And yet you argue against generalizations with more generalizations.
OK. Here I am with Richard Stim's _Getting Permission: How to License
& Clear Copyrighted Materials Online & Off," which I strongly recommend,
along with Stephem Fishman's _The Copyright Handbook." And dutifully
paraphrasing what they say in a way that does not violate their copyrights.
In an earlier message, I mentioned guidelines for educational use, in
addition to the use being merely made by an instructor within an
educational institution. There is a specific set of educational fair
use guidelines recognized by the US Copyright Office and in the courts
as minimum standards. They are laid out in full in Circular 29, and
according to Stim, are provided on the US Copyright Office website. I
touched on them briefly earlier. Some points particularly relevant to
this discussion:
* The guidelines do apply to presentation of research findings at
noncommercial educational workshops, lectures, etc., as well as within
universities and other nonprofit, formal educational institutions.
(However, I'd say that not all teaching is presentation of "research
findings" or anything at all new.)
* The general idea seems to be to limit copying to only certain rather
small quantities of a work, and to a certain rather small quantity of
copying for the class as a whole.
* They include guidelines for the amount of text used, and let's skip
that for this discussion; please refer to Stim's book or to Circular 29.
For illustrations, the guidelines are "One chart, graph, diagram,
drawing, cartoon, or picture per book or per periodical issue." Also,
"ony nine instances of such copying for one course during one school
term are permitted." Also, the use has to be spontaneous; the instructor
must have thought of it too late to ask for permission. The guidelines
do not permit the copying of material from textbooks, workbooks, etc.
created for educational use, as this would usurp the profits of
educational publishers.
* The bottom line is that the copying is not to be a substitute for
having the students purchase the work(s).
Because digitizing materials is a fairly new technology, there are
several sets of PROPOSED guidelines for using digitized materials for
educational purposes, none of which have the force of law nor even, as
far as I can tell, well-established use in court cases. But, that
doesn't mean that no one will sue anyone over use of digitized works.
FACTOR 3: How much of the work will you use?
A small amount, if you're qualifying the book as the work and not the
photo (which is the norm). Since #1 and #2 already point towards fair
use, even if it was claimed that the photo was the work, it may be
justifiable as fair use.
As far as copyright law goes, a book is not one huge block. Different
elements have different copyrights. Especially, it is less defensible to
copy and use something that is complete in itself: One pattern, one
poem, the set of instructions for one project.
As for pictures, not only are they usually complete in themselves, bear
in mind that under US law (I understand that the laws of some foreign
countries are different, but do not know the details for each country)
photographs of paintings and other works of art have their own
copyrights, indepedent of the copyright status of the work of art
itself. Suppose a Renaissance painting is in an American museum, and the
museum photographs it. They can, and often do, charge for the use of
that photo. If a different photographer photographs it someday, that
photo has its own, different copyright.
Museums often charge for use of such photos in books, etc. It's one way
they get some revenue. In a book with photos of paintings from many
museums, the author or publisher (who does the work and pays for the
permissions depends on the publishing contract for that book) may have
gone to a great deal of effort and paid a fair amount of money to get
permission for each and every photo to be used in that book. That
permission does not automatically extend to everyone else who wants to
use the photo.
If the author, or an ilustrator hired by the author or publisher, has
redrawn details of things like garment parts in the original works of
art, for greater clarity, than those drawings have their own, modern
copyrights.
FACTOR 4: If this kind of use were widespread, what effect would it
have on the market for the original or for permissions?
It can have a great deal of effect. Bear in mind that the copyright
owner has a much better grasp of the effect on sales than the copyright
violator, and the copyright owner can present that evidence in court.
Fran
Lavolta Press
http://www.lavoltapress.com
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
