NeuroTalk Support Groups - The Gluten File

NeuroTalk Support Groups (https://www.neurotalk.org/)

- Gluten Sensitivity / Celiac Disease (https://www.neurotalk.org/gluten-sensitivity-celiac-disease/)

- - The Gluten File (https://www.neurotalk.org/gluten-sensitivity-celiac-disease/3-gluten-file.html)

Thanks, Cara...will send the link to family members newly diagnosed!

Take care,
Tessa

I have taken The Gluten File offline for a bit to review it for potential copyright violation. While on BrainTalk, I think we were well protected by Fair Use law, and measures JL took. But, now that I have it in this new format, it occured to me I might want to take a more scrutizining look.

As much as I believe I have appropriately cited all sources of the information contained within, I hold open the possibility there may be some problem somewhere. I have cited so many sources, always trying to supply the appropriate link or clearly identifying the source, but I imagine the law is much more complex than my teeny brain imagines. I always thought you could excerpt things so long as you provided the source, especially for educational purposes... fair use... but I think the actual law is not quite that generous. I have found just a few spots where I may have quoted too much, even though it was cited and linked to the online original source when there was one.

For now, I am taking copyright rather seriously. My intent is to educate/inform, NOT violate any copyright laws!

Cara

Hi Cara,

Anne had emailed me some things, but I have not had a chance to delve into them.

I am sorry to hear this and hope that it has nothing to do with it. Have you talked to google or the powers that be about it?

I am not really sure why the google rank dropped...it may have nothing to do with anything. If there is any possible copyright infringement, the best thing to do is take it off line, I think...and take a fresh look at it. I haven't had any notice of violation. But for now, I'd rather be cautious.

Cara

It would be terrible to lose The Gluten File :( :mad:

It is such a wonderful resource and has helped so many people. I hope you will be able to bring it back. If it is a copywrite infringement, I wonder whose toes were stepped on?
Anne

I am so sorry to hear this! I would have saved so much info from it! I had been waiting for BT to come back to send the link to a friend, and yesterday I sent her this link. Maybe it was not meant to be. I hope it all works out ok and the gluten file can come back to help people!

Cara, my local Celiac group sent out an announcement that included:

Quote:

8. Two websites of interest are:
NIH celiac website at http://www.celiac.nih.gov/
http://jccglutenfree.googlepages.com. This site has a lot of excellent
information, including links to studies dealing with CD.

In general for copyright, I believe it is ok to excerpt text but copying the entire copyrighted article is not.

Sigh. Dang, Cara. Hope it all turns out ok. I can't imagine what the problem could be as I know you've been very careful with it, but I certainly understand being cautious. It's such a great resource, I would hate to see it silenced!!

And hugs to you, because I imagine this is worrisome and frustrating for you!

Rach

Quote:

Originally Posted by NancyM (Post 280)

Cara, my local Celiac group sent out an announcement that included:

In general for copyright, I believe it is ok to excerpt text but copying the entire copyrighted article is not.

WEll, I am a little stuck here. Is a sentence ok? A paragraph? Two or Three paragraphs? What if it says no part may be copied? Does anyone have expertise in this area?

Cara

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

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

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

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.

Horray! So glad it is back. *hugs*

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

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

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

Rachel

It looks beautiful! :D