In a message dated 24/05/2005 12:25:27 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello Robin and all other lacefriends, > It's my understanding that copying pages for use in a class was covered > under the "fair use" clause of copyright. In other words, it would not > be a violation of copyright to use patterns from published books. Of > course, that may vary in other countries. It is not so really clear and because for some of us happened that they found their own designs with another name some people are meanwhile a bit critical. Some years ago a lawyer told me if the name of the origin person and the source is written on the sheet and if you don't asked for more than the price of the copy (in our country not so much private copier exist, we go to the copy-shop) it is allowed. But some book-writer don't like this. It is a difficult thing. And I know that the DKV try to find an answer for this problem. Greetings Ilske Apologies for quoting the whole of the email but I wanted to put my reply in context. Last year, during our last foray into copyright law, I contacted the UK Patent's office about the copyright on lace patterns within the UK. They were very helpful and agreed with me that the fact that you have to photocopy your lacebook in order to make the design puts us in a very different position to most other book users. Think about it - If we want to work our way through a book of patterns we need to photocopy the pattern (probably about 45% of the book which already takes us over what is normally allowed) - then, we are often encouraged to copy the diagram of the pattern and enlarge it so that we can work from it - so by the time we've done it all we could have copied about 75% of the book. But, and this is the biggy ... we have bought the book and by buying it have entered into a contract which allows us to copy the patterns for OUR OWN use. Copying pages for class, under UK Law is a violation of the copyright which allows us to make copies for our OWN use - i.e. that we make the item not that we are using them to teach from. Now US Law is different as a ruling has now been made. According to the Copyright Handbook by Stephen Fishman, with deals with US Copyright law: <<Fair use of out of print works The drafters of the Copyright Act and the Supreme Court have suggested that a user may have more justification for reproducing a work without permission if it is out of print and unavailable for purchase through normal channels. (Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985).) Thus, most courts give users more leeway when they quote from or photocopy out-of-print works. But this does not mean that any amount of material from out-of-print works may be used without permission.>> The advice that I was given in the UK for out of print work is very interesting as I was told that the Copyright law protects against the copying of a work. The right lasts for the life of the author, and for 70 years after the author's death. In addition, in the UK, the publisher also has a right in the layout etc. of the book, which lasts for 25 years. If a work is out of print, this does not negate the copyright, or the duration given above. In the UK there are limited exceptions to copyright, for "fair dealing purposes" such as private research, private study, criticism, review and news reporting etc, but these are limited in scope, and will not allow the copying of large sections of a book etc. If the author has not indicated to what extent she may or may not allow copies of the work to be made, it may well be that making a single copy for your own use would not be considered fair dealing under the law. Your actions could then constitute an infringement of copyright. This advice corroborates the position that the publishers Ruth Bean took over the pricking for Miss Channer's mat - which caused this debate to happen last time. They were saying that whether or not Miss Channer was dead, or her original book out of copyright, by redrafting the pricking they now had copyright over the pricking as issued - i.e. the layout as mentioned above. There is a worry that with some of our favourite designers stopping from producing patterns that we could be loosing patterns - but there are two issues here to remember - 1) there are more patterns out there than we could make in a lifetime and 2) once you have finished with a pattern and your pricking then you can always give it on to another lacemaker to have and keep. Such sequential ownership of patterns is not an issue as you relinquish rights to it with passing it on. However, to give the pricking and not the original pattern is an infringement of copyright as you have the ability to make another pricking from the pattern. Multiple copies of a pricking from one book is infringement of copyright so by using a pattern for a lace class and giving it out to all students or even copying text and doing the same is an violation of copyright. What it comes down to in the end is that copyright management is a self management issue - we police ourselves on this and in the end if you feel comfortable with doing it then it is your conscience that you have to answer to as lets face it unless the author sees you do it how do they know. But if I intend to work through a book with my students I always encourage them to buy the book or take it out of the library - this lets me live with my conscience. Regards Liz in London I'm back _blogging_ (http://journals.aol.com/thelacebee/thelacebee) my latest lace piece - have a look by clicking on the link or going to _http://journals.aol.com/thelacebee/thelacebee_ (http://journals.aol.com/thelacebee/thelacebee) - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
