Follow-on to Copyright/Fair Use post

Status
Not open for further replies.
wsuffa

wsuffa

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
23,615
Location
DC Suburbs
Display Name
Display name:
Bill S.
One note on the Copyright/Fair use posting.

U.S. Government (and many state/local government) publications are generally not copyrighted. Therefore, you may post sections of those documents with proper attribution, but without the "fair use" limitations.

However, derivative works or compilations of Government data ARE covered by copyright, so those works are subject to fair-use limitations.

Example:
FAA airport data, waypoints, charts, approach data: not copyright
Jeppesen or AirNav data derived from FAA data: copyright and subject to limits.

Hence, if you're including or linking a government document, please go to the original source rather than a derivative work.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
So its illegal to post a link to an airnav airport diagram Bill?
Click to expand...

A link to Airnav is OK. Copying the Airnav page and posting it here is not.

Doesn't Airnav link directly to the FAA's TPP data for it's approach charts?
 
wsuffa said:
Doesn't Airnav link directly to the FAA's TPP data for it's approach charts?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the answer is no. I am also pretty sure you are slightly wrong on the rights to use government documents like that, for example:

Airnav has made no change to the approach plates. It didn't condense them, or resize them, and the copyright (if there was one) would still belong to the US Government. And that, I believe, makes it fair game for public, non-commercial use.

But - if airnav took a document that the Government issued, and produced a finding based on it, or even condensed it to remove unneccesary information and make it more streamlined, then they can copyright it.

I am pretty dang sure thats the way it works.

Jeppesen approach plates are a whole different story. They took FAA data and made their own chart with it. Therefore, they hold the copyright to the chart.
 
SkyHog said:
I'm pretty sure the answer is no. I am also pretty sure you are slightly wrong on the rights to use government documents like that, for example:

Airnav has made no change to the approach plates. It didn't condense them, or resize them, and the copyright (if there was one) would still belong to the US Government. And that, I believe, makes it fair game for public, non-commercial use.

But - if airnav took a document that the Government issued, and produced a finding based on it, or even condensed it to remove unneccesary information and make it more streamlined, then they can copyright it.

I am pretty dang sure thats the way it works.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much right, and basically what I said: compilation or derivative work are covered by CR. The exception is that there are some government publications that were produced as joint-products or otherwise under contract where there may be a copyright.

If a government document is republished in a textbook, however, the compilation or arrangement (text book) may be copyright. Therefore, it's always best if one works with the original source.

(Side note: I looked at Airnav.com. Airnav links to the FAA's website for the charts, so they are public domain, and linking/copyright is a non-issue. However, the airport diagram shown in Airnav's page, annotated to show FBO location, is copyright and any use would have to comply with fair-use. Likewise copying an airnav site page itself is copyright).

BTW, AOPA reprocesses the NACO approach charts, and condenses the .pdf files. That reprocessing represents value-add, and may trigger an issue (I've not looked at specific case law on that, so I've qualified the answer). Similarly, AOPA's reprocessing of the FAR and AIM are covered by copyright, as they are adaptations/arrangement of the original public domain work.

I used to take USGS base maps and append various data to them in response to governmental requirements. Those maps with the data presentation were covered by copyright because the specific presentation was the result of our "creative" work.

Jeppesen approach plates are a whole different story. They took FAA data and made their own chart with it. Therefore, they hold the copyright to the chart.
Click to expand...
 
Thread has been moved here and reopened for discussion.
 
wsuffa said:
One note on the Copyright/Fair use posting.

U.S. Government (and many state/local government) publications are generally not copyrighted. Therefore, you may post sections of those documents with proper attribution, but without the "fair use" limitations.

However, derivative works or compilations of Government data ARE covered by copyright, so those works are subject to fair-use limitations.

Example:
FAA airport data, waypoints, charts, approach data: not copyright
Jeppesen or AirNav data derived from FAA data: copyright and subject to limits.

Hence, if you're including or linking a government document, please go to the original source rather than a derivative work.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify:

1) Copyright only protects the original work of the author and does not cover factual information (2 + 2 = 4 is not copyrightable, "they call me Ishmal" is). For derivative works, the author of the derivative work only holds a copyright in the original material that he/she added. The problem lies in determining where the line is between what was added and what is public domain (or still owned by the first author)

2) US Copyright law does not include a right to attribution. That said, common curtesy and academic honesty should be sufficient reasons to provide an attribution when one quotes works not one's own.

3) Case law on the Fair Use doctrine is complex and varied. It is best to err on the side of caution and use only what is sufficient for your purpose and remember to provide proper attribution

Bruce
 
but.....this is feedback and support, and you deleted the one message that included feedback, namely Jesse's. His post was neither horribly offensive, or too far off the mark either.
 
FYI we have decided that, on a going forward basis, when we post policy announcements in the news section, we will duplicate those announcements in the feedback area and close the news section. This is mainly to keep policy discussions in the feedback area.
 
cameronbm said:
3) Case law on the Fair Use doctrine is complex and varied.
Click to expand...

Thats what I am thinking, the rules might be so hard to follow that I may accidentally breach them on POA and as such I am going to ask for forgiveness in advance! Please delete or modify my posts as necessary, mods.
 
Dave,

Speaking solely for myself, and not the rest of the management council, I'm not really to concerned about inadvertent issues. It's the clear, intentional posting of long copyrighted material that's troubling.

bill
 
While the intracies of copyright law are complex, it is not that hard to stay within the bounds of fair use when posting for the purposes of commentary on a non-commercial site such as POA.

1) don't post the complete version of an article (use a link instead)
2) if you want to make a comment on a section of an other work, just post that part with an appropriate attribution
3) if you don't know the source of the material you're posting, assume that it is copyrighted, then see #1 or #2 above

Bruce
 
Remember that you can never go wrong by posting a link, and almost never by posting a short excerpt with attribution to the author.
 
OK seems reasonable. Nab me if I forget though.
How about this. I have a far side comic I want to post. It will give credit to mr larsen, and it is only one comic out of the book of...~400.
Is that an 'excerpt of the original'??
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
OK seems reasonable. Nab me if I forget though.
How about this. I have a far side comic I want to post. It will give credit to mr larsen, and it is only one comic out of the book of...~400.
Is that an 'excerpt of the original'??
Click to expand...
No. That is, in fact, the original. All of Larsen's works are copyrighted individually because they originally appeared in newspapers as single panel works.

Fair Use typically applies only to text excerpts of around 100 words or less and to illustrations and photographs that are reproduced as part of a larger body of work. Simply reproducing one photo is NOT fair use ... except ... sometimes it is. Typical legal stuff.

And then it can get complicated. If you post it for satire it's almost certainly fair game, such as posting a copyrighted picture of Seabiscuit's behind and captioning it with a reference to your favorite politician. If it's "editorial" use there are broad protections. If it can be construed as commercial in any way, you're almost certainly stepping over the line.
 
I think ill just stick to talking about airplanes...

all that other stuff gets too complicated :)
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
OK seems reasonable. Nab me if I forget though.
How about this. I have a far side comic I want to post. It will give credit to mr larsen, and it is only one comic out of the book of...~400.
Is that an 'excerpt of the original'??
Click to expand...

Dave, is it online? A lot of comics are online through a web site.

If so, a link should be OK....

[EDIT]: Well, I guess not. This answers the question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Far_Side#Online

Begin quote from Wikipedia:
Online
It is difficult to find many Far Side cartoons online, since Larson (and/or his publishers and lawyers) have been very effective at persuading people to not infringe on his copyright. There is a widely distributed letter online, attributed to Gary Larson, in which he explains the "emotional cost" to him of people displaying his cartoons on their websites, and asks them to stop doing so.
Click to expand...
End quote from Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Remember that you can never go wrong by posting a link,
Click to expand...
Maybe. Not as hot a topic as it once was, but there are still sites that prohibit "deep linking" by their terms of service and there have, AFAIK, not been any rulings by US appellate courts to finally resolve the copyright issue one way or another.

Never say "never."
 
If one receives photos via email (you know the type...forwarded so many times that there's not a snowball's chance to identify where it came from originally) with no credit listed for photographer, can one post it here without violating copyright?

How about those photos that do have the photographer cited? Is it a violation to repost those photos when listing the photographer?

I get a lot of both of these types from a few email friends. Some of them have relevence to POA, in my opinion and I would like to share them, but I'm really clueless on this and want to do it correctly - thanks!
 
gkainz said:
If one receives photos via email (you know the type...forwarded so many times that there's not a snowball's chance to identify where it came from originally) with no credit listed for photographer, can one post it here without violating copyright?
Click to expand...
Unless one can assure oneself that those photos are in the public domain, no. Adding to the chain of violations is not acceptable to us.

How about those photos that do have the photographer cited? Is it a violation to repost those photos when listing the photographer?
Click to expand...
You'd have to find out if the photographer has given permission for the photos to be reproduced.

I get a lot of both of these types from a few email friends. Some of them have relevence to POA, in my opinion and I would like to share them, but I'm really clueless on this and want to do it correctly - thanks!
Click to expand...
Regrettably, the internet has made it possible for a string of copyright violations to be created at the speed of light. If it's not your work, and you don't have either the permission of the photographer or assurance that it's in the public domain, please don't post it here. If you want to post a link to where it is, fine, but don't put the actual photo on PoA.
 
Ron Levy said:
Regrettably, the internet has made it possible for a string of copyright violations to be created at the speed of light. If it's not your work, and you don't have either the permission of the photographer or assurance that it's in the public domain, please don't post it here. If you want to post a link to where it is, fine, but don't put the actual photo on PoA.
Click to expand...

A more accurate statement would be:

Regrettably, the management council feels that it is now its cause du jour to make sure that we can enforce copyright laws, despite the fact that NO other forum on the internet cares as much, we will. If it is not your work, we will remove your post, and any subsequent posts that even make reference to a copyright law, because we can.

And only because we can. Don't like it? Go to one of the other forums. We don't listen anymore.


**Its a long road to go through to save the unnamed terrorist.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the clarification. BTW, I was not complaining - I just want to do it right.
 
SkyHog said:
A more accurate statement would be:

Regrettably, the management council feels that it is now its cause du jour to make sure that we can enforce copyright laws, despite the fact that NO other forum on the internet cares as much, we will. If it is not your work, we will remove your post, and any subsequent posts that even make reference to a copyright law, because we can.

And only because we can. Don't like it? Go to one of the other forums. We don't listen anymore.


**Its a long road to go through to save the unnamed terrorist.
Click to expand...
Its easy to rant and vent, but you don't know how much this gets discussed behind the scenes. Being offensive about it isn't doing anyone any good. If it irks you as much as you suggest, the you should consider following your own advice.

Nick, we know you don't agree with our decision, we appreciate that, but our decision is what it is and we're not changing it simply because its not 100% popular. Right now in our discussions the facts as we understand them tell us this is the best course for us to follow, and unless those facts change, our minds won't either.
 
Greebo said:
Its easy to rant and vent, but you don't know how much this gets discussed behind the scenes. Being offensive about it isn't doing anyone any good. If it irks you as much as you suggest, the you should consider following your own advice.

Nick, we know you don't agree with our decision, we appreciate that, but our decision is what it is and we're not changing it simply because its not 100% popular. Right now in our discussions the facts as we understand them tell us this is the best course for us to follow, and unless those facts change, our minds won't either.
Click to expand...

I understand that, Chuck, and you have to understand that the reason this irks me as much as it does is plain and simple because it was mostly my post that started this whole problem. And it wasn't and still isn't a problem, despite the "facts."

I keep thinking I'm willing to drop it, but you guys keep coming up with more and more....for lack of a better term....retarded reasons to keep up on the copyright thing.

I'm not going anywhere, I still really like this place, the people involved, and even the management council, because it keeps the crap out of here. Its decisions like this that upset me, because it continues the idea that lawsuits without legitimacy instill the fear that is necessary to push people around. It is not right, and never will be.

And I still maintain, using your current rules regarding copyright, the original post that caused the problem should be fine, as it wasn't the entire document, only a part, and contained a link to the original document for those that wanted to see the rest.

Whatever. Aside from my signature which clearly expresses how I feel about the uselessness of your copyright policy, I see no reason to debate this much further. It is obvious that you have no problem being pushed around by those with power. If I were you, though, I'd tread lightly. Once people learn that you are a pushover, they will take more and more until your hands are completely tied.
 
I understand that, Chuck, and you have to understand that the reason this irks me as much as it does is plain and simple because it was mostly my post that started this whole problem. And it wasn't and still isn't a problem, despite the "facts."
Click to expand...
You are not in a position to make this assumption.

I keep thinking I'm willing to drop it, but you guys keep coming up with more and more....for lack of a better term....retarded reasons to keep up on the copyright thing.
Click to expand...
While we try to overlook comments directed at us, this is twice now in this thread where you have been downright insulting towards the MC. I remind you that the Rules of Conduct continue to apply even in this thread.

You are not privy to our discussions and deliberations. You do not know what is behind our decisions, or what our internal positions are. It is the height of foolishness to insult something as stupid when you do not understand what is behind it.

And I still maintain, using your current rules regarding copyright, the original post that caused the problem should be fine, as it wasn't the entire document, only a part, and contained a link to the original document for those that wanted to see the rest.
Click to expand...
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. There is no "original post" that caused the problem. We deal with 3 or 4 copyright issues a day, most of them media related. Before you posted copyrighted material, the copyright enforcement discussion had been going on for weeks. You are not special. The only thing different about you is you posted pictures of clearly copyrighted material without permission from the material's owners and we received a request by the owners to delete that material, which we did.
 
Greebo said:
You are not in a position to make this assumption.
Click to expand...
Ok. I suppose not being in on the private discussions that cause the rulings would mean that there could have been some ground breaking discussion about copyright law that lawyers and judges that have dealt with similar issues in the past were not aware of, and my assumption is unfounded as such. I hold that it is not likely, but possible.

While we try to overlook comments directed at us, this is twice now in this thread where you have been downright insulting towards the MC. I remind you that the Rules of Conduct continue to apply even in this thread.
Click to expand...
I have not once attacked anyone in the MC individually, or the MC as a whole, but instead the decisions made by the MC. Like I said, aside from a few decisions (removal of the reputation system that was proven as being something the majority of members preferred keeping, the decision to disallow revealing of contents of email and pms, the protection of the unnamed terrorist) I understand completely where the MC comes from, even when I disagree. I moderate a few forums myself, one of which constantly deals with unpopular decisions, and it is a tough, thankless job, I know that and respect that. I would never call you or any other moderator retarded, and my use of the term itself was poor, but I couldn't think of a better term at the time, for that I apologize.

You are not privy to our discussions and deliberations. You do not know what is behind our decisions, or what our internal positions are. It is the height of foolishness to insult something as stupid when you do not understand what is behind it.
Click to expand...

I suppose. But you could also say that a debate about the legality of something which has clear examples of the outcomes of very similar cases on record follows the same suit.


Again, you don't know what you're talking about. There is no "original post" that caused the problem. We deal with 3 or 4 copyright issues a day, most of them media related. Before you posted copyrighted material, the copyright enforcement discussion had been going on for weeks. You are not special. The only thing different about you is you posted pictures of clearly copyrighted material without permission from the material's owners and we received a request by the owners to delete that material, which we did.
Click to expand...

I am not special. I never said I was special, but the point is that the post that started this whole debate was the post about the unnamed terrorist and his decision to open shop at a specific location. A picture was included that came from his site. After this, the lockdown began. Soon after I pointed out that you were actually violating copyright law with news articles, that was banned as well. I am not special, but I can see where my words may have caused outcomes that certainly weren't their goal.

I'm going to drop this. It is clear that we disagree on the very basis of this entire debate, and I suspect that it will continue this way. I don't mean to cause undue stress or annoyance to the membership of this forum, that would make me a terrorist in a way myself.
 
SkyHog said:
...I am not special. I never said I was special...
Click to expand...

*I* think you are really special, Nick! :p
 
There has not been any copyright issue brought to the top of the message heap in quit a while. That is a testament to how well every one has self educated themselves of the law pertaining to copyright.

But there are lots of new people one here and it is perhaps time for the more senior members to have some recurrent training.

To them I offer this You Tube 10 minute training session on Copyright and fair use.
 
No Joe Bidden followers on this board! :D


(Not meant as political. But, it could test your knowledge of history!) :)
There was another name I'm trying to think of but I can't recall who it was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top