Andrew Ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Tim Churches wrote: > > > > http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/elib/papers/pa/fair/intro.html > ... > > > This set of guidelines are clearly flawed. Not making the needed > > > distinction between part vs. all is a huge problem. > > > I think you will find, Andrew, that the guidelines are merely > > interpreting the underlying UK copyright legislation, which under > the > > Berne convention is broadly similar to copyright legislation is > just > > about every other rich country (and most Two- Thirds World > countries). > > Not so, please see Berne Convention (Paris text 1971): > http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/10.html > Article 10 covering Fair use: > > ------- begin quote > > (1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has > already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that > their > making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not > exceed > that justified by the purpose ... > > ------ end quote
Sure. But my point is that the "fair practice" is actually codified in copyright law - at least it is here in Australia, and I suspect in the UK too. Indeed, the "fair practice" provisions for (to quote the Copyright Act) "a computer program or an electronic compilation, such as a database" are different and not as liberal as for literature or dramatic works. The usual "10% excerpt" rule seems only to apply to the latter, not to databases etc. Perhaps an IP lawyer can cast more light on this? Tim C
