[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Fair use as determined by copyright holder

Hi all,

I'm new to this list, and am not a legal mind, but here's my bit.  Rights
of the copyright owner are reproduction, distribution, adaptation,
performance and display (sec. 106).  Under section 108d, rights of
reproduction and distribution are outlined for what I gather are library
users.  It reads that the "rights of reproduction and distribution under
this section apply if the user requests no more than one article or other
contribution to a collective work or periodical issue from the library
where the user makes the request..." Or, in other words, don't copy more
than one article from an issue of a journal as long as (continuing with
the 1 and 2 of the statute) the article becomes your property, the library
has no notice that it will be used for non-107 purposes and the library
displays the Register of Copyrights warning.  Mind you, I'm simply working
straight from the statute here in front of me, which does not include, of
course, electronic dissemination.

Another set of limits is found in the "Agreement on Guidelines for
Classroom Copying..." by the Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision
1976 for brevity, spontaneity, and cumulative effect.  For example, prose
may copied in total if less than 2500 words, or an excerpt of not more
than 1000 words or 10% of the work, whichever is less, but in any event a
minimum of 500 words.  Unlike the above, this is NOT part of the statute,
but merely a "suggestion" by the committee.

To me, it sounds as though this person might be working from the
information in 108d.

Stefanie DuBose

> ----------
> On each copy is a notice saying that any reader
> can feel free to copy and distribute the newsletter as he or she sees fit,
> but that each copy must include the entire issue -- readers are not
> allowed to copy single articles and distribute them.  Sounds reasonable,
> right?  The problem is that my friend does not have the legal authority to
> impose that restriction (unless he wants to go through the process of
> imposing a license agreement).  He's certainly within his legal rights to
> say "Copy and distribute this newsletter as you see fit," because he's the
> copyright holder.  But it seems to me that once he has published the
> information and distributed it without requiring readers to agree to
> licence terms, he DOESN'T have the legal authority to tell them "You may
> not copy individual articles," because the law (or, I guess, legal
> precedent) makes it pretty clear that they can, within the bounds of fair
> use.