I've been sent posts from Sukie and from Lori (with Bill's comments) regarding copyright and fair use. As part of the background for starting up the Fellow Ferret Geeks, I did some extensive research on what exactly was "fair use". Part of this research included discussions with a librarians at MU and the Library of Congress. I THEN called a copyright lawyer (actually, a professor of copyright law at MU, but it sounded like I had access to big time legal help, didn't it?). An hour and one massive headache later, I have a confused understanding of "fair use." Unless you specifically give permission, your work cannot be used without violating copyright. As Lori pointed out, there are exceptions. Regardless of the gray area surrounding the definition of "fair use," you cannot REPUBLISH the original work FOR ANY REASON without permission (newsletter use would be considered republishing). You can QUOTE parts (if the work is written; does not apply to photos or artwork) so long as you do not exceed "fair use." This even extends to rebuttals (sorry Lori ;-( ). In other words, if I wrote a 5 page paper on snail culture and you wrote a rebuttal, you simply CANNOT reprint the entire original paper. However, you can publish specific passages as "cited quotes" for the rebutal. Remember, "fair use" is not an excuse to infringe on intellectual property rights OR copyrights. A good rule of thumb is, if you could be accused of plagerism, you have violated the spirit of "fair use." As for using material from computer media, just because it might be seen in the public does not infer it is in the public record. A chat room might be regarded as a public meeting, but the FML is not. As it was explained to me, "fair use" is mostly designed to protect private individual use, especially those involved in research and scholastic activities. "Fair use" allows individuals, like me, to photocopy articles, book chapters, photos, etc., provided they are for my personal use ONLY. I know a professor who got in one hell of a lot of trouble when he was caught duplicating papers for his class. Even though the end results were the same, the law sees the professor copying for the class as violating "fair use," but the class photocopying on their own is not a violation. Also, some journals CHARGE institutions for copying papers for student distribution (especially journals published overseas). So, you don't even have to republish something to violate "fair use;" all you have to do is (re)distribute someone else's work without permission. This question was very important for me to understand regarding the Fellow Ferret Geeks. Under the law, libraries and archives are allowed to furnish "fair use" copies. THAT is why I decided to make my collection an offical ferret information archive. Get it? I was worried providing photocopies for people would violating copyright--even in fair use situations. But as a recognized archive, I can provide copies, so long as I respect the intention of the law regarding "fair use." This is what I will be required to place on anything I make available: "The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, US Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or other reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship or research". If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use", that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This archive reserves the right to refuse to accept a request if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the request would involve violation of copyright." Notice that there is no mention of "newsletter" along with "private study, scholarship or research"? So, I can photocopy Joe Blow's paper on "Ferrets in Egypt" so I can have it available for research. I can quote from the paper, so long as the quotes are not extensive. But if I reprint or redistribute the paper without permission, I'd better have really good insurance; I would be throwing cut fish to the sharks. And so will ANYONE who reprints someone else's work without permission, even FML posts. I have a long policy of NEVER refusing to allow my work to be reprinted, and I have even given some trusted, select people (like Modern Ferret) permission to republish my work *WITHOUT* notification (to save them deadline time). I have never actually gone after anyone who has printed my material without my knowledge (plenty have). But I am a strange individual; my motives are geared towards helping ferrets, not making a profit. Even so, if I felt I was being hurt by a particular use, I would take legal action to protect my interests (I once was paid an out-of-court settlement of $2000 for a copyright violation for a photo that would have sold for one-time use for $50.) My best advice to ferret newsletter editors? ASK FIRST! Then, give a free copy of the newsletter (the one with the article) to the author. Better yet, give them a free year's subscription; what's the cost of half a dozen stamps compared to the goodwill it generates? Besides, such a gift can be seen as compensation should something nasty happen later (especially if you print in the newsletter all published articles will be compensated for with a free subscription). Be polite to the author; they are doing you a favor. Be understanding if, because of life deadlines, they cannot make your newsletter deadlines. If you have to make editing changes, don't surprise them in print; let them see it beforehand. If you have to bump the story to make room for something else, tell them. Never assume anyone will give you their work for free; some people feed their children (or ferrets) by selling their work, and using it without permission is the same thing as stealing money from their pocket. Theft is theft, regardless if your intent was good. And last, if you see copyright violations, please inform the copyright owners. This is especially important with photos or artwork, regardless if you downloaded them off the web or not. Just because a picture is on a website, it doesn't mean it is in the public domain. A car parked on the street is in the "public domain," yet it still belongs to the owner. Bob C and 18 Mo' Ferret Users [Moderator's note: I'm not a lawyer either, but I consider myself VERY well educated about intellectual property laws. Bob's understanding of the issues is very similar to mine: Please: always ask. BIG] [Posted in FML issue 2833]