Hey Publishers, fair use?

[Treebore]

No. The OGL is defining things that you can use under the terms of the license... it has nothing to do with "fair use." Just what is fair for you to use under the terms.

Correct, but what your missing is the accepting the OGL replaces copyright law. If you don't use the OGL then your work has to follow copyright law.

"Fair use" only comes in for the consumer and how they can share the copies they own.

Anything done for a certain amount of profit is outside of "fair use".

Plus, "fair use" is definitely part of copyright law, it says it is. So fair use applies to any book, as long as you aren't making money off of it, or costing the company profits due to your actions, etc... If your doing something for profit then you better be following the other parts of copyright law.

 

[Mark]

Plus, "fair use" is definitely part of copyright law, it says it is. So fair use applies to any book, as long as you aren't making money off of it

Nope. As per above, it only applies in certain circumstances for particular purposes.

 

[Treebore]

Nope. As per above, it only applies in certain circumstances for particular purposes.

I'm sorry, but for now I have to disagree.

 

[Mark]

I'm sorry, but for now I have to disagree.

I'm not presenting an opinion, just citing what it actually says.

The "four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair" apply to "a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered 'fair,' such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research"

 

[Treebore]

I'm not presenting an opinion, just citing what it actually says.

Right. But your saying that list is conclusive. Its not. "Fair use" is still open to further interpretation. If that list was conclusive it would not say "such as...", those are just examples already worked out in court cases. That list definitely has room for expansion.

 

[Mark]

Right. But your saying that list is conclusive. Its not. "Fair use" is still open to further interpretation. If that list was conclusive it would not say "such as...", those are just examples already worked out in court cases. That list definitely has room for expansion.

The type of usage you are suggesting should be added would seemingly make copyright law in non-commercial arenas non-existent, which is clearly not the intent of fair use.

 

[Committed Hero]

The type of usage you are suggesting should be added would seemingly make copyright law in non-commercial arenas non-existent, which is clearly not the intent of fair use.

Right off the bat, though, the list cited earlier omits satire, which is an accepted fair use. The factors are not cut and dried - working with their framework to fit your case is what law is all about. And "making money" is certainly permissible. You can sell a textbook that has quotes from another source, for example.

 

[Mark]

Right off the bat, though, the list cited earlier omits satire, which is an accepted fair use. The factors are not cut and dried - working with their framework to fit your case is what law is all about. And "making money" is certainly permissible. You can sell a textbook that has quotes from another source, for example.

You're not following the conversation. In the sentence you quoted, I am discussing what Treebore is proposing not the totality of what needs to be considered. As to satire, yes, that has been covered by case law in regard to fair use.

I'm stepping away from this. I've pointed people to where they can find some information on thier own and caution them that drawing legal conclusions that support expansion of what any law covers based on thin Internet research is highly suspect.

My best advice in this and in all legal matters is, if a little research leads you to believe that you should play it safe and not do something, you are probably safer not doing something, but if it leads you to believe it is okay to do something that you already know most would agree is not something to do, you probably haven't got the full picture from your research. If you want to try and expand the scope of a law, get a lawyer and do it properly.

 

[Treebore]

The type of usage you are suggesting should be added would seemingly make copyright law in non-commercial arenas non-existent, which is clearly not the intent of fair use.

I suggested what that would have that effect? The only thing I intentionally suggested was that PDF's be shared in as similar a fashion as you would a book. Other than that all I remember saying is that I don't see how to interpret it the same way you say to. You say it is a very specific and short list, I have been saying I see it as a "suggested" list, or "examples", that can be further expanded upon as needed due to future court cases give further definition to what "fair use" is or is not.

If I were to ever publish something I would definitely do it with much more legal advice than I have now.

As for "fair use" I think sharing PDF's like I was told is a pretty safe way to share a PDF and stay within "fair use". The ways I know it has been done, sharing copies while still having one yourself, would definitely be risking legal action.

So if I ever share a PDF, I will not have a copy of it on my computers while it is out on loan. If I ever borrow a PDF you can rest assured I will save the e-mail with the PDF link to prove I returned the borrowed PDF, and they will see I no longer had a copy of it after that date.

That was the guidance I received, it makes sense, and I think it will protect me adequately under "fair use" that no one will be able to accuse me of willful copyright violations.

That was the purpose with which I started this thread, and I think I have found sound guidance on how to fairly share PDF's.

If you as a publisher would have a problem with me sharing PDF's in this manner please let me know why. Since it mimics sharing of hard copy books as closely as possible I would definitely like to know any "holes" you see in it.

 

[tensen]

Treebore, you still aren't getting it. What you are talking about with regards to sharing a book doesn't fall under the Fair Use laws at all.

Fair Use is: for the purposes of criticism, comment, new reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, fair use allows someone who does not own the copyright of a work to use portions of it without either paying the copyright holder or asking for permission.