by Newly Enlightened 277 Replies latest members private
Jonathan Drake: prove be the copyright isn't expired...
In the United States, copyrights do not expire until 95 years after date of publication (or 70 years after the author's death).
The copyright on Ray's book is still valid. His book was published in 1983 and the copyright isn't even close to being expired.
The Rebel: 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.
I think you are confusing "plagarism" with "copyright infringement". They are different concepts.
In response to the copyright claim:
FAIR USE
Even if an out-of-print book is still protected by copyright, some uses of that book may be considered fair use. Fair use is a statutory exemption that allows for works to be used for criticism, scholarship and other reasons that promote the public good. For example, copying several chapters of an out-of-print book for a non-profit educational purpose would probably be considered fair use.However, fair use arises as a defense in a copyright infringement lawsuit, and the U.S. Copyright Office warns against using fair use as a substitute for obtaining permission to use a work.
http://info.legalzoom.com/copyright-laws-out-print-books-23138.html
in response to the copyright claim
Quoting from or copying even several chapters is very different from publishing a complete book. Google had plans to offer out-of-print books but couldn't because of copyright challenges.
You seem very determined to push the idea that it either isn't covered by copyright and then when it's shown to be covered, that it just doesn't matter.
prove be the copyright isn't expired
Orphan Crow has covered this - it's in copyright. It would be for the person to prove they had permission to reproduce it.
prove Cedar's ordered the reproduction.
All we have to go off is who is promoting it and who is putting their logo on it. I'm sure you can understand why that gives people a certain impression of who is responsible for it.
prove this isn't just a case of legally purchased books on eBay being rebound.
What? So your fallback is that maybe it maybe just didn't happen? Someone buys 'expensive' (?) books, rebinds them with their logo on and sells them at a loss?
And prove any profit was made.
As we've already shown, profit or even charging at all has nothing to do with copyright infringement. Using someone else's intellectual property / product for your own gain (self promotion) is still theft.
law is very much like the bible, it's all about interpretation
Finally, attack the law, which is actually quite clear in all this, to try and obfuscate the issue. The copyright page you quoted from starts with this very clear notice:
Under U.S. law, copyright protection is not dependent upon publication. Authors of literary works have exclusive rights to duplicate, distribute and create derivatives of their works from the moment the work is first preserved in some tangible form. These rights extend for the length of the copyright, regardless of whether the work is ever published. The publisher may choose to cease publication of a book after a few years, but that book remains equally protected by copyright.
Obtaining Permission
If an out-of-print book includes a copyright notice, the notice will list the name of the author or copyright holder. U.S. Copyright Office records are open to the public to search for copyright holders as well, if the book does not include a notice. The Copyright Office will also conduct an official search into the copyright status of a work for a fee. There are also organizations, such as the Copyright Clearance Center, that serve as clearing houses to obtain permissions and licenses on behalf of individuals who wish to use copyrighted works.
It doesn't appear any of these things were done. If they were then the people involved should say so - other people managed to track down the copyright holders fairly easily and quickly and find out the status so I have to believe that the people who reproduced the book without permission simply didn't bother to do this.
JD: In response to the copyright claim: FAIR USEJonathan, "fair use" is a clause that is used to describe either critical analysis or parody of an original work. It does NOT cover a complete copy of a work. Generally, "fair use" applies to 10% or less of a complete work. Full copies of a published book do not fall under this clause.
Yes, they make it quite clear:
... the U.S. Copyright Office warns against using fair use as a substitute for obtaining permission to use a work
The fair-use clause is meant to cover things like study / analysis / critique of a work, certainly not "hey, I can sell that book to promote me and my site !"
Hello Jonathan Drake,
Well it seems as if you want to make Deborah Dykstra a pretty happy lady.
Because not only did she inherit CoC but may even gain some dough though a copyright violation suit :)
And the legal website which you quote had the opinion that: "...copying several chapters of an out-of-print book for a non-profit educational purpose would probably be considered fair use."
Well I think you would have to have a pretty darn good reason to copy several chapters (I doubt there exists a sufficient reason) from an out-of-print book and then you better make sure its non-profit otherwise... kuching.
But the law isn't clear at all.
te fair use clause may very well cover the whole book. It certainly sounds like it does. Reading that information it sounds very much like a person may freely reprint an entire work for scholarly purposes if that work is out of print - which it is.
the jwsurvey logo being on the back is not important. The jwfacts logo is also there. Nobody is making a fuss about that. You can't argue this logo being there is grounds to attack cedars but then not attack Paul. This is a double standard. Either it's an infraction or it isn't.
you are correct in saying all you have to go off of us who promoted it (logo already addressed). You are also correct in stating all you have is "an impression". So you don't actually KNOW cedars ordered the reproduction at all. You are assuming this and attacking the guy. And it's poor form. Even your enemies, if they must be your enemies, deserve dignity and respect. The benefit of the doubt should have been extended to cedars, and it wasn't at all.
i wasn't eager to show anything I might add, I was and am trying to use reason and calm to discern fact from nonsense. And asking questions to which I honestly don't know the answer. I wasn't priming anyone or trying to lead anyone into a trap, I was asking a legit question.
from these questions I have learned the following:
the book is still copyright protected.
A copy right protected book, if out of print, can be reprinted for schalarly reasons, for criticism, etc. this makes logical sense I might add because a book, as a piece of the authors expression, does no good out of print. Hence why should a person be subject to prosecution for making an authors work available so long as they aren't making a profit?
so far I have learned that even if t could be shown cedars ordered this reprint, he'd still be innocent of wrongdoing because the reprint falls under the fair use clause of copyright law.
Theres literally no real argument being made here. Just a bunch of people who don't like the guy using innuendo to attack him.
And I get it. You don't like him, some of you have your differences with him, I have had some myself. But this doesn't make it okay to baseless make assumptions and serve the guy a huge plate of disrespect and hate. He's a human being, he should be treated as one.
Benefit of the doubt.
respect.
I've not seen him be disrespectful about this yet. And he's the one being pounded on.
Simon, I'm sorry my posts keep double posting btw. I have no idea why this is happening.
