Fran quoted me thus: >> Copyright law focuses on publishing
... cutting off my sentence midstream. Then she added: > Actually, copyright literally covers making copies, and does > not only apply to distribution or sale of them. However, if Fran had included the rest of my sentence, it would have been clear that I was saying the same thing, as my full sentence went on to define "publishing" (for purposes of describing copyright) -- as the making of copies. My full sentence was this: "Copyright law focuses on publishing -- that is, creation and distribution of copies of creative work that someone owns." Fran equated the terms herself later in her paragraph: > This is why it's illegal to copy a copyrighted book to save > yourself the price of buying it; you're publishing a one-off > for yourself. Yes: copying as publishing. The rest of my post should also have made it abundantly obvious I was not defining publishing here as requiring "sale." "Distribution" is fuzzier, and I included it in that sentence in part because I didn't want to get sidetracked onto the issue of copying things for personal use. Note that I said "focuses on," not "covers." Truth is, although the exact definition of copyright is broader, copyright *cases* generally arise only when a copy goes beyond the knowledge and use of a single person. Technically it is often a violation to make a copy of something for personal use, but from a practical standpoint, if no one hears the tree fall, it makes no sound. As far as I know, personal use wasn't the concern in the thread, so I concentrated on the practical issue that was under discussion. Certainly, copying a whole book is a violation. But I've occasionally resorted to Xeroxing books that are technically in copyright, when they're out of print or otherwise unavailable and I need to refer to them longer than ILL will let me. In the one chance in a million that the copyright owners in these cases wander into my private office and find the copies in my files, I'll take my lumps. (Given the books in question, though, I suspect the authors would more likely be amazed that would go to such lengths to get them.) Copying pages or chunks here and there is something that happens every day in every university library and Kinko's. When, in writing a paper, I quote from or cite a book that I don't own, I routinely copy the relevant pages, so I can go back to the reference for context or fact-checking as needed. I also copy the title page and copyright page of the book and staple them to the copies of the individual pages. I consider that good scholarly practice, and I can't imagine anyone hauling me in for copyright violation for that. > Likewise, educational use legally applies to education that takes place > within educational institutions, and not to an individual reading any > book he or she may find informative (which after all applies to every > nonfiction work). Which is why I was careful to refer specifically to "educational presentations," not just "educational use," in my example. Which, again, I think was relevant to the thread at hand. I'm not sure how the law would cover independent lectures that are characterized as classes but not within the walls of an institution. The SCA has events that are full of classes, and it has legal status as a 501(c)3 nonprofit educational organization. A lawyer could make a good case that a class at an SCA "university" event is an educational presentation, but just Xeroxing stuff for reference in making SCA costumes probably wouldn't fly. Many of my own slides are from books I don't own. I made the copies from library copies, or in the rare book rooms of libraries, often using the library's own photo setup, with permission from the rare book librarian. (And yes, some "rare" books are still young enough to be under copyright.) They knew I'd be using the slides for research and lectures. I've never run into anyone who questions whether this is appropriate educational use ... even though I am not affiliated with and do not teach at an educational institution. Copyright law, overall, is full of exceptions, loopholes, conflicting precedents, and argument. Some lines are clearer than others, though. I should also note that I generally agree with Fran on issues of copyright, and I would encourage her to read my posts with a consideration of the context of the conversation. I have no desire or time to engage in an argument over semantics, particularly as we are on the same side of the issue. I should also note that my goal in entering into this discussion is to provide helpful guidance to list members who want to do the right thing, and I do not intend to get into a protracted discussion about fine points of the law that do not apply to the situation at hand. --Robin _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last. Get it now. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033_______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
