UPDATE: The Motion Picture Licensing Corporation (www.mplc.com) which sells licenses has FINALLY made their website MORE ACCURATELY reflect Federal Copyright Law's exemption for "face to face teaching situations."

While a cursory reading of their main page leads one to believe you need a license to show ANY video in Sunday School, in fact, their own new detailed description of your rights clearly now describes what Federal Copyright Law, this article and I have been saying all along. Read it at http://mplc.com/index2.htm

So can we use a rented home video in Sunday School or not? One company which sells licenses (Christian Licensing Inc) selectively excerpts US Copyright law to suggest that churches need blanket licensing coverage --when in fact it simply isn't true for educational use. Talk to anyone from the video industry and they will tell you those "home use only" labels are the law. But they are not. I've been handed pamphlets from conferences and church organizations saying churches can't use any videos. These are telling you THEIR business-skewed interpretation. They are not telling you the whole story. This article is the whole story.

The conclusions of this article are based on legal opinions from the book: The Law in Plain English for Small Businesses, by Leonard D. Duboff, Professor of Law at Northwestern School of Law, Wiley Press, New York. I also quote the Motion Picture Licensing Corporation on the matter (which finally tells the truth), and consulted a document produced for the National Council of Churches on the matter. The conclusions of this article were also based on the copyright guidelines published at the official websites of Stanford, Cornell and Brown University. I produce software for a living, thus I am often asked "can we make copies." In short, the answer is "no." While you are entitled to Fair Use of our software, you aren't entitled to start your own distributorship by making copies! Your right to use material is not a right to make illegal copies. Below, I provide examples of when you can and can't copy something.

This article quotes for all to see, the actual language in the Federal Copyright Law (Section 110) that specifically GRANTS educational groups the right to show videos/movies and other such materials in 'face to face' teaching settings without a license. If you're teaching with it, you're fine. If you're simply entertaining a group with a video, it's not fine unless you have a license from the Motion Picture Licensing Corp. www.mplc.com.

1. Summary Conclusions

2. What is a "copyright" ?

3. The Four Tests for Copyright Violation

4. Specific Examples (Art, Music, Drama, Curriculum)

5. About Videotape Copyrights -What the Law REALLY says

6. Brown University's Videotape Copyright Guidelines

7. About Book and Article Copyrights

8. Software Copyrights and "Lending" Restrictions Test

9. What can NOT be copyrighted

10. Who is it going to hurt?

About Copyrights...

A copyright protects an author's right to control the destiny of any form of unique expression (written or otherwise) created by the author.

For example, I can copyright the sentence: "The night sky was like black velvet strewn with diamonds."

I cannot copyright the sentence: "The sky was black."

But... you can quote me. Just because my unique expression is copyrighted, doesn't mean you can't quote me.

A copyright exists the moment a work is created. It need not be registered or published, though these certainly do help in claiming authorship. A copyright can be in force for between 75 and 100 years.

A copyright only gives the author CERTAIN rights, not god-like rights. It's those "certain rights" that need explaining.

---

When it is OK to copy, quote or excerpt an author's work?

The Copyright Act of 1976 recognizes that copying a protected work "for purposes of criticism, comment, news, reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship or research," can be considered "fair use" provided the use is

• for nonprofit educational purposes ...and...
• doesn't reproduce the entire work or substantial part of it* ...and...
• doesn't affect the potential value or marketability of the copyrighted work

Notice the "and" in the above statement. Using something for educational purposes is not carte blanc to copy. If you're copying CDs for example, you can't hide behind your educational use exemption. If you're excerpting a portion of a work, you can generally do so provided it's for educational purposes, and your excerpt is minor, and your intent isn't to circumvent purchasing. A judge would go easy on excerpting a magazine article for school, but would rule against you if you were copying curriculum for your classroom use. What you're excerpting matters as much as how much and why.

Four test words are often used to define or determine what is "fair use." They are Intent, Amount, Harm, and Uniqueness.

The following FOUR TESTS will help you determine in each situation you encounter whether or not copyright infringement is possible:.

The intent, amount, harm and uniqueness tests:

• Intent: If your intent is to save money by not buying more of the author's work, and you are going to make regular use of that work, then you are likely violating the copyright when you make copies of or quote a substantial amount of the author's work. Video works are a bit different here. If your intent in loaning the material to be viewed is to make it more widely available, and you don't have a license to do so (as do many resource centers and libraries) then what you're really doing is becoming a distributor and not paying the author. That's wrong.

• Amount: How much can be quoted or used before it becomes copyright infringement? The word "substantial" is open to interpretation. A good rule of thumb is this: you can quote or copy (with proper attribution) for non-commercial educational purposes up to 25% of an author's printed work without infringing the copyright. Above that you should contact the author for guidance and/or permission. If you are regularly excerpting the author's work, or doing so in a serial fashion (one section at a time over a period of time), then you are probably violating the Amount rule. Videotape is a bit different. Read on...

• Harm: Are you cutting in on the owner's/author's livelihood? In general, if by distributing a minor portion of the author's material you are actually promoting the purchase of the resource now or in the future, then you can't be infringing on the copyright. This is not, however, a license to include major portions of an author's work. Major and minor are relative terms. If your distribution of the author's materials -major or modest- affects the author's bottom line, then you are causing harm. At that point you should cut down the material you are quoting and point people to where they can get the author's work. If loaning or distributing a video or other material puts you in competition with the author's distribution means, such as Blockbuster, then you are infringing on their livelihood --which is HARM. The only exception to this is where there is NO harm or the material is being used strictly for educational purposes. Yes, it's 'harm' if you even cheat an author out of even one blockbuster rental by loaning the Ten Commandments to your church families through your library. Check the licensing restriction that came with the video.

• Uniqueness: Two works may be about the same subject and not infringe on each other's copyrights so long as the second work contains substantially unique material different than the original and does not quote the original beyond "substantial" test.
  
  It is OK to use the basic idea of a published lesson to create your own. "Create" means not merely a change in the vocabulary, word count, or word order of their description. It means you have added a substantial amount of your own material and made it uniquely your own. It is common courtesy to state the origin of an idea.

A report prepared for the National Council of Churches supports the opinion that churches can use copyrighted videotapes in teaching situations. First they have to buy the videotape, of course, or borrow it, and you can't make multiple copies and turn yourself into a distributor. That's "unfair use." This same opinion would extend to software and other types of materials too.

At the bottom of this page is another test called the "Fair Use Test." It is the nationally recognized legal standard by which copyrights are judged and on which copyright law is based.

---

Examples:

Whether or not you are INFRINGING on a copyright can change depending on the type of material you are quoting/copying. Books, music, video and art materials are different from each other. To play an author's music, you'd need to copy the author's melody --which is a unique creation, thus a copyright violation if you did copy it. But an art lesson is different. "Use clay to make the 10 commandments" is not the same unique creation as a music melody. Thus, you are more free to copy the basic idea of an art lesson than you are the basic melody of a piece of music.

Books are typically designed for one reader, while videotapes are typically shown to groups of people. Thus, showing an entire video may not be copyright infringement, whereas copying an entire book is most always copyright infringement. If you copy the video and distribute it, then you ARE violating its copyright. Copying and showing are two different things most of the time.

Music Example: A choir director wants to try a new piece of music with the choir. Generally speaking, he may copy that music for one practice. If the choir doesn't like it, they should destroy the copies. No harm, no foul. If they like the music, they must then decide to purchase the proper number of copies in order to use it. If the choir performs the piece with xeroxed copies, they have violated the copyright. Why? Because they have done harm to the author by not buying a unique work.

It's much easier to violate a music or video copyright than a craft description.

Art Lesson Examples: Say an author wrote a lesson plan that had a popsicle stick Jesus puppet craft in it. You can write in your own words the general description of the popsicle stick puppet without violating the artist's copyright. Why? Because there's nothing unique about gluing popsicle sticks together other than the author's wording. On the other hand, if you copy the author's diagram, that IS a violation of the copyright because that is their unique work.

If the author wrote a paragraph about "the joys of popsicle stick crafts" you could quote that paragraph in your lesson giving proper attribution. You can quote their unique description as long as you don't claim it as your own or violate the Substantial rule. You could not, however, copy their entire art lesson.

But let's say you... like an author's Good Samaritan art lesson plan and blend some of its elements with your own words. That's not infringement. But if you then go and quote the author's introduction to the lesson plan and concluding prayer. You have probably just crossed the line and violated their copyright.*

Free materials distributed by an author are still copyright protected, but they have a lower Intent, Amount, Harm and Uniqueness "hurdle" than do materials which the author is selling. "Lower hurdle" isn't a license to steal, however.

Another Lesson Example: You receive a Teaching Tip document from my ministry, Sunday School Software. The copyright information on the material says you can use it with the software in a church setting. If, however, you make copies of it for a resource center or seminar, you are in violation of the copyright. "But Neil, maybe it is a form of free advertising." Correct, but that is for the author to decide, not the resource center. The Center would be free to excerpt the material, but not to become a distribution point for the entire material. That's the author's right.

By the way, we ENCOURAGE all non-profits to make copies of our free teaching materials from our website and spread them around.

Drama Script Example: Suppose you find a really neat drama script in a booklet of 12 scripts. A drama script is more like a piece of music. It's a very unique creation. You cannot copy that script -even though it was only 1/12th of the booklet of scripts, because each script is a unique stand alone piece. However, you can borrow ideas an quotes from it in minor amounts for your own piece. You can also create your own script based on the idea of the published script as long as your work is substantially different from the original. It cannot be a thinly described rewrite.

Curricululm Preview Example: You find a neat curriculum and want your teachers to see it. You CAN copy portions of it for your teachers to review. However, if you begin to make scheduled use of the material, you need to buy it.

If after looking over the lesson plan you decide to write your own, you are not violating the author's copyright if your new lesson plan is "substantially" in your own words and "unique" in significant ways from the original material. If it is a mere "rewrite" of the author's material, this is called a "derivative work" and is a violation of the author's copyright. Not everything in the author's work need be considered "original" and thus untouchable. Again, "the sky is blue" is hardly original.

"Derivative" is a judgment call. "Intent, amount and harm" once again come into play. You are allowed to be inspired by another's materials. Your inspiration must have a unique quality AND quantity.

Many authors specifically state what "fair use" is allowed. Even though you have purchased their material or freely received it, they still have rights to your disposition of those materials. "Free materials" received with purchased materials aren't free to distribute as you see fit. The issue here is one of "harm." Copying my free teaching materials to persons other than my customers may cause someone to think they don't need to support my work in order to benefit from it. Of course, the Resource Center could quote part of my Teaching Tips, but if the quote is more than 25% they are probably infringing. To be on the safe side, read the copyright for exclusionary language and contact the author.

The Fair Educational Use of Videotape IS Permitted!

Contrary to some misinformed church people: You can show Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments for educational purposes during a discussion about the subject -provided you have not charged admission (which would violate its "public performance" restriction). You can even make a back-up copy as long as you only use one copy at a time. But, if you put either copy in your church library for lending, then you are violating the copyright. Why? Because you only purchased one copy, and you are not restricting the video to a specific educational use, and are instead, operating your own little Blockbuster lending shelf. It's an interesting distinction and an important one. Check the material's copyright notice. Some educational products don't restrict you from lending. Most entertainment oriented ones do.

Every legal source I have consulted on this matter clearly indicates that videotapes in part or in their entirety can be used for educational purposes EVEN IF the copyright restricts "public performance." Public Performance and Educational Use are two different things. Copyright laws and court decisions make a distinction between use of a videotape and use of a book. They do this because books are inherently a single-user medium and videotape is typically a group medium. You don't need to copy a video to show it to a group, but if you copied a book to have the group read it, you'd be violating the book's copyright.

Part of the misunderstanding about copyrights stems from the FBI warning we're all used to seeing at the beginning of a videotape. In fact, public performance only "may" be a violation, IF it isn't for educational purposes in an educational setting.

Section 110 of the Federal Copyright Law SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS (i.e. you can use) "performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a class-room or similar place devoted to instruction...."

I've read some very misinformed -but official looking- articles and notices on this matter. One even quoted a House and Senate Bill. But the bill they referred to only talks about public performance, not face-to-face teaching. Leadership magazine even says that all churches must have a license to show videos and should go to the Motion Picture Licensing Corporation to get one (www.mplc.com).

Section 110.1 of the US Copyright Law does not narrowly define 'face to face teaching activities' ...it leaves it up to everyday interpretation (everyday/common sense interpretation is a key component in judging of copyright law). Some misinformed church-types have believed that Sunday Schools are not "face to face teaching situations." They are! It's the youth group retreat and worship services which are not "face to face teaching situations." It doesn't surprise me that some "licensing agencies" (businesses which make money selling licenses) misconstrue and often creatively excerpt or spin what the law actually says. These companies don't voluntarily distinguish between a church's entertainment use and educational use. But we have the right to.

Want to check it out? Go to http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/92chap1.html#110. or view Section 110 here. If they change this link, go to www.loc.gov/copyright.

If all you did was pop it in the VCR to kill time on Sunday morning or show it at 3 a.m. at a Lock-in, you'd be violating the copyright because the manner in which you used it had dubious educational value. You also can't broadcast The Ten Commandments over you church's TV station claiming educational use. Broadcasting willy nilly isn't specifically an educational setting.

Schools or churches that show Blockbuster movie videos are violating the video copyright unless they purchase an license/exemption -OR- use it in an educational way. Killing or filling time is not educational use.

Schools which show a brief clip (say, one 20 minute clip of a two hour movie) for non-educational purposes are probably not violating the public performance copyright. If, however, you show the entire movie in 20 minute clips over a period of two weeks without some form of teaching germaine to the video wrapped around its use, then you are violating the copyright. The issues are "educational use" and "substantial use." Lending groups, such as a library or resource center are not covered by the educational use exemption because their primary reason for owning the material is to lend it -not teach with it themselves. They must purchase specific or blanket permissions -which many do.

If you want to show videotapes to entertain the kiddies at church, then you should get a license. They cost about $75 a year. Go to www.mplc.com. If you are showing videotapes in "face-to-face teaching activities" you are clearly protected by Federal Law.

Church libraries take note: The people to whom you lend videotapes may need a license to show it. You can only lend videos for PRIVATE or TEACHING USE --if the video has a public performance restriction. You cannot lend videos for public performance use, unless the videotape specifically grants those rights. The issue of "loaning" copyrighted works by libraries is currently under review by the US Congress as part of a fact finding period signed into law under the Digital Millenium Act.

A video borrowed from public library has the same copyright restrictions as one rented from Blockbuster.

Addendum: Someone has asked: Can you edit Jesus of Nazareth videos? Make copies of it? Break it into smaller video clips? Jesus of Naz is a long video. You are within your rights to edit it down to a set of four 20 minutes clips (for example), provided you are using it in a teaching activity and you don't use the master video elsewhere using the same clip (in which case your intent is to avoid buying a second copy and that is in the gray area of copyright infringement).

BROWN UNIVERSITY's Videotape Copyright Guidelines:

Permissible Uses of Videotapes

• To permit display or performing audiovisual works in nonprofit institutions the following conditions should be meet:
• They must be shown as part of the instructional program
• They must be shown by students, instructors or guest lecturers
• They must be shown either a classroom or other location devoted to instruction such as a studio, library, or auditorium if it is used for instruction.
• They must be shown either in a face-to-face setting or where students and faculty are in the same building or general area.
• They must be shown only to students and educators
• They must be using legitimate (that is not illegally reproduced) copy with the copyright notice included.

Prohibited Uses of Copyrighted Videos:
Displays and performances of audiovisual works are prohibited in nonprofit educational institutions when:

• They are used for entertainment, or even their cultural or intellectual value but are unrelated to the teaching activity.
• They are shown in an auditorium or stadium before an audience not confined to students, such as a sporting event, graduation ceremony, or community lecture or arts series.
• They involve an illegally acquired or duplicated copy of the work.
• They are transmitted by radio or television (either closed or open circuit) from an outside location.
  The "For Home Use Only" Warning on Videotapes
• Educators should understand that the "For Home Use Only" warning on the labels of may videotapes is unlikely to preclude using such tapes in the classroom. However, the restrictions are applicable to "public performances" held on the educational institutions property. Such as, an evening event or weekend event open to the public, for entertainment or for cultural purposes.
• A public performance in an educational institution is not the same as instructional activities in an educational institution which is limited to students.

Libraries and Videotapes
Educational institution libraries can allow videotapes to be viewed by the faculty or students provided that such viewing is for instructional purposes. Presumably this applies to viewing by an individual or small groups of students as part of a class assignment or project. They may not lend that videotape to the general public unless they have permission or the copyright statement accompanying the resources says they can.

Of course, IF you have purchased a license from the Motion Picture Licensing Association, www.mpla.com, you CAN show videos.

Copying copyrighted materials for archival purposes IS permitted.

If you have a book you don't want to lose, you are permitted to make a copy of it and loan out the copy or original, provided that the original or copy of the work is stored away out of use. Your "intent" is crucial here.

---

Books & Articles

You can copy 1 chapter from a 10 chapter book on a copier to give to a friend or class for limited use. You cannot, however, sell that copy to your students for use in class for more than the cost of copying. If the book is only three chapters in length....you probably shouldn't copy one chapter. That would be "substantial use." "Substantial" is a vague term that is further defined by circumstances of "intent" and "harm."

If you frequently copy an author's work, such as making copies of Bible maps and passages once a month for your teachers, you are starting to cross the line. Generally, one-time copying is acceptable so long as it's only a portion of the author's work or for preview/review purposes. Regular copying of portions, however, moves into "harm" and "substantial amount" territory.

You can quote portions of articles and sections of chapters for limited educational or informational purposes. Most "article authors" and magazines, however, appreciate "reprints." Contact them first before you copy an article.

---

Software

Software has been treated like a book by copyright laws, not as videotape. It is generally considered to be a one-user-at-a-time medium. Because of the nature of the computer medium, they are not so concerned with use in public settings. They are mainly concerned with illegal copying. Copying an entire CD is prima facie (on the face of it) a publishing act which injures the copyright holder. It's UNfair use.

Software copyrights usually state that ONE program can only be used on ONE computer at a time. You cannot make a copy of one program onto two computers but only use one of the computers at a time. It is a violation of most software to have ONE purchased copy existing in TWO separate places at the same time regardless of whether they are being used at the same time. The only exceptions to this are "network copies" and "site licenses."

What if the CD has no license info on it? Lack of such is not permission to make copies! All owners have an implied right to protection. If in doubt, ask the owner. It's their property afterall.

Thus, a teacher cannot have a "teacher's copy" on their home computer, if that one copy of the program is already loaded somewhere else. To be legal, you would need to delete the program from the church's computer to have the teacher preview it at home. This assumes the program installs completely onto the harddrive. See the CD Tech Note below.

You can MOVE software from one computer to another in order to transfer it. You can lend it to another church provided the data doesn't physically exist in two place/computers at the same time. When you purchase a CD program, you are purchasing the right to use it on one computer. You don't own the data. Same with books. When you buy the latest novel, you don't own the text, you own the paper it is written on, that's all. So you can't copy the entire text and give it away to others.

Exception: Software owners MAY maintain a backup copy of all programs, provided that backup copy is put away and not being used.

Most software copyrights allow libraries to lend their software.

Some CD-ROMS copy their entire contents onto the computer's hard drive. The CD is then put in storage. This CD cannot be used on any other computer.

The following is a list of CD programs in Sunday School Software's Fall 2004 catalog that you should NOT allow to be borrowed because they "fully install":

• Super 3-D Noah, Fall of Jericho, Wordy, Crosswords and Puzzle Game, Exodus for PC
• Bongo Loves the Bible, Joseph's Story, Cal & Marty's Scripture Memory Game, Galilee Flyer.
  

Remember: a program cannot exist in two places at once.
Exceptions: the second copy is an archival/safety copy not in use, or you paid for the second copy!

Making Back-up Copies:

Your are entirely within your rights to make archival, back-up emergency copies of any copyrighted material, including software, provided you put the back-up copy away and don't use it when the other original copy is functional.

Web pages

Web sites are treated like any published material. They are copyrighted material whether the site specifically says so or not.

 

A Quick Mention About TRADEMARKS

A trademark is different than a copyright in many ways. A trademark is the name or phrase or graphic used by a individual or corporation to identify themselves and protect from copy-cats, ....other people using the same name, phrase or graphic. Wendys can't name a hamburger the "Big Mac" because McDonalds used it first. It's first come, first served. They also filed papers protecting the name. "McDonalds" is also trademarked. I could open up a vacuum cleaner repair shop named McDonalds but I couldn't put up sign with golden arches and also sell food of any kind. Trademarks are protected within their industry.

Trademarks are created the moment they are used for commercial purposes -or- registered with the government. If I named a restaurant McDonalds but never built the place, my trademark would not be enforceable.

Example in Christian Education Usage: Melissa Hansche and Neil MacQueen (yours truly) have trademarked the phrases "Workshop Rotation" and "Rotation Model" to describe the name we gave our rather unique model for Sunday School. No one can use these phrases for "profit-making purposes" to describe their material without our permission.

We did this to protect the ideas these phrases stand for. We have granted a blanket exemption to any who wants to use our trademarks for non-commercial purposes. If you want to publish using these phrases in more than a referential way, however, you have to have our consent. If you published a model that was substantially similar to our model, -you'd have to call it something else unless we said it was Ok to use the name. This is the same principle that keeps a hamburger stand from opening up and calling itself McDonalds. The Law seeks to avoid confusion.

---

F.Y.I. This article is the copyrighted property of Neil MacQueen. It may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes in part or in total. For more information, contact Neil at 1-614-527-8776. For more specific copyright information, consult your local libary or the many web pages devoted to the subject.

---

WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT?

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for copyright protection. These include among others:

-Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression. For example: choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded. Or an idea overheard at a seminar.

-Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents.

-Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration. (I.E. I can copyright my particular description of boiling water, but I can't keep you from describing the boiling process in your own language. Copyright rules do, however, keep you from titling your book about boiling water the same as mine.)

- Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship.

Who's it going to hurt?

All of us! ...and the author of the eighth commandment. Whether you think a church or individual is entitled to a break is beside the point. Copyrighted material is another person's property. Violating a copyright is stealing.

Part of our goal should be to support authors and their creative works. "Saving money" by copying substantial portions of a work is at least short-sighted. At worst it is a premeditated sin.

• Remember: Intent, amount, harm ...and uniqueness.
• Always contact the author before quoting them. It is a common courtesy. It may also help you avoid headaches.
• Whenever you use copyrighted material, no matter how much you use of it, you should include the title, author and publisher of the work.

 

The Last Word

The bottom line about copyrights are that everyone is entitled to make a living and not have their creative work used without their permission. The only time copyright law bends the rules is when it comes to using copyrighted materials for localized educational purposes.

Updated July 2004, Neil MacQueen

Addendum: The Fair Use of Copyrighted Material --A Test

There are five basic rules to keep in mind when deciding whether or not a particular use of an author's work is a "fair use:"
("Fair Use" is a legal term used in copyright law to determine whether or not your use of another's material violates their copyright. The following section comes from Nolo Law's online encyclopedia

Rule 1: Are You Just Copying or Creating Something New?

The purpose and character of your intended use of the material involved is the single most important factor in determining whether a use is a fair use. The question to ask here is whether you are merely copying someone else's work verbatim or instead using it to help create something new. The Supreme Court calls such a new work "transformative." The more transformative your work, the more likely your use is a fair use.

Rule 2: Don't Compete With the Source You're Copying From

Without consent, you ordinarily cannot use another person's protected expression in a way that impairs (or even potentially impairs) the market for his or her work. Thus, if you want to use an author's protected expression in a work of your own that is similar to the prior work and aimed at the same market, your intended use isn't likely a fair use.

For example, say Nick, a golf pro, writes a book on how to play golf. Not a good putter himself, he copies several brilliant paragraphs on putting from a book by Lee Trevino, one of the greatest putters in golf history. Because Nick intends his book to compete with and hopefully supplant Trevino's, this use could not be a fair use. In effect, Nick is trying to use Trevino's protected expression to eat into the sales of Trevino's own book.

An interesting example is when a teacher copies parts of books for students to use. In one recent case, a group of seven major publishers went to court and stopped a duplicating business from copying excerpts from books without permission, compiling them into "course packets" and selling them to college students.

Rule 3: Giving the Author Credit Doesn't Let You Off the Hook

Some people mistakenly believe that they can use any material as long as they properly give the author credit. Not true. Giving credit and fair use are completely separate concepts. Either you have the right to use another author's material under the fair use rule or you don't. The fact that you attribute the material to the other author doesn't change that.

Rule 4: The More You Take, the Less Fair Your Use Is Likely to Be

The more material you take, the less likely it is that your use will be a fair use. However, to preserve the free flow of information, authors have more leeway in using material from factual works (scholarly, technical, scientific works, etc.) than to works of fancy such as novels, poems and plays. This is true especially where it's necessary to use extensive quotations to ensure the accuracy of the information conveyed.

As a general rule, never quote more than a few successive paragraphs from a book or article, or take more than one chart or diagram. It is never proper to include an illustration or other artwork in a book or newsletter without the artist's permission. Don't quote more than one or two lines from a poem. Many publishers require their authors to obtain permission from an author to quote more then a specified number of words, ranging from about 100 to 1000 words.

Contrary to what many people believe, there is no absolute word limit on fair use. For example, it is not always okay to take one paragraph or less than 200 words. Copying 12 words from a 14-word haiku poem wouldn't be fair use. Nor would copying 200 words from a work of 300 words likely qualify as a fair use. However, copying 2000 words from a work of 500,000 words might be fair. It all depends on the circumstances.

Rule 5: The Quality of the Material Used Is as Important as the Quantity

The more important the material is to the original work, the less likely your use of it will be considered a fair use.

In one famous case, The Nation magazine obtained a copy of Gerald Ford's memoirs before their publication. In the magazine's article about the memoirs, only 300 words from Ford's 200,000-word manuscript were quoted verbatim. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not a fair use because the material quoted (dealing with the Nixon pardon) was the "heart of the book ...the most interesting and moving parts of the entire manuscript," and that pre-publication disclosure of this material would cut into value or sales of the book.

Determining whether your intended use of another author's protected work constitutes a fair use is usually not difficult. It's really just a matter of common sense. There is no more commonsensical definition of fair use than the golden rule: Take from someone else only what you wouldn't mind someone taking from you.

=end=