Minutus

Why are you violating the copyright Luc De Schepper has by putting
this on multiple lists?

It can only be done with his specific permission - which on his
website is given for "one paragraph and a link" only!
I guess as an author/publisher myself in the past, I have a thing
about respecting the law that is there to protect intellectual
property and hard work to achieve it, as this is.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Sheri - Copyright is automatic, it does not ned to be stated:-)
ANY correspondence, even an ordinary email is automatically copyright
to the author and needs permission to post unless the author
specifically goes that permission in the article.

It is legal to post a line or two as illustration and a link to
somewhere to read it however, as long as the "somewhere" is a place
the author put it. The principle is that only the author may decide
where it may be seen and read and put it there, or give permission
for someone else to put it there.

It's a common mistake to think a copyright notice is needed for
anything to be copyright:-)
It's not been that way since the Berne convention turned it around
and made copyright automatic unless author says otherwise.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

But we've been told by at least a couple of different people with legal
background that it is alright to post excerpts with attribution.
You've pointed out that Dr. Luc's site specifies one paragraph plus
link, so in this case Sheri was (for reason she explained) in
error--but in general, I'd love to know where the "line or two" limit
is stated?

I'd think most authors would be really happy for the "advertising"; and
certainly I as a reader am more eager to buy a book that I've already
had the chance to read a bit of and be impressed by...? And I am not
such an easy sell that a "line or two" would do that! (In the case of
"hard copy", there would be no link to post.)

People *often* post chunks from book, as well as websites, so the
question has come up repeatedly, and I did think that each time we'd
been reassured that it's okay, so long as it's a "chunk" and not too
much of the whole, and attributed.

Rats this gets confusing...!
Shannon

Hi Irene,

Copyright laws differ from country to country. Afaik we are subject to
the laws of the country we reside in.

For Sheri it would be the UK - for me Germany. I do not know about the
UK, but here longer excerps are permitted if it is for
scientific/scholarly purposes.

(What is scientific/scholarly - in Germany there is just one word
meaning both "wissenschaftlich" - is a big, grey area. We had quite a
long discussion on the topic a while ago on the German list.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

I quoted it - from section 107 of copyright law interpretation
document used by the courts.
And I quoted also that attribution has absolutely no standing in law
- it's a myth. It says so in so many words in the law!
So whoever you consulted is totally wrong!
You need a intellectual property rights lawyer, or you need to read
the actual law (which is why I posted the link) - not believe someone
who has "legal background" - that has to be the the best way to learn
urban legend instead:-)
Not according to the law.
The law says the author MUST give permission either in the work
specifically (as Luc did - he obviously bothered to know the law on
it) or for individual use of it - as it is the author's *property*
and may not just be taken by anyone.
Which is why Luc does what the law requires and gives specific
permission for a paragraph and a LINK to the entire item:-)
The rest of your email [People post chunks of stuff....etc] is more
of the same common complaint that the law is not the way they feel
like having it. They are breaking the law unless they have author
permission to post "chunks".
- and if they get away with it, that does not change what the law
says:-)
We all have the responsibility of *knowing* and following the law it
the way it is.
I gave you all the right refs to check this - not just "someone's
opinion who had something to do with something legal"!!!
Not really. Writing is property, it's not up for grabs:-)
Posting someone else's writing (think of it as their posession, as it
is by law just that) needs their permission.
Most authors will give permission if it is a reasonable request.
We don't get to "steal" it or even "borrow" someone's property
without their permission - how is that a hard concept?

The law calls the writing "intellectual *property*". You can't just
take someone's property:-)

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Makes sense, tho it's inconvenient.
But, you snipped my question about this part:

Irene quoted:
Fair use (section 107 of 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:" and includes
item 3:
"amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole" and
o--------------------------------

I'd have thought that (for purpose of teaching etc.; and reasonable
amount "in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." Am I
misunderstanding the intent of that passage?

Shannon

Not exactly any more Luise.
Most countries are signatories to both the Berne convention and the
Uruquay convention.
(I posted links to both.)
These conventions make copyright uniform and automatic and
international.
Thus obeying the copyright law in your country automatically is the
same as obeying it in others where the country is a signatory.
An individual country does have copyright law individually BUT they
can *restrict* use in their laws more than it is restricted by the
conventions - but they can can not expand the use, or violate any
other term, agreed in the convention.

In the very few cases where the country is not a signatory - there I
agree copyright is entirely per country and the basic rules of
copyright can be other than as in those conventions or may be missing
altogether.
But it's the rare exception:-)
Germany and UK and USA etc etc - are all signatories to the Berne
convention:-) And the Uruquay one!
The international conventions make sense in an international world -
especially on the internet.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Hi Irene,

Well, all I can say:

The last time I lookd in the German legal text on copyright - which
was a few months ago on the net - it was still the way I outlined
below.

And it was also explained to me this way by the "scientific/scholarly"
community. They really will have to change things around at the
universities here if those restrictions are applicable to them - their
entire approach to publications would have to change:-o

So I should still advise everyone to look up the legal text in their
own countries to see whether the agreements of Berne and Uruguay have
been implemented into national laws.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========