Important notice on COPYRIGHT

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Fair Use Notice

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of peer to peer dynamics.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair dealing' and/or 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

This means that our Creative Commons rule only applies to material that is originally written for our site, and only concerns a limited amount of documents.

Some practical recommendations

Please note there are two kinds of pages here.

1) The "impersonal ones", that are continuous upgrades of third party material and citations, through a process called opportunistic updating, which is in agreement with Fair Use or 'Fair Dealing' (several other countries) principles.

In such pages, it is not recommended to copy the full article; instead, please copy only the paragraph that is relevant to the topic at hand. These original quotes should not be modified, and should always be sourced. If you add any comments, then such a personal voice should be stated as such. It is recommended to use the talk pages first in case of disagreement. Additional notes about [[formatting are being collected here.

2) personal project pages, where individuals describe their own concepts and projects. Also in this case, respect the individual voice of the author, but these pages should be clearly stated as such.


Carolina Botero, IP expert in Colombia, writes:

"You are using "citation" or quotation fair use or exception (depends on the legal regime of each country) and this is legal, it is even legal to reproduce that 3rd party content because it is part of yours now... I mean, if I find an article of yours that includes citations of several other people and you have a license that allows me to do everything (lets say a CCBy) with your article, this is lawful, because you are not using ALL the ORIGINAL CONTENT of the third party but a part of it to ilustrate your point. So really is a new content that can circulate on its own.

Moreover, if this article has an image to ilustrate it and the image is CCBYNDNC, and you point this out together with the rest of the information for the image, there is no problem, if I want to use the article and translate it to spanish, plus sell it as part of a book I have to use my judgement to exclude this image or ask for the correct authorization for it since I do not have permission to sell it (the translation is not a modification of the image but of the text, so no problem there)

Many of the books you buy rely on other´s content and use 3rd parties materials supported on citation and still is the author´s call to decide how it circulates, it is just the same with your material on line. So long you correctly state what is yours and what is not, it is really your audience call to judge how to use it. You can include to the license an statement such as: Content in this blog is licensed with .... unless otherwise stated, here you are leaving the door to that judgement in a more specific way." (email June 2010)

Adapted from an email submission from Andres Guadamuz IP expert via email ~

There is no such thing as fair use in European copyright law. Fair use is an American doctrine. We have fair dealing, exceptions and defences, but no fair use. It is an important legal point. It is best to use the policy of the jurisdiction in which the organization is located.

I believe that what you are doing is indeed protected under fair dealing, although I am not familiar with the particulars of Dutch law, citation for research purposes is permitted.

The important thing to consider with regards to the licence is that you cannot licence other people's work, so the main question is whether you have done enough to allow your work to gain its own copyright, in other words, is P2P Wiki an original work? This is a more complex question, and while I personally think that it is, I can also see how one could argue that the site is not.

Let's assume that the Wiki indeed has its own copyright. I agree that the NC licence is the best option as it reduces your potential liability if a cited author was to become hostile.