rhorn@infinet.UUCP (Rob Horn) (07/24/86)
I looked up my references on copyright, both the current
explorations dealing specifically with computers and the basic
references for writers. The following analysis is strongly based
upon ``The Chicago Manual of Style.'' I heartily recommend it both as
a style reference and a tutorial on the publishing process. Chapter 4
specifically addresses copyright issues.
The key concern for Usenet postings is the issue of ``fair use''.
Chicago Manual of Style (quoted *without* permission, see below)
says:
... the law has long been interpreted as allowing others
to copy brief portions ... for certain purposes - as ...
when a scholar buttresses an argument by quoting from the
work of another scholar.
The current law does not attempt to define the exact
limits of the fair use of copyrighted work. It does
state, however, that in determining whether or not the
use made of a work in any particular case is fair, the
factors to be considered must include the following:
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.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market
for, or value of, the copyrighted work.
There are a variety of ``fair uses'' established both for general
purposes and for specific users, such as libraries. Usenet does
not fall into any of the special categories. With the exception
of newsgroups that contain literary criticism or sources, most of
Usenet should be treated like a scholarly work.
One of the important aspects of scholarly ``fair use'' is its
defense against encroachment. Writers and publishers are
strongly biased towards an excessively strict interpretation of
``fair use''. This is in their interests. Asking for permission
to copy is generally viewed as agreement that your use will not
fall under ``fair use'', and many publishers are unreasonable.
Since we do not want to set precedents in the grey areas, and
since computer people have great difficulty with such nebulous
definitions as ``be fair'' I have culled out the following rules.
They are themselves vague guidelines, but we are dealing here
with a societal balance between protecting the writers and
publishers and protecting the readers and users. This balance is
always changing and very much a subjective judgment made about
individual situations.
FIRST: How much of the original was quoted?
The rule of thumb is that less than 1% and you are probably OK,
more than 10% almost certainly not. (The quote above is less
than 1% of Chapter 4).
SECOND: Is the quote merely supporting material?
You should be writing your own ideas. The quotations should only
be a supplement. Literary criticism has greater lee-way here
because the quotations are more essential to your material. To
check for content, remove the quotations or replace them with
``[quote]'' or ``[quote about subject]''. Does the posting still
have merit? You are biased as the author, and if you have any
doubts you are beyond ``fair use''.
THIRD: Is the quotation fair and accurate?
Did you give a complete and accurate attribution? This is an
absolute necessity. Then, put yourself in the shoes of the other
writers. From their point of view, given their motives and their
ethical standards, will they agree that you accurately portrayed
their statements and meaning? If they will think that you have
distorted them or quoted out of context it is not ``fair use''.
You must consider their point of view no matter how repugnant it
might be to you.
These guidelines are also applicable to improving the
general quality of all postings, but they are specifically
important when dealing with copyrighted material. There is no
reason to risk USENET to pin down the grey areas in ``fair use''.
This area is going to continue to be a very contentious area in
this country because the introduction of computers has created the
following situation:
1. The copying process is trivially easy. Xerox and others
made it practical to copy in bulk; computers have made it
almost effortless.
2. Very few people know anything at all about ``fair use''
(I hope this has helped) and the underlying balance of
interests is a very difficult issue for society.
3. We seem to be afflicted with a vast pool of amoral self-
righteous thieves who seem to think that ``fair'' means
``Anything I can get away with''. As a result, all of the
interested parties have become very defensive and rigid
in their attitudes.
--
Rob Horn
UUCP: ...{decvax, seismo!harvard}!wanginst!infinet!rhorn
Snail: Infinet, 40 High St., North Andover, MAweemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Wimpy Math Grad Student) (07/25/86)
What I find most troublesome from the point of view of fair use are song lyrics, poems, and extremely short stories. It's not possible to reas- onably quote anything less than 20 or 30% from most of these. I suppose that after quoting that much, most people feel the typing effort to fin- ish is obligatory, and then we get the whole thing. This habit makes me nervous. Thus, there was recently a rash of postings of the theme song from Mr Ed. No one complained about copyright violation. I would like to post a re- cently formed 402-word palindrome for pi, in the form of a self-referen- tial short story, but it's copyrighted, and I'm too lazy to write to the publisher. So it goes in the world. I get the impression that a lot of people on the net are just plain ig- norant of the existence and significance of copyright law. Perhaps part of the posting process should include, right before submitting, a remin- der about copyrights. Not that I think it would do any good .... ucbvax!brahms!weemba Wimpy Grad Student/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720