The Gluten File

annelb · 08-23-2006, 07:29 PM

From what I have read, there is no absolute definition of "short".

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.pdf

Looks like Pubmed allows their site to be copied as long as credit is given to them. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/copyright.html

Took a look at JAMA http://pubs.ama-assn.org/misc/conditions.dtl - thought it might represent the medical journals -

Quote:

No part of the material may be used in any form of commercial exploitation, including but not limited to, print or broadcast media, and no subscriber or user may publish as its own any material contained on this site. User may not use the material on a public computer based information system, including any electronic bulletin board available to the public, including the Internet or World Wide Web, other than for gaining access to the material from the AMA.

To me that sounds like if an abstract is used to direct others to the source, there is no violation.

Is my intepretation wrong?
Anne

diamondheart · 08-23-2006, 09:33 PM

Hi Cara,

I hope you are able to figure out how to get The Gluten File back up. It's such a great resource! Sorry I can't be of more help.

Claire

NancyM · 08-24-2006, 09:09 AM

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

jccgf · 08-24-2006, 11:37 AM

Thanks for you offer to help Nancy. Once I get it back up, I may ask a few of you to look through it...with a very scrutinizing eye.

Actually, I have no concrete reason to believe there was any complaint.

I haven't had any notification of one, and my website was never taken down by google. I guess it would be taken down if there had been a complaint and I would have been notified.

I took it offline on a "oh my gosh...what if it is me?"...sort of panic when I saw a message on google search about some entries being deleted due to a copyright complaint. I'm sort of conscientious (paranoid?) that way. In reality, my website was still showing up...just oddly not until page 4 when it had been showing up on page 1 over the past weeks... Anyway, if there was a complaint, the process would include notification to me...and there hasn't been any.

So...anyway, I have taken these few days to review everything to be sure I am not in any sort of violation.While I had definitely sourced and cited everything, there still remains a question of 'how much' is allowed. Just citing it doesn't mean you can use it, even within fair use law, as I'm trying to understand what I am reading about the law. So, I am being pretty cautious, and removing any excerpts that involved more than one or two small paragraphs, sometimes even less. People will have to open the links, and read for themselves.

There are only a couple of things I've removed that I think were truly valuable information, not really covered in any other source, but for those few things...I will go through the process of requesting permission to use it. I'm trying to stay away from using things that aren't from sources available free online....just in case. I've left only a few small things sourced from things not available free online online. One example is the B12 symptoms list from a medical textbook. I'm not sure about it, but I'd hate to have to remove it...and it seems it would fall under the factual information exemption. ["Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or facutal information coveyed in the work" Source: U.S. Copyright Office; Fair Use; FL-102]

I am going through the File for the THIRD time today (48 pages...ugh). First was to look for anything that might be a problem. Second was removing some things that might be. And third...triple checking, I guess. Heck, for a moment, I was even worried about whether I could copy all the PubMed references, but I've been reassured that is all public domain so long as we link back (which I do).

Here are some more things on copyrigt (well, I guess you covered both of these!):
http://www.google.com/pagecreator_dmca.html
And on Fair Use:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

And while I think all I have falls within Fair Use, there is still a question of 'how much' is ok...and that all depends on consideration of the four factors outlined in the Fair Use document (outlined in your post above).

Last, but not least, my husband got home from a short business trip last night, and reminded me that his brother in Ohio was a Copyright attorney...lol. I guess I thought he was a Patent Attorney...but maybe the same specialty or close enough. So, I will run this all past him, although I'm sure he won't be thrilled if I ask him to look through 48 pages...lol!

I think I'll edit my first post...so people don't think there was an actual complaint.

Cara

One last thing...I still have everything that was originally in The GLuten File and more, of course. If someone happens to terribly miss a particular excerpt for a particular reason...just ask me about it..and I would be able to get it the information to you privately. I think mostly, people won't notice any big difference between the old and new. Maybe I'll have a Where's Waldo sort of contest to see who can spot what might have changed....lol...and what is sadly missed.

NancyM · 08-24-2006, 01:59 PM

Horray! So glad it is back. *hugs*

Llonghair · 08-24-2006, 02:38 PM

Gee, I sure hope you know how much we appreciate all your hard work!

I will look forward to seeing the gluten file back up!

Thanks thanks thanks

jccgf · 08-24-2006, 08:03 PM

I spoke with my BIL last night who is a patent attorney and familiar with fair use law, and he believes I am working entirely within the fair use law, and have probably removed more than necessary. So, with that reassurance, I put it back up. Sorry for my yo-yo-ing!

Cara

jamietwo · 08-25-2006, 09:56 AM

Cara, thank you!

rachelb · 08-25-2006, 10:19 AM

YAY!!! That's great news, Cara!!

Rachel

annelb · 08-25-2006, 06:36 PM

It looks beautiful!

Site Navigation

NeuroTalk Online Support Groups

The Gluten File

NeuroTalk Forums