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 ====