In light of the deletion of bohemea’s tumblr, thought it might be interesting to note a couple of things about the “fair use doctrine” that is an exception to the copyright laws, which the new bosses (and the old powers that be) may start trying to pummel us with.
An excerpt from here:

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

An interesting article here, and here’s a legal guide for bloggers dealing with some copyright questions.
I’m not speaking for anyone else, or advising anyone else, but I think that, at the very least, I’m going to post a comment or criticism on any thing I post or reblog from now on; after all, fair commentary or criticism appears to be an exception to any claim of copyright infringement.
By the way, this is an educational, non-profit post, made purely to inform and enlighten, containing excerpts from other sources solely to illustrate the points made.
(image source; it’s an awesome image)

In light of the deletion of bohemea’s tumblr, thought it might be interesting to note a couple of things about the “fair use doctrine” that is an exception to the copyright laws, which the new bosses (and the old powers that be) may start trying to pummel us with.

An excerpt from here:

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

  1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of 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
  4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

An interesting article here, and here’s a legal guide for bloggers dealing with some copyright questions.

I’m not speaking for anyone else, or advising anyone else, but I think that, at the very least, I’m going to post a comment or criticism on any thing I post or reblog from now on; after all, fair commentary or criticism appears to be an exception to any claim of copyright infringement.

By the way, this is an educational, non-profit post, made purely to inform and enlighten, containing excerpts from other sources solely to illustrate the points made.

(image source; it’s an awesome image)

  1. dangerfieldnewby reblogged this from davidkendall
  2. finalflightofthephoenix reblogged this from iwantcupcakes
  3. sendingmysoultowakeyou reblogged this from iwantcupcakes
  4. thebutcheroftorfan reblogged this from davidkendall
  5. lexpurple reblogged this from iwantcupcakes
  6. of-themountains reblogged this from iwantcupcakes
  7. pyrotechnic4l reblogged this from iwantcupcakes
  8. iwantcupcakes reblogged this from davidkendall
  9. timekiller-s reblogged this from davidkendall and added:
    Read the rest of this post here. Also read this (also linked in Mr. Kendall’s article).
  10. torreyace reblogged this from davidkendall
  11. excitablehonky said: I think I may go the parody route.
  12. fukwatever reblogged this from davidkendall
  13. davidkendall posted this
Short URL for this post: http://tmblr.co/ZsV2aynMgG9W