I am an attorney and I do copyright work...there is a statutory penalty 
even if you're an innocently infringer...sooooo be careful...my retainer 
is $2500.00 up front......Charlotte

----Original Message Follows----
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 1998 15:43:19 -0400
From: "Steven J. Coker" 
Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fair Use Doctrine
To: [email protected]

Larry Noah wrote:
> 
>   Unless one is an attorney or is trained in interpreting and applying
> Federal Law the above is totally useless.

I'm not a lawyer.  But the words which I quoted from the U.S. Copyright 
Office
seem fairly understandable to me.  I think in essence that it mostly 
means
something like this: "no harm means no foul."
I think the fundamental underlying purpose of copyright law is to 
protect the
rights of the creators of intellectual works to MAKE MONEY from their 
works.  I
think if the copying is limited and could not reasonably be seen to 
cause harm
to the copyright holder's ability to profit from their works, then it is
probably nothing to worry about.  If it is "excessive" copying or is 
likely to
hamper the copyright holder's ability to profit from the work, then it 
most
likely is a violation.  

Also, the law provides limited exceptions for "purposes such as 
criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for 
classroom use),
scholarship, or research." I think these exceptions are examples of 
copying for
the good of the general public and are reserved by the public in 
exchange for
the public's granting, by law, to the copyright holder all the other 
benefits of
the copyright. When the copying is done for private benefit and not for 
any
meaningful public good, then I think it is less likely the exceptions 
apply. 

If the copying is sold or used in any manner for monetary gain by the 
copier,
then I think it probably is a violation of the copyright.  Nobody should 
be
making money based on the work of another without their knowledge and 
consent. 
That can be reasonably viewed as a form of either slavery or stealing.

If the copying damages the ability of the copyright holder to sell their 
works,
then I think it probably is a violation of the copyright. Most limited 
extracts
From larger works would not be sufficient to keep people from buying the
complete work. In fact, such limited extracts usually stimulate and 
increase
sales, not inhibit them. Most clever copyright holders, the ones that 
make a
living at writing, would LIKE people to copy small extracts from their 
works. 
Doing so usually is just free advertising and results in more sales for 
the
copyright holder. But, they don't want you to "give away the plot" or 
other
critical elements of the work.

Think of it this way, how many pages from a book would somebody have to 
give you
before it would discourage you from buying the book? If they gave you a 
short,
enticing extract, then it would probably stimulate you to want to know 
more and
maybe buy the book, or at least check it out at the library. 

For some works, especially fiction, if someone gave you a long extract 
which
provided you everything you wanted from the book, then you might be less
inclined to buy it. For some works like novels, the portion copied might 
be more
relevant. For example, if somebody copied and distributed just a few 
pages from
the ending of a mystery, then it would be reasonable to conclude that 
would harm
sales.  Fewer people would likely want to read the book after knowing 
how it
ends. So, even a small extract could be a harmful violation for a work 
of that
nature.

However, in the context of genealogy research, even a longish extract 
still
usually encourages sales. Most genealogist don't just want to know the 
facts,
they also want to gather and possess the proofs and sources for their 
personal
records. A citation that reads "from a copy of a copy of an extract 
From..." is
not as reliable as one that reads "as shown on page 102 in the book...."  
If you
haven't actually seen the book yourself, then you shouldn't claim in a 
citation
that your DIRECT source was the book. Your direct source was whoever 
gave you
the copy, not the book itself. And a copy is seldom acceptable as 
evidence
unless the person who made the copy properly certifies and attests to 
its
veracity. Copies can be forged, manipulated, misread, etc. That is why 
courts of
law don't allow copies as evidence without due consideration.

Also, many genealogists want to gather sources which can be used over 
and over
again in researching and helping others. Its not like quoting from a 
work of
fiction when, once read, the work is less "wanted" for future reading. 
Genealogy
materials are usually considered reference materials. Quotes from 
reference
works for research purposes are usually within the exceptions provided 
by law. 

So, like most things in life, it is not black and white.  There are many 
shades
of gray.  I try to use common sense when copying material.  I try to 
consider
some simple questions. 

If I were the author, would I object to this copy?  

Would distributing this copy have any effect on the ability of the 
author to
profit from the work?

If it might have an effect, would it be a harm or a benefit to the 
author?

Would a judge and jury agree with me?

Of course, the above is just my opinion.  Only the courts of law can 
make
official determinations about whether any particular act is a violation 
of the
copyright.  Anybody else is just giving an opinion.

Steve Coker
[email protected]

==== SCROOTS Mailing List ====