by Newly Enlightened 277 Replies latest members private
I've removed my original post because I've decided I want nothing more to do with this.
Nobody can provide any evidence of any actual wrongdoing. none.
all this is is drama. And much like people of faith, no amount of reason is going to stem their ravings. It'll run its course and it'll go away.
A. The answer is simple: whenever the failure to seek permission will result in copyright infringement. Since 1976, U.S. copyright is automatic when an original work — text, art, photos or music — is created and fixed in a copy or recorded for the first time. Neither registration nor copyright notice is required. Reproducing someone’s copyrighted work without their permission — even if you give them attribution – is infringement. It is safest to assume, therefore, that you must get permission from the copyright owner for all material – text, quotes, lyrics — unless the material falls into one of the following two narrow categories:
Public domain material. Public domain material includes items that cannot be copyrighted (ideas, titles, names, short phrases, and slogans); works whose copyright expired and/or was not renewed (including all work created before January 1, 1923); most federal government documents (but not those created by private contractors); and many state government documents and publications.
“Fair Use.” You also don’t need permission if your use of the material qualifies as “fair use” under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. In general, however, fair use always is a short excerpt used in connection with genuine criticism, parody, or teaching. Use of material in a review or scholarly article is fair use; use in novels is not. (For example, including lyrics from the Rolling Stones in your novel is not fair use.)
All well and good.
1. Cedars did not reproduce the work. Someone else did and gave him a copy.
2. You must also prove the copyright is not/was not expired during the period of the reproduction.
you have not proven wrongdoing here. And I really hope I can follow through on my desire to stay out of this going forward.
Cedars did not reproduce the work. Someone else did and gave him a copy.
It really depends on who ordered the printing (otherwise it would be the guy at the printing press always being found guilty).
You must also prove the copyright is not/was not expired during the period of the reproduction.
That makes no sense to me. Copyright can't expire and then be resurrected - unless there is a copyright Lazarus clause. If they have copyright *now* then they had to have it then as well. If they didn't have it then then they can't have it now.
Reproduction without permission is violation of that copyright.
you have not proven wrongdoing here. And I really hope I can follow through on my desire to stay out of this going forward.
I think you just proved it by pointing out the logic of whether it was or wasn't expired during reproduction (unless you are trying to prove the copyright owners don't actually have it?). Whether you want to comment on it is entirely up to you.
My understanding of copyright is that it weakens your case of any claim for violation if you have been aware of illegal copying and have ignored it (why publishers sometimes seem to aggressively pursue what appear silly claims).
But that doesn't mean the copyright holder can't themselves decide to make a work available without charging for it (for whatever reason they decide) in which case they still retain control of their copyright.
The bottom line is whether money is paid makes no difference either to the validity of copyright or any violation of it (and potential damages caused because of it).
Newly Enlightened,
"IF Ray & Cynthia would have wanted Ray's books available to world to do whatever anyone wanted to do with it, they would have.
BUT THEY DIDN'T
they entrusted a dear friend of theirs to protect his life work. Mike & I trust that decision and will do whatever we can to help her keep it Ray's work and not get some website slapped on it like a brand or advertisement."
My argument has nothing to do with Ray's work being used to advertise or promote another group's agenda, and I am sorry to hear that such a thing may have been done. Maybe I can illustrate my point more clearly with an analogy that rebel8 started.
Let's say you decide that you want to go out to dinner. When you get there, however, the restaurant is closed. Standing outside the door is a bus boy with a plate of left over food from that night. He says, "The chef gave me this food. I will sell it to you for menu price." Would you buy it?
As I have stated, I hope that the individual who is publishing and selling the book will do so at a minimal price to cover their costs and the time invested in printing. If this is the route that they are going, it seems that open-access may be a simpler, more effective manner for getting the work out.
Otherwise(please correct me if you see another interpretation), the individual is looking to profit off the books, and in my opinion that is wrong. You say that you trust the decision that Ray made in passing the book on, and I respect that you have such a trust for a person like Ray. I am more dubious, however, and only trust things that can be plainly seen. I hope that the the entire situation works out for the best of the owner and the community.
In my opinion copywriting is also to protect the language in a book. All it takes is one word to change a sentence. THINK ABOUT THAT. Now I am not saying this is the case in this instance, but:-
Q) Has Cedars put his web logo on the back of the book?
A) Yes.
Q) Do you think that is acceptable?
If you think this is acceptable, please clarify why.
The Rebel.
Ok I will reword my post;
prove be the copyright isn't expired
prove Cesar's ordered the reproduction.
prove this isn't just a case of legally purchased books on eBay being rebound.
And prove any profit was made.
if anyone can offer any evidence of this, then there would be something to talk about.
also I wouldn't be too quick to jus quote some policy or law regarding copyright and assume you understand it. Because law is very much like the bible, it's all about interpretation, and a lot more goes into interpreting that page of copyright law than what words are on it.
