[Table of Contents] [Search]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bindings in NYC



You are giving an example of a copyright infingement through the
publication of a derivative work, a right that is exclusive to copyright
holder.  The paraphrased work was derived from the original author, who has
the right to create a new work or sell that right to another author.

M

At 08:25 AM 5/27/99 -0500, you wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Morin <ba202@FREENET.BUFFALO.EDU>
>To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>Date: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 11:27 PM
>Subject: Re: Bindings in NYC
>
>
>>At 01:22 PM 5/26/99 -0500, Jules Siegel <jsiegel@acnet.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>Under American copyright law, the reproduction of a small
>portion of a larger work for educational purposes with
>attribution is called a fair use.
>
>>Any individual using copyrighted materials without a formal
>school affiliation is not within the law.  "Educational
>purposes" does not mean "the general education of the
>public" So if you are using materials to teach in a formal
>classroom you are allowed fair use access to copy right
>protected works.
>
>
>Fair use is not restricted to educators. The rules apply to
>anyone engaged in informing the public even if a profit is
>involved. It's quite proper to quote a modest amount of
>material or show a single illustration in a book, magazine
>or newspaper without getting formal permission as long as
>the material is properly attributed.
>
>The main violation is commercial exploitation, such as using
>even a few words or distinctive notes of a song in an
>advertisement.
>
>American copyright law is very flexible and is mainly based
>on cases and precedents, rather than elaborate rules.
>
>Here's a good example. An author (I forget his name)
>examined all of Salinger's letters and paraphrased them
>extensively and then published a book containing large
>amounts of paraphrased letters. Normally, it's considered
>fair use to paraphrase a protected document. In this case,
>the court ruled that the paraphrasing was an unfair use. I
>don't have the decision easily available, but it's a
>well-known case. Although there were other considerations, I
>believe that it was mainly based on the large amount of
>material that the author used. It was just too much to be
>considered a fair use. In effect, it was unfair for him to
>produce an entire book by paraphrasing extensively from
>another author's unpublished works.
>
>


[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]