Minutus

Sherri,

Irene is wrong about copyright infringemnet.
You are allowed to excerpt material w/acknowledgement of the author.

What you are not allowed to do is the publish the "entire" document in the same form, without changes without acknowledgement and permission of the author.

Regards,
Bill Giman
_____________________________________________________________
Click now for great deals on quality business cards!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL212 ... Ks9jxAwnd/

Not according to the Berne convention or any lawyer on the matter or
any case law.
"w/" means ????

There are strict rules for what kind of quotes of material you may
use and for what purpose.
You may not quote it for purposes of spreading the same information
the author wrote about as here!

You may only provide an "insubstantial" (judges interpret as 10% or
less) quote of material, and it must be for specific use such as
inducing people to go read the whole. Basically the writing belong to
the author - that is the writing STYLE belongs to the author.
Only they can say where the writing is viewed.
The information in the writing is NOT copyright, so if you want to
spread the information you have to rewrite it in your own words.
Otherwise you need to link to the original or get permission to use it.

Suggest you read the govt copyright site for details and err on the
side of caution meantime.
I'm not a lawyer (are you a copyright lawyer Bill?) , but as a
publisher I am well up on copyright laws:-)
They can also be readily referenced at official sites. Good place to
start:
Berne treaty:
http://www.copyright.gov/wipo/treaty1.html
Uruguay treaty:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary_mat ... 92995.html
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
"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."
Considered okay by the courts:
"quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for
illustration or clarification of the author's observations"

Note the REASON to quote is relevant - to *explain* the author's
opinion - not to *present* the author's opinion.

So, be fair - get permission:-)

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."

Thanks Irene, that's helpful, but--

"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."

?? Isn't that exactly what Sheri was doing--teaching, scholarship,
research? Or if not, then what *do* they mean by that??

Thinking about the *purpose* for copyright laws, I do not see where a
post such as Sheri's goes against the *purpose*. If someone finds that
description of a single remedy useful, they'll be *more* apt to want
the whole book, not less.
Shannon

#1 Irene - he posted it on HSNC blog...............to promote his
book and share info.
#2 It was emailed to me by the blog owner, just that way and did NOT
have any paragraph saying it couldn't be shared or only a paragraph
of it shared
#3 If you go to the webpage you see that - but it isn't in the email
that is sent out in a blanket manner

Sheri

At 09:46 PM 4/17/2008, you wrote:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

How Current is This?
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A , the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include­
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Search this title:

You stopped reading too soon. I ALSO posted what is considered okay
for "teaching" under this section of the law; please see that email
again:-)
(and/or the law itself)
Using it directly to inform/teach people is NOT allowed.
Quoting is allowed only to explain the author's perspective in
another context, while teaching.

Basically - you can't "take" the property - not for ANY reason.
Luc knew it - he followed the law and gave the appropriate allowance
of use.
NOTHING can change that, it's the author's right by copyright law to
do what he did and to choose exactly how the work is allowed to be
used. Basically he has covered the point of "how much is a few
lines", which might otherwise be open to interpretation.
That's his right:-)

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 - I also posted 107 of Ch 17 copyright law. But I bothered to
go the distance and explain the legal aspect in item 3 below.
See my original email on this.
Dr Luc had the right to allow a paragraph and link only.
And without that, (if DrLuc had not specified any use or stated any
copyright) nobody would have had the right to use more than a few
lines and that only in discussion to explain DrLuc's perspective
educationally - not for direct education.
.....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."

oops, sorry--I stopped reading too soon again...

DrLuc has the right to post it anywhere HE likes. He OWNS it:-)
Does not matter.l The blog owner does not own it and has no rights
over where it may be used.
Only DrLuc has that ownership and property right.
Doesn't matter - everything is automatically copyright:-)
Again - it is automatically copyright, and the onus is on YOU to get
permission form the real author - DrLuc - and post only whatever
DrLuc approves.

I'm just offering the way it is so you can use it next time:-)
A lot of people misunderstand this responsibility.
Even an email is copyright and can't just be re-posted somewhere
without author okay.

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."

It is not Dr. Luc's list - it is Kari Kindem's - she set it up, she has it sent out around the world by email.
It is a blog she set up on her website and Dr. Luc shares information there knowing it will be shared by email
Sheri

At 06:20 PM 4/18/2008, you wrote: