Talk:Fair use: Difference between revisions
imported>Richard Jensen (Encyclopedic) |
imported>Richard Jensen (Plagiarism) |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
It's not very encuclopedic to say we don't knowwhat we're talking about. So I made a positive statement instead of this: ''Legal definitions and the legal scope of public domain vary across the world, and it is not unusual for works to be public domain in one country and copyrighted in another. This lack of any international standard is a serious problem for internet publishing, where the applicable law is unclear and leaves internet publishers open to potential litigation.'' There is no such litigatation, and the "serious problem" is a gross exaggeration --there are no concrete examples given.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 23:25, 26 September 2007 (CDT) | It's not very encuclopedic to say we don't knowwhat we're talking about. So I made a positive statement instead of this: ''Legal definitions and the legal scope of public domain vary across the world, and it is not unusual for works to be public domain in one country and copyrighted in another. This lack of any international standard is a serious problem for internet publishing, where the applicable law is unclear and leaves internet publishers open to potential litigation.'' There is no such litigatation, and the "serious problem" is a gross exaggeration --there are no concrete examples given.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 23:25, 26 September 2007 (CDT) | ||
== Plagiarism == | |||
I added the plagiarism section because people get all confused otherwise about the difference between fair use/copyright issues and plagiarism. I have never heard of a LEGAL case under federal copyright law regarding plagiarism. There have of course been violation-of-copyright lawsuits (for example against DaVinci Code, settled in London in Brown's favour recently.) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 23:29, 26 September 2007 (CDT) |
Revision as of 22:29, 26 September 2007
The definition is radically problematic. It does not provide for the right under certain circumstances to copy by posting on the web or publishing, it provides a right for a defense for certain types of incorporations of copyrighted works into other publications without permission. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:29, 26 September 2007 (CDT)
- That Japan has "similar national laws" regarding fair use is simply wrong. The Japanese legal system has no correlate to the four prongs. Rather than creating principles that courts then interpret on a case-by-case basis, they instead have opted to create amazingly detailed laws on what is recognized as Limitations on Copyright in Japan. In the same manner as other countries, however, their courts are frequently called upon to decide cases based upon that complex of limitations. Very few win. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:51, 26 September 2007 (CDT)
- Thanks for the info on Japan, which I did not know. A legal protection that allows a person to do something is a right. It is not true that fair-use material has to be "incorporated into" something else-- that is NOT on the 4 part list. For example, copying a news story onto the web for the purpose of elicitng commentary is fair use. Richard Jensen 23:20, 26 September 2007 (CDT)
Encyclopedic
It's not very encuclopedic to say we don't knowwhat we're talking about. So I made a positive statement instead of this: Legal definitions and the legal scope of public domain vary across the world, and it is not unusual for works to be public domain in one country and copyrighted in another. This lack of any international standard is a serious problem for internet publishing, where the applicable law is unclear and leaves internet publishers open to potential litigation. There is no such litigatation, and the "serious problem" is a gross exaggeration --there are no concrete examples given.Richard Jensen 23:25, 26 September 2007 (CDT)
Plagiarism
I added the plagiarism section because people get all confused otherwise about the difference between fair use/copyright issues and plagiarism. I have never heard of a LEGAL case under federal copyright law regarding plagiarism. There have of course been violation-of-copyright lawsuits (for example against DaVinci Code, settled in London in Brown's favour recently.) Richard Jensen 23:29, 26 September 2007 (CDT)
- Article with Definition
- Developing Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Law Developing Articles
- Law Nonstub Articles
- Law Internal Articles
- Library and Information Science Developing Articles
- Library and Information Science Nonstub Articles
- Library and Information Science Internal Articles
- Law Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Library and Information Science Underlinked Articles