direction. You can view the tutorial
if you didn't find it.
The most useful aspect of this website was the four factors test. These are nebulous rules surrounding the copyright laws. The questions were:
1. What is the character of the use?
2. What is the nature of the work to be used?
3. How much of the work will you use?
4. What effect would this use have on the market for the original or for permissions if the use were widespread?
Since this article was written for university instructors, it talked about fair use. One's work can be included in a university setting for critique, and also for
distribution to students (one copy to each student) without any financial obligations to the author. The author, by the way, is anyone who contributes to the original publication with new information or artwork, as long as other contributors are not hired on a work-for-hire basis. If the work becomes proprietary at any time, then the usage of the materials could be in question again. The example this text gave was that the instructor wanted to publish her work into a book, and since the instructor would benefit financially, the publisher asked if she had permission from each and all of the authors she was citing in the book. That would be a time consuming process. You can ask the author for permission to use their work, and then it wouldn't be a problem. If the author says no, you still might be able to use it,
however.
In short, there are no hard and fast rules as to when something is used in a publication. I thought the comic book would help me get a better hold on things, but it added legal issues that were not discussed in this article. Lawyers can be a good thing in the right setting.
Publication companies will set limits on how long a citation can be if the author is not responding to inquiries regarding usage, or if the author cannot be reached. There is still a liability issue, but by them putting limits on the length of the quotation, there is lesslikelihood that the author/publishing company/university will be sued (Yes, all of these organizations can be sued).
I think after writing this abstract, I understand why the information on this page was so disjointed. There are too many tangents to go off on before you can make it to your point. I guess that is what hyperlinks are for.
John
2 comments:
I also found this site very confusing and very overwhelming. I will admit that I did not read everything, but I do think I got the jist of it (at least what I could understand.
I too thought the comic would make things easier, but I guess this isn't an easy subject.
I had no idea so much went into copy right stuff.
I knew this abstract would be tough to tackle going in, which is why I cut everyone else off and shouted out the abstract I wanted before I got stuck with it. I'm glad, John, that you broke it down for us so that we could navigate the finer points, or most notable points of emphasis much easeir than just clicking different links willy-nilly.
I wonder if the site was presented this way on purpose so as to further reinforce the idea that we are dealing with a very vast and fragile subject here. It is difficult to say anything for certain when discussing this topic, because it may turn out that something exists which would refute that. This is by far the most difficult set of readings we have had all semester. The ironic part is that there are only two of them.
Post a Comment