KrisK10

I've noticed that a few here have set up their own blogs and/or have published on the internet their opinions on many of the topics talked about here. I'm curious if any of you folks could offer any suggestions on how one does that if a commentary utilizes a significant number of quotes from scholars in order to make a larger argument. My understanding so far is that in order to use such references, one has to get copyright permission from each of the publishers/scholars, which not only is a significant amount of work, but it seems to me likely that many would not grant copy permission to some chump that wants to throw something on the internet. So how does one make an argument on the internet and in the process use large amounts of quotes from scholarship without risking a copyright suit?

Thanks for any suggestions,

Kris

Toto

Read up on "fair use."

mountainman

Copyright eventually expires, and rarely last past 50 years
after the death of the author, unless you are Walt Disney
and Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are millionaires (see
the Disney Act).

Consequently, there is a great amount of scholarship from
the past available and not under copyright.

One of the important issues often resolves to the copyright
invested in the translation of a specific work, from another
language to English. The same rules as above apply.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

KrisK10

I've noticed that 400 words seems to be some kind of unofficial limit in some places that people can quote freely before copy permission is needed.

I also note that in the "Fair Use" rules it says: "Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work." So for example, if one wanted to cite a well credentialed scholar that said:

"...on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8."

one could it seems to me just drop the quotes and say:

According to (scholar) John Doe, there is good external evidence and strong internal considerations to conclude that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8 (with bibliographical details of the authors work and page number footnoted).

The second example doesn't have quotes, so it seems like it would be just passing on the scholars idea without copying his expression.

Does anyone know about these possibilities? There's got to be other folks here who have looked at this issue. How does one convey an argument on the internet and cite the ideas of a significant amount of modern scholarship to help build that argument, without inviting a copyright suit?

Kris

DCHindley

Some boards used to set a limit at about 100 continuous words. Others let you quote a few contiguous sentences but would object to whole chapters being quoted. You can sometimes quote many sentences, as long as they are cited as part of commentary or a monograph that draws on ideas in the quoted authors, and so the sentences are spread throughout the commentator's work. It's called "fair use" and is based on the principal that critical interpretations themselves can't be copyrighted, just the way they are expressed as part of a unified literary work. Anytime you quote someone, though, you should encase them in quotation marks and acknowledge the other author's input.

DCH

Roger Pearse

I think that the OP is worrying unnecessarily.

ynquirer

That's correct. The safest way usually is to quote indirectly rather than directly. That urges the writer to work through another one's ideas so as to present them in his or her own words in substitution for the original ones - which sometimes is hard and never risk free. Yet, as I say, it is the safest way to avoid legal problems whenever a satisfactory arrangement.

KrisK10

Thanks for the suggestions --- Kris

Keith&Co.

But you're using his exact words, in the large.


"...good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8."


According to (scholar) John Doe, there is good external evidence and strong internal considerations to conclude that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8 (with bibliographical details of the authors work and page number footnoted).

You can't just omit quote marks, you have to actually rephrase the material to make sure it isn't quoting without proper attribution.

According to John Doe in his book "The Gospel: One in the Eye from Archaeology," one can use evidence from within the document and corroborations from outside the document to show that Mark's Gospel originally ended at 16.8.
The problem is that if you paraphrase and rephrase too much, you start to lose the point the original author intended. Which would be why people like to quote...

EssEff

In the U.S. the law used to be 39 years + 39 years' extension, but the Sonny Bono law changed it to life of the author + 100 years. Apparently he thought his great-great-grandchildren would want the royalties from "I got you babe" because of course people will be playing it forever!