Shapps on copyright/out of print 3D books

[P3D Elliott Swanson <e3d@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Tony wrote an excellent and well balanced response to the copyright issue.
BTW, I stand corrected-- Fair Use is section 107. As a published author
("Video Movies" by Randy Pitman and Elliott Swanson, ABC/Clio) I'm
sensitive to the issues relating to royalties. The whole realm of
copyright was fundamentally changed by the advent of the videocassette
recorder, photocopy machines, and computers. Off-air video recording (or
off-cable) has probably still not been resolved in the minds of the
producers of media materials. In Stephen Fishman's 3rd edition of The
Copyright Handbook, (Nolo Press, Berkeley 1996) he states, "The drafters
of the Copyright Act and the Supreme Court have suggested that a user may
have more justification for reproducing a work without permission if it is
out-of-print and unavailable for purchase through normal channels." (In
this statement, he is mirroring the congressional committee reports, and
he cites Harper&Row v. Nation Enterprises 471 U.S. 539 (1985). --ES)
Fishman continues, "Thus, most courts give users more leeway when they
quote from *or photocopy out-of-print works.* But this does not mean that
any amount of material from out-of-print works may be *used* without
permission." 

Fishman addresses the situation of using material where the copyright
owner can be found. Note the term "using." In summary there is a risk even
if the person has gone down the line trying to verify ownership, and cites
a hypothetical case where someone "quotes" 20 pages from an out of print
zoology text on aardvarks. The quoter can be liable for infringement
(which generally means a couple of hundred dollars to the author, but can
be much more in the hands of a rabid attorney.) The tricky part about this
is that something that does not now have value can later be determined to
be of value-- e.g. someone decided to reprint an entire book from which
someone has published a substantial section.

Where the courts seem to be most consistent (though not entirely
consistent) is copying things in the privacy of one's own home, for
personal use. If this were not upheld, there would be over 100,000,000
infringers in the US alone because of videocassette recorders (that battle
began between Disney and Sony when the Betamax videorecorder hit the
market). So, to be absolutely safe, I suppose instead of the corner
photocopy shop, using a home scanner and burning a copy of your favorite
vintage o.p. interlibrary loaned stereo books on a writable CD-ROM for
your own personal use would be an analog to off-air recording, and even
more legally considered fair use, since you can be assured that virtually
everything you see on TV is protected by a valid copyright! This is where
"let's get real" comes in.

The real "teeth" in the law are for redistribution, not personal use.

Still, as I said in the last post, if something's still in print, you need
to purchase a copy. (There's a little irony here, because an author
doesn't see a dime from the resale of a book. So when that rare book
dealer tries to get $200 for some rare and wonderful out-of-print 3D
book, ain't none of it going to the author!)

--Elliott



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