Mary,
This is an interesting topic, of which I've had some interest for a few years, ever since the thought of a newsletter crossed my mind. I've been tapping into several sources over the years to get a feel for which direction the wind was blowing on this issue and here's what I've found from the attorney's and courts who prosecute such infgringements:
- The courts are leaning more and more toward whether or not money was made from from such incursions and if so, how much.
- Whether or not defamation of character or reputation incurred.
- Whether or not the infringement was intentional in nature as a criminal intent.
- The growing sentiment in the courts is that the internet is a public domaine, much like the airwaves and what enters your home belongs to you.
The fact is that if you even so much as quote a commercial you you are breaking the law as it is written. But how mant times do you hear commercials quoted, even on public media such as TV? The bottom line is this, if you are not using the material for profit, there is no infringement. If you are not making a
lot of money that would have clearly gone to the originater as a direct result of that infringement, no attorney will take the case and no court will hear it. The courts are taking more and more of a pro-active aproach towards the fact that material on the internet is public domaine and the government is far behind in changing the laws to reflect this. In other words, like most things in the legal world, it's all about the money to be made by all parties. Pictures are a little different and a little stricter, but there again, it's about the money to be made and whether or not you are making any money directly as a result of the use of those pictures. One attorney once wrote in an article on the net - "with all of the tools and methods available to protect pictures on the internet, it is becoming as difficult to prosecute these infringements as it is to prosecute a person who steals a car with the keys left in it and the doors unlocked".
I use many sources to create my writings. I generally copy many sources, take the content that I want to use from each, mix it all together with my own information and create something that is uniquely mine with my own "spin". There are times when a particular writer writes something that I like just the way it is. In this case, I prefer to give the writer credit, irregardless of the law, because that's the right thing to do. But the fact is that you must copy a particular peice of work with at least 80% of the article intact before the law will take effect AND it must be obvious that you did so with the intention of stealing from the author, whether monitarily or reputation, before you could face an issue with the legal system.
With so many new technologies coming on line, I believe that will you see this issue go the way of Napster and this issue will be soon relegated to the "big-money" people aand us little folks will not be worth the effort to persue. I personally think that far to many people are giving this issue more credit than is due and if any writer follows a path of honesty, common decency and follows a path of respect for their fellow man ("person" to be politically correct), they will never face an issue with THIS issue. But then this is just the "Hillbilly" talkin' and few, if any people read what I right, so I don't concern myself with plegerisim of my work. HAVE A GREAT DAY !
the "Hillbilly Gardener"Lyndell (Jerry) Miller
(417) 777-2285
plantman.ozarks@yahoo.com
www.jerrysplantsonline.comThe "
Garden of Weedin" newsletter
"
Ask the Hillbilly" - Got a question regarding gardening or outdoor living just ask !
"
Over the Fence - A Hillbilly's View" garden and outdoor living blog.