"Comments were used. They were posted in a public forum, which means that anyone can quote from them - but we've removed any sort of identifying marks, to protect people. This was down to impress upon those reading the gravity of the situation."
Although I must confess that the last sentence of the above quote seems incoherent to me, it seems that Jon Katz's understanding of fair use law is flawed and incomplete. Asserting that the publishing of a copyrighted work into a public forum nullifies the right of the copyright owner to restrict distribution and benefit from the publishing of the work is utterly ludicrious and goes against centries of precedent for the reasons that I will summarize briefly. I don't have the inclination or time to put together a detailed point by point rebuttal of the arguments put forward by Katz and Hemos (given their faulty interpretation of copyright law, my comment could be reused in a context different than that which permission for use is granted), but what I say should be materially accurate. Now, I must preface my comment with the note that the information presented here is only general information. If you want true legal advice, you must obtain this from an attorney-client relationship with a specific understanding of all the facts in a particular situation. This information should not be relied on as a substitute for obtaining legal advice.
First, some definitions "Willful infringement":the party distributing copyrighted material was aware of infringment and went on despite this "Good faith fair use defense": Ignorance of the law is not normally exculpatory, however, demonstrating that one reasonably believed that what one did was fair use may be cause for a court to refuse to award damages.
What is considered to be copyrighted?: The presence or absence of an explicit copyright notice means essentially nothing after 1989. Posters do not place their comments into the public domain unless they give explicit notification that they do so; the notice at the bottom of every Slashdot page "All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster" lends additional credence to this concept.
When does copyright law come into effect?: If someone other than the copyright owner wants to exercise rights that exclusively belong to the owner (including reproduction, redistribution, creation of derivative works, performance, archival, or display). Some uses are, however, exempt from liability from infringement (including fair use, libraries, and certain educational purposes).
What constitutes fair use?: Traditionally, a four pronged test has applied to determine whether a specific usage falls under fair use or not. These are:
1) The nature and character of the use: nonprofit, educational, artistic, and personal uses tend to be looked upon more kindly than for-profit or commercial uses. Closer on the continium to preserving the rights of the copyright owner include criticism, newsreporting, and commentary. Note that receiving profits from the sale of a derivative work and than donating these profits to a charity does NOT fall under the category of nonprofit use; the user of the copyrighted material gains a benefit from the sell of the derivative work.
2) The nature of the copyrighted work that is being used: Works that are published and factual in character may be used more freely than creative or imaginative works. Judging from most Slashdot comments, it would appear as if many posters reflect on how incidents have affected their personal lives and emotional state. This is not neccesarily of a factual nature.
3) Amount of work used: needless to say, taking a copyrighted work in its entirety would severely diminish any plausible claim of fair use. I don't know how much of each comment Katz reproduces in his book.
Slashdot Mirror
"Comments were used. They were posted in a public forum, which means that anyone
can quote from them - but we've removed any sort of identifying marks, to
protect people. This was down to impress upon those reading the gravity of the
situation."
Although I must confess that the last sentence of the above quote seems
incoherent to me, it seems that Jon Katz's understanding of fair use law is
flawed and incomplete. Asserting that the publishing of a copyrighted work into
a public forum nullifies the right of the copyright owner to restrict
distribution and benefit from the publishing of the work is utterly ludicrious
and goes against centries of precedent for the reasons that I will summarize
briefly. I don't have the inclination or time to put together a detailed point
by point rebuttal of the arguments put forward by Katz and Hemos (given their
faulty interpretation of copyright law, my comment could be reused in a context
different than that which permission for use is granted), but what I say should
be materially accurate. Now, I must preface my comment with the note that the
information presented here is only general information. If you want true legal
advice, you must obtain this from an attorney-client relationship with a
specific understanding of all the facts in a particular situation. This
information should not be relied on as a substitute for obtaining legal advice.
First, some definitions
"Willful infringement":the party distributing
copyrighted material was aware of infringment and went on despite this
"Good faith fair use defense": Ignorance of the law is not normally exculpatory,
however, demonstrating that one reasonably believed that what one did was fair
use may be cause for a court to refuse to award damages.
What is considered to be copyrighted?: The presence or absence of an explicit
copyright notice means essentially nothing after 1989. Posters do not place
their comments into the public domain unless they give explicit notification
that they do so; the notice at the bottom of every Slashdot page "All trademarks
and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are
owned by the Poster" lends additional credence to this concept.
When does copyright law come into effect?: If someone other than the copyright
owner wants to exercise rights that exclusively belong to the owner (including
reproduction, redistribution, creation of derivative works, performance,
archival, or display). Some uses are, however, exempt from liability from
infringement (including fair use, libraries, and certain educational purposes).
What constitutes fair use?: Traditionally, a four pronged test has applied to
determine whether a specific usage falls under fair use or not. These are:
1) The nature and character of the use: nonprofit, educational, artistic, and
personal uses tend to be looked upon more kindly than for-profit or commercial
uses. Closer on the continium to preserving the rights of the copyright owner
include criticism, newsreporting, and commentary. Note that receiving profits
from the sale of a derivative work and than donating these profits to a charity
does NOT fall under the category of nonprofit use; the user of the copyrighted
material gains a benefit from the sell of the derivative work.
2) The nature of the copyrighted work that is being used: Works that are
published and factual in character may be used more freely than creative or
imaginative works. Judging from most Slashdot comments, it would appear as if
many posters reflect on how incidents have affected their personal lives and
emotional state. This is not neccesarily of a factual nature.
3) Amount of work used: needless to say, taking a copyrighted work in its
entirety would severely diminish any plausible claim of fair use. I don't know
how much of each comment Katz reproduces in his book.
4) Effect of use on status of orig