TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
RE: How Many Trees? (WAS: URGENT: Immediate ethical issue)
Subject:RE: How Many Trees? (WAS: URGENT: Immediate ethical issue) From:"Gillespie, Stephen (Contractor)" <Stephen -dot- Gillespie -at- Persnet -dot- Navy -dot- Mil> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Mon, 5 May 2003 15:15:57 -0500
great explanation - thanks, Valerie!
Steve G.
-----Original Message-----
From: Valerie Priester [mailto:hammerl -at- buffalo -dot- edu]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 2:01 PM
To: TECHWR-L
Subject: Re: How Many Trees? (WAS: URGENT: Immediate ethical issue)
You can't copyright facts. You copyright works of authorship (which
include dramatic works, music, novels, choraeography, art, images, sound
recordings, etc.). An unrelated example would be, say a hockey game. You
can't copyright the game summary, but if you write an article for newspaper
XYZ, it can be copyrighted. The game summary is a collection of facts --
number of shots, number of saves, who played, who earned a penalty. I can
take the sum of those facts and write a lovely, entertaining article using
my own words and it's copyrightable. So, too, is the broadcast, which
includes play-by-play calling, as well as commentary. Likewise, if you had
a recipe, the ingredients list is not copyrightable. If you have a unique
literary expression to describe how to combine them, or you present them in
a video (see food tv broadcasts for example), then you've got copyright.
Now, getting back to trees, I could count them all, but it's still not
copyrightable. I could write a moving essay about them, and that would be.
I could create a documentary about them, and that would be.
>
>> I'd say that is the type of
>> 'esoteric', NOT-everyday run-of-the-mill common knowledge that does
>> not fall
>> under Fair Use.
>
As Jan noted, fair use doesn't involve whether something is common. Purpose
of the use (commercial or educational), nature of the work, amount used in
relation to the whole, and effect of the use on the value of the
copyrighted work all count toward whether something falls under fair use,
at least in the US.
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.