About Fair Use RE: Wronplanet.net Served Part II

[Guest guest]

strict wrote: "This is something that very much should be a concern on here: lots of articles are posted on here in their entirety, not merely snippets, and as a general rule, unless otherwise stated, that's disallowed, and no reasonable argument can argue "Fair use!" and expect it to pass legal muster ... <snip> ... "

Actually, strict, because the news articles that or I post also include the link to the original news story, the "fair use" argument stands.

What's more, the news articles that and I post fulfill the four requirements of Section 107 of the Copyright Act in the U.S. and as it pertains to "fair use." These four requirements being:

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. 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 potential market for or value of a news story, for the most part, is only as long as the day upon which the news story appears.

Furthermore, Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," and these include criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

The news stories posted here by and by me are posted here for the purposes of teaching as well as comment and is used by some to add to their research (as is the case with and me).

strict wrote: " ... <snip> ... Should anyone with their stuff that's posted on here that's often copy/pasted from online sources become aware of this group and what is on here, there will be a big flurry of things that are likely to get noted and reported, too. Just because this is (in theory!) a limited distribution group, does not change anything legally ... <snip> ... "

Neither nor I have ever implied or stated that because this is a Yahoo! group that the group is exempt from the law.

That being said, we ensure that the law is adhered to and as such, we are operating appropriately and correctly under the "fair use" clause of Section 107.

We are not responsible for what others have copied and pasted in this group from online sources they have come across and we appreciate those who post links to the original news stories that they choose to share with members of FAM groups.

It has nothing to do with whether this is a limited distribution group.

Whether what is in this group is noted and reported does not bother me as I know for a fact that we are not breaching copyrights as set out by the aforementioned Copyright Act.

strict wrote: " ... <snip> ... A bunch of months back, I read about a case (or bunch of them) related to how much is fair use for articles, when a lot of things posted online are copied summations from the tops of articles, and that's what a lot of articles have as their main point in the summary: below that is only really needed if you're looking for more detailed stuff ... <snip> ... "

Those members who are part of the FAM groups who also do their own research on various aspects of Autism Spectrum Disorders require the 'detailed stuff' and so we ensure that the news stories can be found online and not just at the FAM sites.

The Copyright Act mentioned earlier does not indicate a specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission before the use is considered copyright infringement.

What matters is whether the aforementioned four requirements are being met to the satisfaction of the courts.

strict wrote: " ... <snip> ... Now, if that causes that much of an uproar, how readily will things be overlooked, Non-Profit run Yahoo! Group or not? ... <snip> ... "

Since neither nor I post so as to breach copyrights, no one has contacted us to have any of our posts removed in their entirety or in part.

We also have not been contacted by a copyright owner requesting that posts by members be removed in their entirety or in part due to alleged copyright infringement.

If either or I was contacted by someone claiming copyright and requesting that the posts in question be removed in their entirety or in part, we would investigate to ensure that the claim was factual and then act in accordance with the law.

There are some sites that will refuse to remove copyrighted material that the rightful copyright owner has requested to have removed. ' groups do not subscribe to that mindset.

strict wrote: " ... <snip> ... Something to think about! ... <snip> ... "

We thought about it and this is why and I made sure that we are well within the guidelines set out by the Copyright Act.

RavenCo-Administrator

[Guest guest]

" About Fair Use RE: Wronplanet.net Served Part II "

Just wanted to add that Raven, being the editor of the Midnight In Chicago

Autism Spectrum Podcasts, esnures that the scripts I write are in compliance

with the copyright laws of the countries from where any quoted material comes

from.

Additionally, she puts enough safeguards in place to ensure that the podcasts we

issue are safe from copyright infringement by other people.

A large part of what we do in the forums and in MIC is done with care for the

express purpose of avoiding the fiascos that other groups and autism

organizations have gotten themselves into.

You will find from Autism Speaks's IRS US 990 Form that they expend quite a bit

of money on legal counsel to dig themselves out of holes. That is money that

could have been funneled to the autistics who need them.

Administrator