Out of service - old sites and copyright

Site out of date...

[mipapage]

Hello all,

A client stumbled across a nice piece of text on another website that would be wonderful on their new site.

The other website has the same focus but is targetting a different market, so I thought I'd drop them a line and ask if it would be okay to use their text - partly inspired by that fact that the text was last updated in 1996, and that I could update some of the figures phone numbers etc. for them.

All attempts to the e-mail addresses (including the site designer) on the page bounced.

The main page to the site last posted a copyright notice in 1998, and was itself last updated in February of 1998.

What I am thinking is that I could use the text, update it and correct it (there are some errors) and provide a link to the original copy.

Do I have a leg to stand on with this, or do I tell my client "sorry, no can do"?

[MonkeeSage]

Check out the CERTUS pamphlet on "fair use." If I have interpreted them correctly, you can use it for educational purposes, especially if you link to the original, as long as it is not damaging to their business (i.e., you can't steal Clorox's formula and publish it on your site about making Bleach and call it 'educational'). But I'm not in any way certified to give legal advice, so I would recommend reading it yourself, with special regard to the sections they cite from the Copyright Act.

Jordan

[mipapage]

Whew - thanks for the quick reply, I'll be sure and check that out.

[MonkeeSage]

Oops, me and my big fingers...CETUS pamphlet, should have been.

http*//www.cetus.org/fairindex.html

Jordan

[PeterD]

Just because they haven't responded to you and the site hasn't been updated doesn't mean that the content is fair game.

I would also think very hard about the spirit as well as the letter of the law of fair use.

Why not write your own copy, citing the existing page as your main source?

[jimbeetle]

The main page to the site last posted a copyright notice in 1998

Usual disclaimer, in now way qualified to give legal advice.

From the U.S. Copyright Office FAQ [copyright.gov]:

"As a general rule, for works created after Jan. 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years."

So, something copyrighted in 1998 has quite a long ways to go.

Be very cautious of relying on the CETUS paper for guidelines, the scope is very narrow. Reading through the Copyright Office FAQ will give you a much better idea of overall Copyright law, obtaining permission and the fair use doctrine.

PeterD's suggestion is good, put it in your own words, as "Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work."

[MonkeeSage]

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."
Copyright Act of 1976, Section 107, subheading Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use (Cited in CETUS pamphlet mentioned above, followed by excursus on the four points).

Jordan

[jimbeetle]

Jordan,

All I'm trying to say is that the CETUS pamphlet is very narrow in scope. It presents the views of a small, though influential, group of universities concerning copyright law within an educational framework.

From mipapage's comment "The other website has the same focus but is targetting a different market," I infer that the client's site is commercial. I'm just urging him to proceed with caution.

Jim

[mipapage]

Well,

I really wish that they had a functioning e-mail address on their site. Have tried seven address' from three domains.. :-[

I've not had much trouble in the past - as long as you ask people seem happy to help!

Why not write your own copy, citing the existing page as your main source?

Not a bad idea.

I infer that the client's site is commercial

Actually it's a tourist/travel thing, not done by the government, but by a small group of people who are sick of the poor sites that exist both for the local gov's and their tourism sites/areas.

They are looking at placing some Adsense adds to cover hosting costs, and extra revenue would be used for more site copy...

[MonkeeSage]

Jim:

Fair enough (pun intended). :)

They [CETUS] are not a legal authority, and they do mean to address fair use in the limited context of Universities and educational institutions.

If my posts were too flagrant or seemed to urge the use of the material in question, I definitely want to correct that and along with you emphasize caution and awareness in the matter.

Thanks for balancing the tables. :)

Jordan

[jimbeetle]

>>pun intended

He he :)