Thread: The Gluten File
View Single Post
Old 08-24-2006, 09:09 AM
NancyM NancyM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 261
15 yr Member
NancyM NancyM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 261
15 yr Member
Default

Cara is there any way I can help you with it? Maybe we could divide it up and hunt down references and trim things up and check that the sources agree. I'd be more than happy to help if you want to send me some of it.

I also wonder if there's a way to find out where the complaint came from?

I just read Gartner Groups guidelines and they seem to go far beyond the US law saying that you can't even quote them without permission. Maybe they're just counting on the fact they have lots of money to spend on lawyers.

Here's Google's info: http://www.google.com/dmca.html

It sounds like they should have notified you of the complaint, did you get any email from them?

For JAMA, maybe you can describe the article and provide a link to it, versus quoting the abstract. They seem pretty strict about any sort of quoting. But I thought the US law was that you can quote short amounts of published info. Hmmm... I'm not an attorney.

Here's the policy that I thought would apply:
Quote:
Fair use and fair dealing

Main articles: Fair use and Fair dealing

Copyright does not prohibit all copying or replication. In the United States, the fair use doctrine, codified by the Copyright Act of 1976 as 17 U.S.C. Section 107, permits some copying and distribution without permission of the copyright holder or payment to same. The statute does not clearly define fair use, but instead gives four non-exclusive factors to consider in a fair use analysis. Those factors are:

1. the purpose and character of your use
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken, and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

In the United Kingdom and many other Commonwealth countries, a similar notion of fair dealing was established by the courts or through legislation. The concept is sometimes not well defined; however in Canada, private copying for personal use has been expressly permitted by statute since 1999. In Australia, the fair dealing exceptions under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) are a limited set of circumstances under which copyright material can be legally copied or adapted without the copyright holder's consent. Fair dealing uses are research and study; review and criticism; news reportage and the giving of professional advice (ie legal advice). Under current Australian law it is still a breach of copyright to copy, reproduce or adapt copyright material for personal or private use without permission from the copyright owner. Other technical exemptions from infringement may also apply, such as the temporary reproduction of a work in machine readable form (eg, in an information technology storage system).

In the United States the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act Codified in Section 10, 1992) prohibits action against consumers making noncommercial recordings of music, in return for royalties on both media and devices plus mandatory copy-control mechanisms on recorders.

Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

Later acts amended US Copyright law so that for certain purposes making 10 copies or more is construed to be commercial, but there is no general rule permitting such copying. Indeed making one complete copy of a work, or in many cases using a portion of it, for commercial purposes will not be considered fair use. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits the manufacture, importation, or distribution of devices whose intended use, or only significant commercial use, is to bypass an access or copy control put in place by a copyright owner. An appellate court has held that fair use is not a defense to engaging in such distribution.

It is absolutely vital to remember that copyright regimes can and do differ between countries, even countries which both adhere to the same copyright Convention. It would be dangerous to assume that an activity permitted by the laws of one country is necessarily permitted elsewhere.
From Wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law

Last edited by NancyM; 08-24-2006 at 09:27 AM.
NancyM is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote