Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Question to Authors

Expand Messages
  • Richard Krueger
    As others have pointed out, you don t need permission from the copyright holder to quote a published work. Seeking permission is a nice gesture, but if you
    Message 1 of 24 , Oct 31, 2003
      As others have pointed out, you don't need permission from the
      copyright holder to quote a published work. Seeking permission is a
      nice gesture, but if you follow copyright laws and give proper credit
      there is no need to get formal permission. Academic writers
      frequently quote from and cite fifty or one hundred sources in a
      twenty-page essay; if they had to seek permission from each
      individual copyright holder nothing would ever get published.

      For me, a major point seems to be whether you're offering a critique
      of the work you're quoting or sinply trying to re-write the work.
      Tom Stoppard's play _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead_ uses
      characters from Shakespeare's _Hamlet_ to tell an entirely different
      story, whereas in _Strange Brew_, Dave Thomas and Rick Moranis retell
      _Hamlet_ using SCTV characters. The latter movie infringes far more
      on Shakespeare's rights than does the former. If Shakespeare were
      alive, he would raise far more of a stink over _Strange Brew_ than
      _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern..._

      Richard.
    • Craig
      Thanks to everyone who gave me your thoughts. I ll let you know how it goes. Craig [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 2 of 24 , Nov 1, 2003
        Thanks to everyone who gave me your thoughts. I'll let you know how it goes.

        Craig




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Dr John Serrati
        ... However, poor Billy Shakespeare has no rights, at least not in terms of copyright. International copyright law is very clear in stating that copyrights
        Message 3 of 24 , Nov 2, 2003
          At 18:03 31/10/2003 +0000, Richard Krueger wrote:
          >Tom Stoppard's play _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead_ uses
          >characters from Shakespeare's _Hamlet_ to tell an entirely different
          >story, whereas in _Strange Brew_, Dave Thomas and Rick Moranis retell
          >_Hamlet_ using SCTV characters. The latter movie infringes far more
          >on Shakespeare's rights than does the former. If Shakespeare were
          >alive, he would raise far more of a stink over _Strange Brew_ than
          >_Rosencrantz and Guildenstern..._

          However, poor Billy Shakespeare has no rights, at least not in terms of
          copyright. International copyright law is very clear in stating that
          copyrights last only for 75 years (only 50 years before the law was changed
          in 1996). Thus, I can publish or produce my own version of Hamlet & no one
          would have to be paid. I could reproduce all of Mary Shelley's work &
          claim it was mine. I would never get it published, but no one could get me
          on copyright infringement. Examples of this abound. The Scott Key family
          does not have to be paid every time the American national anthem is played;
          same w/ productions & recordings of all of Beethoven's or Mozart's
          work. You might have to pay a distributor to actually get hold of The
          Battleship Potemkin, but neither the Eisenstein family nor anybody else
          would have to be paid for you to show the film publicly & charge admission.

          Things like corporate logos work differently & certainly some copyrights
          can be renewed. However I know from assigning reading for my courses that
          all material published before 1928 is now out of copyright, & thus students
          may photocopy entire books from that era & not be breaking any laws.

          John


          Dr John Serrati
          School of Classics and Ancient History
          The Queen's University of Belfast
          BT7 1NN

          (44) (0)(28)90 273421
          (44) (0)7966 298212

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Dr John Serrati
          ... Actually I see your original point here. Copyright however, has nothing to do w/ the life & death of the author. It lasts for 75 years, without
          Message 4 of 24 , Nov 2, 2003
            At 12:08 02/11/2003 +0000, Dr John Serrati wrote:
            >At 18:03 31/10/2003 +0000, Richard Krueger wrote:
            > >Tom Stoppard's play _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead_ uses
            > >characters from Shakespeare's _Hamlet_ to tell an entirely different
            > >story, whereas in _Strange Brew_, Dave Thomas and Rick Moranis retell
            > >_Hamlet_ using SCTV characters. The latter movie infringes far more
            > >on Shakespeare's rights than does the former. If Shakespeare were
            > >alive, he would raise far more of a stink over _Strange Brew_ than
            > >_Rosencrantz and Guildenstern..._


            Actually I see your original point here. Copyright however, has nothing to
            do w/ the life & death of the author. It lasts for 75 years, without
            exception. My first book is in copyright till 2075 regardless of how long
            I live, my next book will be in copyright till 2079. If I were still alive
            then I still do not think that I could renew the copyright (though I could
            be wrong here, but I would assume that examples of people still living 75
            years after a publication are rare).

            John


            Dr John Serrati
            School of Classics and Ancient History
            The Queen's University of Belfast
            BT7 1NN

            (44) (0)(28)90 273421
            (44) (0)7966 298212
          • Richard Krueger
            ... Yes, I was trying to say that the manner in which one uses a source is the important part. If I quote from your book to further my argument, then
            Message 5 of 24 , Nov 2, 2003
              > Actually I see your original point here.

              Yes, I was trying to say that the manner in which one uses a source
              is the important part. If I quote from your book to further my
              argument, then permission is unnecessary; however, if I simply re-
              write your book, you might have a case for plagiarism. I used
              _Hamlet_ as an example that most would be familiar with, despite its
              being out of copyright.

              Richard.
            • tangotiger
              ... The exception is that this applies only to USA/Canada, right? Isn t there some issue with the EU where just about every country has its own rules on
              Message 6 of 24 , Nov 2, 2003
                --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, Dr John Serrati <john.serrati@q...>
                wrote:
                > It lasts for 75 years, without exception.

                The exception is that this applies only to USA/Canada, right?

                Isn't there some issue with the EU where just about every country has
                its own rules on copyrights, along with the duration? And in
                drafting their constitution, all of the countries will adopt a single
                EU definition of copyright and duration? It's an interesting story
                from what I remember. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can
                enlighten the group?

                Thanks, Tom
              • Mike Harling
                ... Michael Harling Ph: 604-738-7778 Fx: 309-424-6393
                Message 7 of 24 , Nov 2, 2003
                  >
                  > There are a couple How-not-to examples from recent hockey publishing to
                  > consider. Interestingly, I think both involve books published by
                  > McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
                  >
                  >As I recall, Stan Fischler and McGraw-Hill agreed to withdraw the Flakes
                  >of Winter when Brian McFarlane noticed that three or four anecdotes from
                  >It Happened in Hockey were reproduced, in their entirety and virtually
                  >verbatim, in Flakes. Fischler explained that the offending passages were
                  >written by a hired third party.
                  >
                  >Russ Conway (and perhaps Bruce Dowbiggin) complained that much of the
                  >material in Eagleson: The Fall of a Hockey Czar (different title in the
                  >U.S.) by two Globe and Mail reporters had relied too heavily on material
                  >previously published by the claimants. I don't know how this was resolved
                  >legally, but I believe the book was also withdrawn.
                  >
                  >The lesson here is that it is simply wrong to use substantial portions of
                  >another's work. While this might imply that it is OK to use small
                  >portions, practically speaking most publishers well not publish without
                  >the appropriate permissions. Most companies would argue respect for
                  >intellectual property rights, but equally important is the nuisance factor
                  >of resolving a claim (in this case, I would guess the legal fees would
                  >exceed potential damages).
                  >
                  >So, Craig, I think Lloyd's advice is best: paraphrase, paraphrase,
                  >paraphrase. And I would suggest that you earn credibility by crediting
                  >your source in the body of the text: in his book, the author says he
                  >thought the Argonauts ... and if the author said he thought the coach was
                  >"Crazy" to give the ball to Leon, you can argue fair use for single-word
                  >or other very short quotations.
                  >
                  >As frustrating as it is for you, the author, the publisher has the final
                  >word, so you have to play by their rules. Having said that, I
                  >congratulate you on convincing a publisher to do a book on the CFL -- the
                  >best of luck.
                  >
                  >Mike


                  ----------------------
                  Michael Harling
                  Ph: 604-738-7778
                  Fx: 309-424-6393
                • Lloyd Davis
                  John Serrati wrote: To the best of my knowledge, Canadian & American law states that you may quote up to 10 percent of another person s work without having to
                  Message 8 of 24 , Nov 2, 2003
                    John Serrati wrote:

                    "To the best of my knowledge, Canadian & American law states that you may
                    quote up to 10 percent of another person's work without having to seek
                    permission from them or their publisher."

                    That's a widespread misconception. Usually, people labour under the false
                    impression that there's an acceptable word limit, like 50 or 75 words.
                    However, there is no such provision in statute law on either side of the
                    border.

                    It's only recently that Congress even recognized the existence of the fair
                    use doctrine (it is mentioned in Section 107 of the current US Copyright
                    Act), but the legislators chose not to try to define what fair use is.

                    Therefore, it remains whatever a given judge in a given court thinks it is.
                    Invoking my fair use/fair dealing privileges, I'll quote from the 15th (and
                    latest) edition of the Chicago Manual of Style, aka the Bible of Publishing.

                    Section 4.76, subtitled "Validity of 'rules of thumb'," reads: "some
                    publishers have their own rules of thumb. Such rules, of course, have no
                    validity outside the publishing house: COURTS, not publishers, adjudicate
                    fair use." [Emphasis mine.]


                    --
                    Lloyd Davis Publishing Services
                    304-115 Danforth Ave., Toronto, ON M4K 1N2
                    416 465 6999 /// 416 462 0230 (fax)
                    ldavis@...
                  • Dave HTL
                    ... you may quote up to 10 percent of another person s work without having to seek permission from them or their publisher. I suspect Lloyd is right, and it
                    Message 9 of 24 , Nov 2, 2003
                      --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com,
                      > John Serrati wrote:
                      > "To the best of my knowledge, Canadian & American law states that
                      you may quote up to 10 percent of another person's work without
                      having to seek permission from them or their publisher."

                      I suspect Lloyd is right, and it reminds me of a similar widespread
                      misconception about part time businesses... folks often think that
                      since they are not making much money at something, or spending much
                      time doing something, say writing a hockey column in the media or
                      selling hockey cards or memorabilia, that it is ok not to declare it
                      on your income tax return. Innocence of the law is no excuse! Craig
                      if you are pursuing this you should use a lawyer.
                      Dave in Whitby
                    • Richard Krueger
                      ... you may ... seek ... Yes, it is. You can PHOTOCOPY up to 10% (or 20%?) or a single chapter, whichever is more, for your own use. But you cannot reprint
                      Message 10 of 24 , Nov 2, 2003
                        --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, Lloyd Davis <lloyddavis@s...> wrote:
                        > John Serrati wrote:
                        >
                        > "To the best of my knowledge, Canadian & American law states that
                        you may
                        > quote up to 10 percent of another person's work without having to
                        seek
                        > permission from them or their publisher."
                        >
                        > That's a widespread misconception.

                        Yes, it is. You can PHOTOCOPY up to 10% (or 20%?) or a single
                        chapter, whichever is more, for your own use. But you cannot reprint
                        and distribute 10% of another's work without having to pay monetary
                        compensation. You can, however, use short quotations until the
                        proverbial cows come home and not need permission or pay royalties.
                        As long as you cite your source, you're fine.

                        Richard.
                      • Dr John Serrati
                        ... Other than Italy, the UK, & Germany I am unsure about the EU. There is a big campaign going on in Italy at the moment where universities are trying to
                        Message 11 of 24 , Nov 3, 2003
                          At 19:37 02/11/2003 +0000, tangotiger wrote:
                          >Isn't there some issue with the EU where just about every country has
                          >its own rules on copyrights, along with the duration? And in
                          >drafting their constitution, all of the countries will adopt a single
                          >EU definition of copyright and duration? It's an interesting story
                          >from what I remember. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can
                          >enlighten the group?

                          Other than Italy, the UK, & Germany I am unsure about the EU. There is a
                          big campaign going on in Italy at the moment where universities are trying
                          to stop students from photocopying entire books for their courses (you
                          think North American university texts books are expensive, try Italy, where
                          they're on average 4-5 times as expensive. Some basic textbooks clock in
                          at $130 USD, & this is for humanities, never mind the sciences which always
                          have more expensive books). So in the articles I've read about the issue I
                          can say that Italy's copyright is 75 years. It's 75 years in Germany & the
                          UK as well. Outside of Europe, I know Australia & New Zealand have signed
                          on to the 75 year rule. Thus the vast majority of your English speaking
                          markets do have the same rule.

                          John


                          Dr John Serrati
                          School of Classics and Ancient History
                          The Queen's University of Belfast
                          BT7 1NN

                          (44) (0)(28)90 273421
                          (44) (0)7966 298212
                        • Dr John Serrati
                          ... You are correct here, what I quoted was in fact the international copyright law that governs the copying of material for educational instruction, not for
                          Message 12 of 24 , Nov 3, 2003
                            At 17:47 02/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
                            >John Serrati wrote:
                            >
                            >"To the best of my knowledge, Canadian & American law states that you may
                            >quote up to 10 percent of another person's work without having to seek
                            >permission from them or their publisher."
                            >
                            >That's a widespread misconception. Usually, people labour under the false
                            >impression that there's an acceptable word limit, like 50 or 75 words.
                            >However, there is no such provision in statute law on either side of the
                            >border.

                            You are correct here, what I quoted was in fact the international copyright
                            law that governs the copying of material for educational instruction, not
                            for publication. My mistake.


                            >Therefore, it remains whatever a given judge in a given court thinks it is.
                            >Invoking my fair use/fair dealing privileges,

                            At the end of the day this is true. The laws of most countries are
                            incredibly ambiguous & rarely define exactly what constitutes Fair Use or
                            Fair Dealing. Thus it is up to the courts. Most countries do however, not
                            only recognise the 75 year rule set out by the Universal Copyright
                            Convention in 1996, but their judges will also take into consideration the
                            rules for quoting agreed upon by the Society of Authors & the Publishers
                            Association (however, taking these into consideration does not mean that
                            they have to abide by them). These state:

                            From a copyright prose work, seek permission for any extract longer than
                            400 words; for a series of extracts totalling more than 800 words, of which
                            any one extract has more than 300 words; & for an extract or series of
                            extracts constituting one-quarter or more of the original work.

                            It goes on to say that for any illustration, be it a photograph, drawing,
                            chart, or table, always seek permission.

                            I would think that you'd be on solid ground if you followed these rules as
                            they are internationally recognised. Basically, following them means that,
                            more often than not, it would be a huge waste of time & effort for a
                            publisher or author to sue you, & if they won, they wouldn't get much.

                            >I'll quote from the 15th (and
                            >latest) edition of the Chicago Manual of Style, aka the Bible of Publishing.

                            Not necessarily for every subject. The Chicago Manual of Style is the
                            Bible only for general use & in the social sciences. Other sciences as
                            well as the humanities follow either The Oxford Manual of Style or The
                            Modern Language Association Manual of Style. Many publishers are now in
                            fact using a hybrid of the latter two.

                            >Section 4.76, subtitled "Validity of 'rules of thumb'," reads: "some
                            >publishers have their own rules of thumb. Such rules, of course, have no
                            >validity outside the publishing house: COURTS, not publishers, adjudicate
                            >fair use." [Emphasis mine.]

                            Yes. Although doesn't Canadian law state that you must you the minimum
                            necessary to get your point across?

                            John


                            Dr John Serrati
                            School of Classics and Ancient History
                            The Queen's University of Belfast
                            BT7 1NN

                            (44) (0)(28)90 273421
                            (44) (0)7966 298212

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Lloyd Davis
                            ... This may be the case in the United States. Not so in Canada. Here, we have a system whereby anyone who wishes to photocopy and distribute copyright
                            Message 13 of 24 , Nov 3, 2003
                              > You can PHOTOCOPY up to 10% (or 20%?) or a single
                              > chapter, whichever is more, for your own use. But you cannot reprint
                              > and distribute 10% of another's work without having to pay monetary
                              > compensation.

                              This may be the case in the United States. Not so in Canada.

                              Here, we have a system whereby anyone who wishes to photocopy and distribute copyright material may do so, as long as they pay for a licence from a clearing house called Access Copyright.

                              Public libraries, government agencies, and colleges and universities pay a blanket fee. Less frequent users are expected to pay per use for copying a specific work.

                              I'm not sure how effective AC is at tracking down the latter, but it's hard for a public library to deny that there is photocopying going on. (Though I'm sure they could make like the character in Casablanca who is shocked that gambling is going on.)

                              The licensing fees are distributed to authors, illustrators, photographers, and other creative types according to a formula.

                              This system may sound familiar to folks in radio or in the music business. It emulates the fees that songwriters' collectives like ASCAP and BMI collect from radio stations who play songs they administer, portions of which are then handed over to the songwriters.

                              > You can, however, use short quotations until the
                              > proverbial cows come home and not need permission or pay royalties.
                              > As long as you cite your source, you're fine.

                              No one ever said you'd have to pay a royalty to use someone else's work. Because there is no hard-and-fast rule as to where fair use/fair dealing ends and infringement begins, trade publishers walk a fine line.

                              Obviously, it isn't practical to seek permission for every re-use of someone else's words, any more than it is practical for the airline industry to seek to prevent every possible death. Is the risk low? Yes, but it would be unwise to suggest that no risk exists.

                              When I'm doing a copyedit -- or higher levels of editing that require more intensive work on the manuscript -- I'm occasionally asked outright to keep an eye out for passages that might need permission. Not coincidentally, this is most likely to happen with new authors, and is more likely to happen when the subject matter is sports-related.

                              Perhaps authors in this genre just have a bad reputation. But I also think it's because there is such a wealth of firsthand reportage available in newspapers and magazines, and it's often easier and quicker to draw upon this kind of research than to land and conduct interviews with the principal characters.

                              Trade publishing is a different animal from academic publishing, where it is understood that papers and studies are published as part of an ongoing conversation, or an exchange of ideas, about a given subject matter. Until they sign with a trade publisher, or the trade side of a scholarly press, academics tend not to concern themselves with the dollar value of their work.

                              Academics also tend to be throrough and transparent about their source material. It's easy to understand why. In an empirical study, your groundbreaking results are only taken seriously if other scientists can replicate the conditions and results of your experiments.

                              In the humanities, if you've got an idea no one has come up with before, you have to be able to prove that you know what the other leading thinkers have to say about a particular topic, and what makes your insights so different. You also have to know what everyone else is saying if you're convinced that they're wrong, and be able to demonstrate why their ideas no longer hold.

                              In academia, it would be suicidal not to make frequent reference to the existing literature and be meticulous in the citation of those sources.

                              Where a mass audience is concerned, however, the author's voice is the most important element. Academics are frequently given this advice when they first attempt to write for a broad audience of non-experts: Your data is important, but what it _means_ is at least as important, and is generally more so. You'll also have to be able to demonstrate that you can walk the fine line between having a point of view and an axe to grind; you do this by convincing the reader that you, the author, know what your research means.

                              Voice is also top-of-mind where less serious nonfiction is concerned. Sure, the audience wants to be informed, but they also want to be entertained. And a fundamental way to do that is to present the material in an original way. The author who relies on others' words is not being original -- and chances are he's not going to entertain the reader.

                              --
                              Lloyd Davis Publishing Services
                              304-115 Danforth Ave., Toronto, ON, M4K 1N2
                              416-465-6999 (phone) /// 416-462-0230 (fax)
                              ldavis@...
                            • Richard Krueger
                              ... reprint ... monetary ... distribute copyright material may do so, as long as they pay for a licence from a clearing house called Access Copyright. ...
                              Message 14 of 24 , Nov 3, 2003
                                --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, Lloyd Davis <lloyddavis@s...> wrote:
                                > > You can PHOTOCOPY up to 10% (or 20%?) or a single
                                > > chapter, whichever is more, for your own use. But you cannot
                                reprint
                                > > and distribute 10% of another's work without having to pay
                                monetary
                                > > compensation.
                                >
                                > This may be the case in the United States. Not so in Canada.
                                >
                                > Here, we have a system whereby anyone who wishes to photocopy and
                                distribute copyright material may do so, as long as they pay for a
                                licence from a clearing house called Access Copyright.
                                >
                                > Public libraries, government agencies, and colleges and
                                universities pay a blanket fee. Less frequent users are expected to
                                pay per use for copying a specific work.

                                ---

                                I work in a university library in Canada, and we use the CANCOPY
                                agreement. I guess I'm so used to it I sometimes forget it only
                                applies to us! Here's a quote from our copyright policy:

                                "Fair Dealing

                                "Under Canada's Copyright Act, it is illegal to copy most published
                                materials without permission. Permission is not required for copying
                                that is done as "fair dealing" for the purposes of research or
                                private study. However, it is not clear what is meant by "fair
                                dealing," and clarification of the law is now being sought by both
                                rights holders and users of copyright material. For the university
                                community's interpretation of fair dealing, please consult with
                                university administration."

                                ...and...

                                "No copying shall exceed 10% of a published work or the following,
                                whichever is greater:
                                An entire chapter which is 20% or less of a book.
                                An entire single short story, play, poem, essay or article from a
                                book or periodical issue containing other works.
                                An entire single item of print music from a book or periodical issue
                                containing other kinds of works.
                                An entire entry from an encyclopedia, dictionary, annotated
                                bibliography or similar reference work.
                                An entire reproduction of an artistic work from a book or periodical
                                issue containing other works."

                                Now, this deals only with COPYING material, not quoting material.

                                ---

                                > Trade publishing is a different animal from academic publishing,
                                where it is understood that papers and studies are published as part
                                of an ongoing conversation, or an exchange of ideas, about a given
                                subject matter. Until they sign with a trade publisher, or the trade
                                side of a scholarly press, academics tend not to concern themselves
                                with the dollar value of their work.

                                ---

                                Yes, this is the world I live in. I tend to forget that some people
                                out there actually expect to make MONEY from their publications! Ha
                                ha ha! What silliness.

                                Your comment on sports publications is quite appropriate, especially
                                regarding the quality of the original sources. Many sports writers
                                are in the business because they like sports, not because they can
                                write and research articles well. Unless I was using a source for
                                official statistics, I wouldn't trust any newspaper article enough to
                                use it as an original source. Some sports books are a different
                                story, like Morey's book, which has a certain degree of academic
                                worth, or perhaps Ken Dryden's books. But a great many are simply
                                bad, written from a fan's point of view with little or no attempt at
                                objectivity or serious research value.

                                Richard.
                              • Lloyd Davis
                                When you subscribe to a number of e-lists, it s funny how topics can sometimes be picked up in parallel to one another. A copyeditors forum I belong to has
                                Message 15 of 24 , Nov 4, 2003
                                  When you subscribe to a number of e-lists, it's funny how topics can
                                  sometimes be picked up in parallel to one another. A copyeditors' forum I
                                  belong to has just begun a thread about permissions.

                                  Hard as it might be to believe, Hockhist members are a bit better informed
                                  than a group of the people who deal with this stuff for a living.

                                  I think one of the reasons you don't hear about more infringement cases in
                                  book publishing is because so few people do know the law. (As opposed to the
                                  music business, where there's so much more money flying around that they
                                  seem to be able to afford more and better lawyers.)

                                  -- Lloyd, who is currently puzzling over whether to keep Alyn McCauley on
                                  his rotisserie roster or, like a savvy stock-market investor, drop him and
                                  take the profits generated by his recent hat trick




                                  --
                                  Lloyd Davis Publishing Services
                                  304-115 Danforth Ave., Toronto, ON M4K 1N2
                                  416 465 6999 /// 416 462 0230 (fax)
                                  ldavis@...
                                • tangotiger
                                  ... ... has ... single ... can ... I thought that this article on this issue to be rather interesting
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Nov 4, 2003
                                    --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "tangotiger" <tmasc@y...> wrote:
                                    > --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, Dr John Serrati
                                    <john.serrati@q...>
                                    > wrote:
                                    > > It lasts for 75 years, without exception.
                                    >
                                    > The exception is that this applies only to USA/Canada, right?
                                    >
                                    > Isn't there some issue with the EU where just about every country
                                    has
                                    > its own rules on copyrights, along with the duration? And in
                                    > drafting their constitution, all of the countries will adopt a
                                    single
                                    > EU definition of copyright and duration? It's an interesting story
                                    > from what I remember. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I
                                    can
                                    > enlighten the group?
                                    >
                                    > Thanks, Tom

                                    I thought that this article on this issue to be rather interesting

                                    http://www.caslon.com.au/durationprofile.htm

                                    I'll also quote a specific portion:

                                    "France uniquely extends the EU period with provision for the annees
                                    de guerre: extra time for the First World War (considered to have
                                    lasted from 1914 to 1919) and the Second World War (1939 to 1948).
                                    The Matisse estate, for example, is protected for the artist's life +
                                    the EU 70 years + five years for WW I + nine years for WW II. The
                                    extension was reaffirmed by French courts in two decisions during
                                    November 2001 and is likely to be challenged by the European
                                    Commission. France also adds a further thirty years for an author
                                    who "died for France"."

                                    Tom
                                  • tangotiger
                                    Finally, this link here explains the Berne Convention, of which Canada and USA are signatories: http://www.peacemakers.ca/intellectualproperty.html#Berne And
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Nov 4, 2003
                                      Finally, this link here explains the Berne Convention, of which
                                      Canada and USA are signatories:

                                      http://www.peacemakers.ca/intellectualproperty.html#Berne

                                      And this link shows the text of the agreement of the Berne
                                      Convention. Note the link to "fair use".

                                      http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html

                                      *********

                                      I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how it would be possible/acceptable
                                      for Canada to have its own "fair use" (or whatever it's called) to
                                      supercede/amend the Berne Convention.

                                      Tom
                                    • Richard Krueger
                                      ... possible/acceptable ... International agreements are useless unless they are put into law in the countries that sign. Take the Berne Convention, for
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Nov 4, 2003
                                        > I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how it would be
                                        possible/acceptable
                                        > for Canada to have its own "fair use" (or whatever it's called) to
                                        > supercede/amend the Berne Convention.
                                        >
                                        > Tom

                                        International agreements are useless unless they are put into law in
                                        the countries that sign. Take the Berne Convention, for example.
                                        The agreement, like all other international "laws," is not law at
                                        all. It is up to the individual countries to make it law within
                                        their own governments. All of these countries have the right, as
                                        sovereign states, to makes changes to the agreement in their own laws
                                        as they see fit. There is nothing forcing Canada to have copyright
                                        laws of its own except a desire to maintain good faith with other
                                        governments. China, which finds it unnecessary to maintain this good
                                        faith, has no copyright laws at all.

                                        Canada has very lenient copyright laws. Napster, for example, was
                                        and still is 100% legal in Canada, as is Kazaa and any other file-
                                        sharing software, as long as the user downloads only and never
                                        uploads. The law in Canada is as follows: I can copy my own cd for
                                        personal use; I can make my own cd available for you to copy (this is
                                        what file-downloading is considered); I CANNOT copy my own cd and
                                        give it to you (this is what file-uploading is considered). The
                                        United States had a similar law in the early '90s regarding cassette
                                        copies, but appears to have made an about-face regarding mp3s, which
                                        is a shame. Mp3s are generally of poor quality. It's always better
                                        to have the cd, but if you can't hear the mp3s first to make a
                                        decision you're a lot less likely to buy the cd.

                                        Richard.
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.