@jpanhalt

Your nolo link essentially repeated section 107 of title 17

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

I agree Purdue's citation practices are their rules and others can have differing criteria. They probably chose 500 words because someone asked how many words. Substantial, a word that leads to largely and mostly, could be 50.1 percent of the material. I gave those links as examples, not the final authority. Who knows the copyright laws of the TS's homeland? This is the downfall of a world wide discussion group, common standards.

All we can do is cite examples of how it's done in our homeland, and the variety seen here.

 

The 500-word criterion was obviously arbitrary and Purdue's policy for internal documents. Copyright infringement can be just a few words, for example, the lyrics of a jingle, or no words in the case of graphics or some modern rap. At least, the Purdue documents are in trendy orange.

The more glaring and important error was confusing copyright owner with author. That is not subject to local tradition or opinion in the US. The distinction makes a big difference.

Some authors forget that, or don't know it, and later regret it. Take Horowitz and Hill, The Art of Electronics. The Copyright owner is Cambridge University Press. Horowitz and Hill cannot publish a 4th edition (should one be in the works) with any other publisher, baring specific contractual conditions that would allow them to do that or to buy back the copyright.

John

 

Some authors forget that, or don't know it, and later regret it. Take Horowitz and Hill, The Art of Electronics. The Copyright owner is Cambridge University Press. Horowitz and Hill cannot publish a 4th edition (should one be in the works) with any other publisher, baring specific contractual conditions that would allow them to do that or to buy back the copyright.

John

Horowitz and Hill 4th edition? What is the next number in this series: 1980, 1989, 2015, _____?

I think they are more likely to be writing obituaries for each other than a fourth edition of that book.

 

@JoeJester

Did you get permission before you posted the excerpt about Fair Usage.

 

If your talking about U.S. Code 17, section 107, I would remind you that is the law. I believe the courts have already stated the laws were in the public domain. They would have to be if you want people to be cognizant of them. Then again, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

@jpanhalt

Winfield Hill talked about AOE's third edition in the 1990s on the NNTP groups. There has been long times between publications.