Copyright issues

[RFT]

Questions!

Am in the process of compiling a series of reference books.

1. Is it necessary to obtain copyright holders permission to quote extracts from a book or books. Copyright author would obviously be acknowledged?

2. If copyright holders permission is required how can this be achieved in the case of a book or magazine article published seventy plus years ago?

3. Would very much appreciate any help or advice on the matter of copyright and possible other legal loop-holes.

Thanks in advance

Rob

[John_Hartley]

If it is a magazine or newspaper that you are quoting from, copyright would have been held by the publication and will out of protection by now (assuming 70 years). With regard to a book, it is the period after author's death that is criticial.

However, all is not lost, depending on how many quotes you intended to blag and how large they are. There is a generally accepted principle of "fair dealing" that allows shortish extracts to be used without specific copyright approval. And a further possible "get out" is that you make all reasonable efforts to secure copyright approval and include in your publication that you have made these efforts - that might include writing to the publisher if the company still exists.

John

[bmac]

If you write to publishers of existing in print books they will, in my brief experience, try to stiff you for £50 and upwards per quote. I gave up asking and just put in a proper reference, bibliography, etc. If someone wants to sue me for a share of my losses they are welcome!

[RFT]

John and bmac

Thanks for your interest and advice.

I can't help but notice that many books have pages of acknowledgments and find it hard to believe that all have applied for permission to quote various extracts.

Am determined to see close to 7 years research of mine put to print.

Best regards

Rob

[tharkin56]

if you want help publishing send me a PM though I appreciate this wasn't what the post was for, a confessed self publisher now on my fifth title. Also with regards to photos etc the imperial war museuem and cwgc are very good with permission for short runs.

[RFT]

Thanks tharkin56 for your offer of help.

Regards

Rob

[Moonraker]

This is a recurring question in the Forum that elicits a range of conflicting opinion and advice. I usually get the feeling of going around in decreasing circles. Click on "search" (top right), click on "more search options", click on "more options" and enter "copyright" in the search box, specifying "search titles only".

John Hartley's advice is admirably succinct. Expert opinion varies as to how much one can quote verbatim without seeking consent - time was when 500 words were acceptable, though this seems to have come down to 200.

In practice, one can spend a lot of time trying to track down copyright holders, and there may be those who are tempted not to bother unless the publisher is known to still exist. I suspect that there have been very few complaints made about quotes of the lengths normally to be found in most books. It is, of course, courteous to state the sources of the quotes.

Moonraker

[ypresman]

Just reading through this thread reminded me of the time Johan Vandewalle from Polygon Wood had issues with copyright earlier this year.

There is a link on his website to the letter he wrote to relevant authorities expressing these copyright issues (click on Johan's letter):

http://www.polygonwood.com/Polygon%20Wood%20Site%20Map.htm

Very serious stuff.

[J Banning]

Very serious stuff.

Indeed. Am very glad that you highlighted this. It is most disappointing that he is yet to receive a reply.

[RFT]

Thank you all for your comments and observations to date.

Rob

[n cherry]

I'd agree with Moonraker, I seem to recall Helion saying in their publishing contract 500 words without getting permission........but as BMac says let them sue for a portion of the losses!

At first I was surprised to see other authors giving credit for one of my WW2 books without permission but I got over the shock eventually!

[Moonraker]

Compared with other threads on copyright, this one is refreshingly direct and concise. Perhaps I could extend it a little by asking Pals what would be the most number of words from one of their published works that they would find acceptable to see quoted verbatim without their consent (but with an attribution).

There is also the issue of taking other people's published information and re-presenting it as a slightly - or greatly - different version so that it does not form a direct quotation. There have been recent cases of well-known authors doing this without acknowledgement and being accused of plagiarism.

My own modest published works consist of little original composition but of facts culled from books and documents and strung together or merged, and then edited. Inevitably some of the original phraseology remains. I see no need to seek consent of the original authors for this treatment but have included them in the bibliography. I stress that in most cases the number of words involved is far less than the 500 I've suggested above as the maximum that can be directly quoted with seeking consent. I'm aware of other authors who have taken large chunks of my published work and re-presented the information, sometimes, but not always, asking me first. This doesn't bother me, especially in an age when some students - I understand - present essays they've purchased off the Internet as their own and when exactly the same information appears word-for-word on a number of websites.

Moonraker

[Dragon]

In writing text for our website, I find that the question about published information is difficult, because if I'm using facts that are in the public domain, who is to say that I took them from a book / website, or went to the county archives and found them myself? I think there's a freshness about using one's own material, and this communicates in the writing, but people can't own copyright on facts.

There are two forum members who have lifted large extracts of our website and placed them on their own as if they were the originators. (I am happy to include links if asked.) Some of the plagiarised material is photographs taken by me, and one of the website owners has even included my credit to my friend who did some local research for me, but added it as if she had sent him the material. I'm afraid that however tolerant or realistic I might try to be, I can't get past the thinking that it's so simple to ask for permission, so why not just ask? It adds academic rigour to the published work if it's sourced properly and permissions stated. I suppose one thing that these people don't realise is that it's possible to backtrace stolen material from one's site stats, and I do.

In terms of what I personally would mind: as someone who writes creatively and also takes the odd photo, I would be completely outraged if a third party took my interpretive, artistic material and passed it off as his own.

[Chris_Baker]

There are two websites that have ripped huge amounts of material from the Long, Long Trail. No reference, credit or link and not even checked. I plant the odd typo or invisible text, so I know it's mine. But what can you do?

As far as written material is concerned, I would think 200 words is fine.

[Dragon]

I write to them. Often people apologise. I don't know what you do about those that don't, apart from name and shame, or write to their sponsors (if any). Regimental / dead websites, which are those which forum members tend to do, often quote the support of a regimental association or some such organisation and they don't like to be seen condoning theft. The Masons nicked some of our stuff!

I think that some people genuinely have no idea that material on the Internet isn't there for the taking. I've met people on academic courses who didn't know.

What's exercising me at the moment is what happens if you have archive material culled from online digital editions of newspapers - the sort you pay to access. For example, supposing I had something I'd downloaded from the Daily Telegraph archives of 1899. The paper edition is clearly out of copyright, but the digital edition has its own recent copyright. If I quoted it, would they know where I'd obtained it? Paper or online? How much can I quote before they get edgy? (I imagine a paragraph is ok. Obviously fully credited.)

My obvious answer has to be that I ought to ask them. But ...

Gwyn

[Moonraker]

... There are two forum members who have lifted large extracts of our website and placed them on their own as if they were the originators...

Not me, as I wouldn't know how to run a website! But I've taken snippets of info (almost entirely consisting of 15 to 150 words) about Wiltshire from the Forum and added them to my private notes, which one day(at least 20 years hence, I hope) will be offered to a library for public access. There is a very small chance that one day I may incorporate a few "unique" words from the Forum in my own published work. Pragmatically I don't think there's much point in including in my notes the often-curious Forum contributors' names, which will be meaningless (and probably uncontactable) in a few years' time.

Should I ever "acquire" substantial original info or photograph from a thread, I would advise the contributor that I would like to add it to my notes.

Moonraker