discussion.

The posted document is more likely to be read, in fact,
than one to which we link (one step removed) and it's
up there in public view (as close as we can get to it
in virtual reality), which does facilitate discussion.
I think there's little question that, though we can get by
the other way, this facilitates communication and discussion.
The alternative is less good.

The internet is going to be the chief way people communicate
and discuss things, odds are--and I think communication
and discussion are important, for all the obvious reasons.
As the internet is likely to be the chief venue in which this all
happens, accepting restrictions that make discussion
and communication harder is worth avoiding.

So it seems to me that we should hold the line here UNLESS
there is a real and palpable danger. I honestly think something
is at stake here, not just for chiffandfipple, but for public
communication over the internet in general.

Also, if there is to be a restrictive policy here (obviously
I hope there won't be), some clarification
will help, e.g. how shall we handle quotations?
Are they out, too? If not is there going to be a right
and a wrong way to post them?

jim

I understand it's a gray area, but as I've said, I've had a couple of rounds of difficulty with this. I'm open-minded about it, but I really think that reprinting an entire copyrighted article without author's permission isn't the way to go.

Jim, think of posting stuff here as photocopying material for a class you're teaching. A few paragraphs from a textbook would probably not be a problem, a whole chapter from a textbook would be (I know from experience). Some people have been known to post the headline and lead paragraph of a story. That seems reasonable, it's enough to let you know whether you want to read the article, but not enough to get Dale or Rich into trouble.

_________________
Charlie
Whorfin Woods
One cat short of crazy.

I'm familiar with a large university and a small liberal arts college, both of which take copyright law very seriously. The libraries have not "neutralized themselves", not sure what that means, but they do get the necessary permissions for any xeroxed articles placed on reserve. The bookstores get permissions for course packs----collections of xeroxed materials which the students buy at the bookstore. Professors have to plan ahead so that the arrangements for whatever is needed can be made before the students need to use the materials. It all seems to work out pretty well actually. Publishing on the Internet doesn't seem any different to me.

Edited to correct spelling.

_________________
Diligentia maximum etiam mediocris ingeni subsidium. ~ Diligence is a very great help even to a mediocre intelligence.----Seneca

Don't get me wrong, I've played a bit loose with this issue myself--more than once. But, I think of it this way: If I posted an MP3 here to a copyrighted song, we know that would probably be a problem. I can't think of any reason that it's different from an entire copyrighted article.

Incidentally, the forums have been hosted in the US since <a href="http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://chiffboard.mati.ca">November, 2001</a> (with a short return to Canada for part of 2002) -- mostly on a friend's server at various locations in New York City, and now with Dreamhost in California.

Boy am I behind the times

I agree with you about the entire article issue but I doubt whether most exotic quoting here is about entire articles. Is it?

I tend to agree with Jim as my experience coalesces.

If you are open minded, as you say, maybe you might consider appointing a couple of moderators specifically to vet exotic excerpts for "fair use" assessment. Someone like Mr Stone with academic library experience and maybe someone with some legal or publishing background also.

(And, no, I am not offering. Just a helpful suggestion)

_________________
qui jure suo utitur neminem laedit

It was the ".ca" that throwed you.

_________________
Reasonable person
Walden