News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Copyright Material/Discussion
« on: December 11, 2002, 04:31:49 PM »
Gentlemen,
There have been admonishments to those who posted excerpts of books, etc.. I asked a lawyer friend about this and he pointed me to the following reference:

This is from the notes section:
Although the courts have considered and ruled upon the fair use doctrine over and over again, no real definition of the concept has ever emerged. Indeed, since the doctrine is an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable definition is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts. On the other hand, the courts have evolved a set of criteria which, though in no case definitive or determinative, provide some gauge for balancing the equities. These criteria have been stated in various ways, but essentially they can all be reduced to the four standards which have been adopted in section 107:

The law itself:  
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 107.
Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors

Having read the above at this site:  http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html  I don't think anything posted so far, including the Doak Scale, would fall outside these categories. If anything they add to the potential market and add to the value a holder of a copyright might expect.

Am I wrong?
  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

A_Clay_Man

Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2002, 05:47:26 PM »
If I understand it correctly, thanx. good leg work.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2002, 05:53:10 PM »
We could easily solve this by asking Tom D to post the Doak scale here.  

If he were to object, then I wouldn't believe any GCA member should feel they have the authority to do so, notwithstanding any legal support for doing so.

With respect to other clippings posted here, including for example Geoff S's column, we should post links to the original material instead of copying it here.  That seems to me to be on safer ground.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2002, 06:38:04 PM »
Kevin,
If TD didn't want his scale posted here I would respect his decision and not be the one to post it although it(scale) represents only a small fraction of the total work(Confidiential Guide) and there is probably no legal ramification for citing it in toto.  
Having said that I want you to know that I could live within the 13 original rules of golf.  ;D  

As for copying articles, that seems to be perfectly acceptable for comment, criticism, etc., especially in a not-for-profit atmosphere of discussion.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

ian

Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2002, 07:43:15 PM »
Teaching is not for profit, but they must pay copyright. Copyright is all about intelectual property, and being paid for the use of your property. As they say in Football: Any reproduction, part or whole,without written permission, is strictly prohibited....(because its copyright infringement).

Kevin, the link comment is a great one, seems to solve the problem. The question I have, if the quote is properly attributed to the author and source (as many on here are), is it still infringement?


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2002, 11:59:51 PM »

Quote
Kevin, the link comment is a great one, seems to solve the problem. The question I have, if the quote is properly attributed to the author and source (as many on here are), is it still infringement?

Ian, alas I believe that it doesn't matter if you provide attribution.  If you reprint a NY Times article here, GCA (the website) can be held accountable by the paper.

I can understand why people reprint articles.  Some sites (like WSJ.com) require registration before articles can be read, so providing a link doesn't provide direct access to the materials for people who aren't registered.  But still, copying and pasting copyrighted materials is not right.  I don't want to be a copyright czar....I'm just telling it like it is.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2002, 12:24:16 AM »
Ian,
Teachers have certain exemptions. Here is another link that explains in better detail.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.notes.html

This is the "notes" part of the original site.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2002, 02:36:41 AM »
Spoke with a lawyer friend and he stated that you could post sections of a book, or news article for FAIR COMMENT...that this would not be breaking the copyright law.

On www.freerepublic.com they have had some problem with this as the entire site is driven by posting news articles for comment.  They have come to agreement with a few papers to reproduce only a portion of the article, thereby making individuals interested in reading further link to the source, but this is only for a limited three or so.

I believe posting such material can only help promote it further and should be encouraged.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

JakaB

Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2002, 06:30:44 AM »
How many pictures and paragraphs from Gib's new book would someone post on this site before asking his permission...The law is all so different when its someone you know and love...capital punishment, abortion and copyright laws are just abstract ideas until they hit your own family...I could flip a switch and copy and paste a magazine article just as easy as I could flip a switch and kill the bastard that murdered my sister....but the law says no...I hate abortion with all my soul but its not my wife sitting in a hospital recently raped...I would enjoy being a published author but lack the talent....Its all so cut and dry....just ask a lawyer...that is the one on your payroll.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #9 on: December 12, 2002, 06:46:59 AM »
Isn't it appropo that noone has mention the ETHICS involved. As I see it, which is ignorant of any law, as long as the motive isn't profit based than using printed already paid for material is not unethical.

I find that the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a handy little tool to perpetuate the legal profession. And therefore BIASED.

What's the line "there is no such thing as bad press" So, by mentioning copying or discussing is tat amount to an advertisement and any person with some ip should be grateful their work is being discussed copied or advertised.

Besides, someone has to translate the law into chineese before it can be equally applied. :-*
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

JakaB

Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2002, 07:06:51 AM »
Adam,

You miss the motives that go beyond profit...how about the guy who wants to be liked...or wants to look smart...or wants to name drop at the expense of someone who did the reasearch and had the vision to have an original thought...I don't understand why anyone would want to post and discuss someone elses ideas...I don't understand why people like sending rehashed jokes over email....The world would be alot quieter and more creative if we all just expressed our own ideas and set our own trends.

Now if you want to reach Doyen status on the backs of others I would suggest you buy Gib's book and post a page every day with pictures for future discussion....call it IDHAIBIKPWDOTD....it must be ethical because its not for profit and I am sure it would be very popular.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Phil_the_Author

Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #11 on: December 12, 2002, 09:26:21 AM »
Just as one must be careful in their willful choice to use in any format (print, television, radio and internet) something written by someone else, the reader must also show restraint in judgement of whether what is written truly infringes upon copyright privileges of another.

For example, I have a book coming out in the spring about the 2002 U.S. Open. In my book I use numerous quotations from players. Many I heard and recorded myself, some I found as direct quotes in various ither sources, such as USGA handouts to the media (of which I was one) and articles written by reporters in newspapers and elsewhere.

Where does copyright come into this situation? A quote such as Harazin Fraser gave to a group of reporters, "This course is one in a million", was not given as an exclusive, but for general usage. If this is found in anarticle, and ONLY THE EXACT PHRASE USED AS A QUOTE in what you are writing, this is not considered plaigerism whether you refer to the publication you found it in or not. It is not the "intellectual property" of the writer as he didn't 'author' the phrase.

If he then takes the phrase and also quotes the interpretation that was used by the writer, that can be considered plaigerism. The person quoting it may also reach the same interpretation of the phrase, and use this, but he must then do so in a manner that is a different manner of phrasing the same conclusion.

In other words, "What light through yonder window breaks" belongs to long-dead Bill, whereas, "Watch out where you step, theres broken glass on the floor from that damn bright sunshine." is all mine!  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #12 on: December 12, 2002, 09:34:30 AM »
JakaB,
The thoughts and writngs of others can be the soil from which a whole new wave of thinking emerges or it can be nothing more than the fertilizer. There have been interesting discussions on this site that started from posted articles or book excerpts. You have participated in many of these discussions so why do you say: "I don't understand why anyone would want to post and discuss someone elses ideas"?








« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

A_Clay_Man

Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #13 on: December 12, 2002, 10:37:20 AM »
How about the scientist who diseminates to the world the secret to "whatever" so that the evil Dr. Iyz sheet madraws cannot be the only one to control the universe with the science created, probably in the name of progress but only  leads to destruction? ::)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2002, 11:00:22 AM »
JakaB,
To quote you:
"Now if you want to reach Doyen status on the backs of others I would suggest you buy Gib's(and George's) book and post a page every day with pictures for future discussion....call it IDHAIBIKPWDOTD....it must be ethical because its not for profit and I am sure it would be very popular".

You are overreaching to make your point as no one is even suggesting anything of this kind. Copying that much of a property would be a violation of the code no matter how un- or ethical you were.
I fail to see what is unethical about posting certain articles, excerpts, photos, etc. as long as it is does not, in any way, cause harm to the author of the piece.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

JakaB

Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #15 on: December 13, 2002, 06:45:48 AM »
Jim....sorry for the late response but I tired my self and lost interest yesterday...my point basically was that we treat people we know differently than obscure, dead or overly paid authors...I don't think we realize how many people are hurt by the purchases that are lost due to copyright infringement....Sometimes when I drive..I drive at higher than legal speeds putting myself, my family and strangers at danger....breaking the law...a choice of convenience...not for profit...not for fun...just because...sometimes I don't even have anywhere to be...this is my choice...now I don't copy and paste because I don't know how...but if others want to..I don't really care...I don't have to look into the eyes of the children of laid off dock workers whose daddy's used to unload magazines and books...I'll get by despite the fact that my family will suffer because of fewer moter fuel tax revenues due to empty trucks either parked or running fewer miles...but I cheat too only because its easy...so I'll try to clean up my own house before I pitch any more stale loafs.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #16 on: December 13, 2002, 08:46:49 AM »
I am surprised Shivas hasn't weighed in on this.  Then again, it may be deemed giving free legal advise and a no-no in his firm or some ethical standard of the bar that I wouldn't understand.

The issue strikes me as raising the question of who is the agrieved party in an instance where a whole article from a monthly or periodical magazine is posted.  Let's be plain, I think this is about the posting of Geoff's "Golfdom" column.  If Geoff was paid by the piece on a one time basis by the magazine fr his monthly column, isn't it then the copywrited property of the Magazine? The article was posted to a non-profit (possibly intellectual discussion group) for "fair comment".  I don't think Geoff has lost anything on the transaction.  He was already paid and is not loosing sales of more copies of the magazine, unless he is on a royalty or commission basis being paid by the number of copies sold and attributed to his percentage of the writing in a publication of many columns by other authors-reporter-writers.  If anyone is agrieved, it seems to me the magazine is out the poetntial increased circulation revenue by widespread posting of the article in its entireity on the widely read forum.  If the article was somehow unique and a real demonstrable commodity that could be proven to have increased sales of the publication by virtue of its uniqueness of the writing or content, (perhaps a Bill Clinton tells all while sitting for interview in the nude) then I think they could make a case it is unique and would be a factor of increased sales.  (or a factor in increased sales of anti-nausea medicine)  

When I saw Geoffs article cut and pasted, I did immediately wonder if he would be upset with that.  But, after considering it for a moment, I thought of it in the realm of posting for fair comment doctrine.  It isn't much different than if I were sitting in the barbar shop and came across the article of interest, and handed the magazine to everyone else there to read.  No extra sales of the mag would be generated there either.  So from a columnist or reporters stand point, once they have been paid for the writing to be published in a widely distributed periodical magazine or newspaper, isn't it so far out there in the public realm, that copywrite infringement is nearly impossible to deem a loss to either the author or the publication?

I don't know any answers, I just like to ponder stuff like this. :-/
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

JakaB

Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #17 on: December 13, 2002, 09:47:08 AM »
RJ,

I don't give a damn about the person who is clever enough to write an article or book that gets published...they can surely con their way out of a successful existance through some legitimate means....what concerns me is the guy who delivers the magazines or books...the guy who works in the publishing factory...the Amazonian who picks the leaves to eventually manufacture the ink or cuts the tree to create the paper...It bothers me to see this electronic medium make our lives easier and faster on the backs of the working man despite whatever the letter of the law might say...I no longer take Sports Illustrated, Barrons or the Wall Street Journal because of all the free information I recieve from the net...I am surprised when I find an article in SuperintedentNEWS that has not been copied onto this site...and delighted too boot I might add...As a road builder I take great pride in the men that create and maintain our great infrastucture who don't live in a world of grey where the moral compass points in the direction of the most clever legal interpretation...It is so obvious the world will be a better place when all hard print dissapears and our transportation system crumbles why we sit at home and are spoon fed information from government servers...this may sound like an overeation...but one magazine leads to ten...and one book leads to five...so don't worry about it because the writer is not getting hurt and a world run by intellectuals is free of sweat and can be built on the blood of the poor.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:12 PM by -1 »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #18 on: December 13, 2002, 10:26:24 AM »
Barney, even an old labor contract negotiator like me knows that there will always be a balance between efficiencies of technology and human labor, with the worker loosing in the end.  The workers have to adapt and learn new technologies to operate and it seems they can't learn them fast enough to just get re-trained and then put out of a job once again by a more efficient means.  It is maddening.  But, in your road construction biz, you can't tell me that technologies haven't displaced the need for as many laborers as it took years ago.  If you as an owner didn't adapt to labor saving technologies or capacities, you would not compete.

But that is all obvious to you I'm sure.  Just as it is obvious and likely that ink on paper is going to be as obsolete as your old Olivetti typewriter very soon.  

The only field where technology seems to actually be spawning more inefficiency and higher costs sand more workers is in the medical technology proliferation that grows like hopsy and is sucking the wealth and profits right out of the entire industrialized and service based economies.  There it seems like the more paper they shuffle, the more people they hire and the more administrative fee is added to process the whole nightmare.  I'm sure your business is paying more and more of its profits over to the healthcare-insurance mafia by a factor of 3X the growth of inflation.  The whole healthcare-insurance nexus makes the military industrial complex look like a bunch of penny pinching cheap bastards.  

You want to copywrite something, copywrite a plan to fix that!

Oh... are we a little off the subject?  I'm soorrrrrry. :-*
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Lou Duran

Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #19 on: December 13, 2002, 12:19:02 PM »
JakaB,

Huh?  I can't tell if you are trying to be a populist, a protectionist, humorist, or just a plain antagonist.  Please be more clear (perhaps at the expense of coming across as being less clever), so that the obtuse among us can appreciate your wisdom.

Dick,

In addition to job rights, do you also believe that we have an inalienable rights to health care?  Acknowledging that nothing is free in this world, who do you think should pay for it?  A smorgrasborg of rights (employment, shelter, food, healthcare, pristine environment, etc.) has to be expensive.  Add the trial lawyers to the mix and our society's expectations that when something bad happens it is someone else's fault and the "victim" is to compensated, is it any wonder that medical and insurance costs are going through the stratorsphere?  Fix the tort system, and change the system so people are more directly responsible for their medical costs and the inflation problem would be alleviated.  Continue to demand more intensive medical care over longer life spans paid by others at the same time that you allow people to sue for any undesired result, then we will continue to pay through the roof.  I believe that I heard recently that in Britain, golf can now be prescribed as treatment or rehabilitation and part of the cost is borne by the "government" (translation by higher income citizens).  Do you think that we could get on that program?




« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

JakaB

Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #20 on: December 13, 2002, 12:41:18 PM »
Lou,

I am simply stating that it is easy to steal from people we don't know....when we say nobody gets hurt we do not take into consideration the people who man the distribution system...the failure of the hard print system of newspapers, books and magazines will lead to an electronic system monitored and censored by an intellectual class who care little about individual freedoms because they think we are too stupid to be left to ourselves....(see Joe Sixpack taking the blame for artifical golf courses)...and that this failure of the hard print system is directly related to people who copy and paste information that restricts revenue to deserving individuals regardless of what this same intellectual class determines is the law.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Lou Duran

Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #21 on: December 13, 2002, 02:06:05 PM »
JakaB,

So you are a populist.  Your concern for the little guy is touching, though believing that thwarting progress somehow helps the less able is incongruent with "scholarship".  If printed materials play a lesser role in our society, it is not due to rampant violation of copyright laws, but because more efficient means to disseminate information have been developed.  I was taught that the best way to expand the pie, i.e. to create wealth, is by increasing productivity and information technology.  And I do believe in "trickle-down" or that a rising tide lifts the boat (with everyone in it).

You probably remember the days when organized labor was concerned, first about primates, and later that robots would assume many of the tasks performed by "blue-collar" workers.  Just this year, the Left Coast dock workers struck over automation of certain tasks and their impact on future jobs.  Well, in our time we have seen many advancements in process and our labor force for the most part, and society as a whole, is the better for it.

As a tie-in to golf, if you have a chance to read "The Spirit of St. Andrews", Dr. MacKenzie discusses this subject with some clarity.  The use of labor saving devices is critical in keeping prices down and providing a higher standard of living for all.  But I suspect that you know all this, and are just trying to stir things up.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Slag_Bandoon

Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #22 on: December 13, 2002, 02:23:46 PM »
Most small quips used here are more beneficial as free advertising than a scarfing of property.  IMHO
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #23 on: December 13, 2002, 04:07:59 PM »
Lou, it seems to take a discussion of Laissez faire economics VS worker collective bargaining rights (your perception) to get you into the GCA fray these days :-/

But, I can't let it go without rerouting you to my post and my comments that were a response to Barney speaking about using technology putting people out of work, as in his example of cypberspace cut and paste operations replacing the paper and ink and hard copy distribution workers who bring you the hard form written word.  I clearly stated that it is an age old dance between technology and the efficiencies it creates to replace or recycle old skill workers, with more efficiency leaving less jobs in changing industries.  

I then gave what I think is a unique example where we see advances in the technolgies of the medical field and the technologies of the computerised administrative systems of the interface of health care and insurance has created the opposite effect.  More technology brings about LESS efficiency, creates more administrative jobs and sucks more wealth out of the general economy of industry and services and filters it to the healthcare-insurance complex to the disadvantage of everyone, business-enterprise and labor.  Thereby advancing technology in that sector is a wealth robbing drain to all but the benefactors who work in that sector. And, it is leaving a greater chism between haves and have-nots, with more have-nots dropping off the benefit train every year.

Do your really leave behind some 44 million folks and counting who currently have littles or have nots in the availability of health care for this insistent notion that health care is not a "right", and if they can't afford it let them eat cake?  

Lou, you are so stuck on the anti-worker bargianing rights factor that you missed the point that BOTH sides of the equation are going down to a sector of the healthcare-insurance complex of the economy that is growing in inefficiency 3X or more; faster than the GDP or inflation and is sucking the rest of the economy sectors dry.  You may be the last guy in the nursing home who can afford to keep paying the spiraling costs of care or insurance unchecked or unregulated.  That would make you one rich SOB.  Whether you are a laissez faire small or big business entreprenuer or a working man with a collectively bargained benefit, this system is so broken that no one will be able to afford the health care whichever side of the labor management equation you stand on.  :'(  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

A_Clay_Man

Re: Copyright Material/Discussion
« Reply #24 on: December 13, 2002, 05:09:38 PM »
Dick is dead on with the barber shop analogy. The world works well on fundementals like market driven forces and not the PC police to the nenth degree.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back