More on copyright issues

[P3D Whiz <whisnant@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but my wife and I have been reading a lot about
the copyright laws since we starting selling our original tatting (a
version of hand-made lace) patterns. Some comments:

Dr. T wrote:

>May I clarify here that this is not my entry to the publishing
>business!!!!!!!!  

It may be small scale, but it is publishing. And you have the exclusive
rights of (among many others) the sale and distribution of your original
works (unless you waive them).

Plea to all photo-3d members: anyone who wants a copy of Dr. T's
original writings should buy them from him, not have a copy made from
someone else's. Not only are you obeying the law, but you will be making
sure that Dr. T will stay in the hobby and keep providing us with his
unique insights!

Regarding making copies of parts of a book, Dr. T wrote:

>Let me repeat here that I did not copy the book!!!!!!!!!!
>I copied the instructions to use the Realist.  That's only a 
>small part of this great book. To this information I added my
>very own perspective on how to use the Realist with all the
>modern changes in films, etc.

Even copying a part of a book could be an infringement of copyright.
The exact fraction allowed without causing infringement varies from case
to case, however. Adding your own words doesn't necessarily make it
completely your own (yours may be considered a derivative work, which
still requires an OK from the original copyright owner).

>OK, fine.  Even if only one person thinks that I am doing something
>illegal by trying to pass this information to stereo photographers
>then I _won't_ do it.  That's the end. 

Well, strictly speaking, I think you may be (I'm fudging here since
each case must be decided on its own merits). But read on before
deciding to stop!

Elliott responds:

>... (BTW, anyone can copy things with impunity for
>their own personal use if the original document is out of print and
>unavailable at a "reasonable" price, according to section 106 of the
>Copyright law. Just interlibrary loan it and fire up the copy machine.)

I have to disagree here. Sec 106 sets out the rights of the copyright
owner, including all distribution rights (which means sale, loan or even
gift!). Sec 107 discusses "fair use", some of the limitations to the
owners rights, but as far as I know doesn't explicitly say anything
about out of print documents or availability. It does say that whether
or not copying is OK depends upon the amount of the work copied and the
effect on the potential market. These are very vague guidelines, and
each case must be decided separately. There are many court rulings which
have set out the rules in specific cases, but there are still many gray
areas where no ruling has yet been made.

>I don't encourage people to break the law or deprive someone of income
>from a viable intellectual property, and people do so at their own risk,
>but let's get real here...

Bottom line, this is probably true. For an out of print, scarce book
that the copyright owner is not planning to republish, or which has a
relatively small market (sad, but true for us in photo-3d!), odds are
heavily against anyone getting sued for copying it. Maybe if 3D
photography has a huge resurgence this might change (ah, wishful
thinking). However, strictly speaking, it is still likely against the
law to copy a book for which the copyright has not expired. I would be
very interested if anyone knows of specific legal references or case law
suggesting that being out of print changes this.

For those wanting to see some of the gory details themselves, check out
the Copyright Office Home Page http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/copy1.html
and look at the Copyright Basics link.

Well, enough of that, back to the discussion of how to split the group :-(


------------------------------