Post by dormouse on Apr 24, 2019 18:10:21 GMT
Copyright owners have an absolute ability to give or withold permission to quote from one of their works, although there are defences against charges of infringement.
There has developed a set of fair use principles for quoting without having to gain permission. These cover inter alia:
a) the purpose of the quote,
b) the size of the quote (10% of the original is often quoted, although it actually depends on a number of things),
c) whether it is transformative, and
d) whether it is commercial.
The law is fundamentally the same for all types of copyright, but the detail of fair use varies substantially between writing, music and images.
As a publisher, it is a great deal easier and cheaper to form an opinion after the fact than before; the last thing I'd want to have to deal with is requests for permission.
My own rough check list as a publisher goes:
1. Is the quote correctly attributed? (ton of bricks policy regarding plagiarism; unimpressed if it's just not attributed correctly).
2. Does it enhance or harm my own commercial value? (majority of cases enhance, working like free advertising).
2.i. If harm, is it material?
3. Is it a fair use purpose (eg education, commentary)?
4. Is the amount quoted proportionate to that purpose?
5. Is the user making money on the back of it (because, if so, I want a share so long as it is material)?
I use the same list whether I am the copyright owner or am doing the quoting. My overarching principle is that the creator, their work and their income should be respected.
As a writer, I mostly just want people to like what I wrote, especially if they like the same aspects I do. However, I most enjoy perceptive criticism, although there's always the risk that it can feel threatening. In practice, post publication, I pay no attention.
There has developed a set of fair use principles for quoting without having to gain permission. These cover inter alia:
a) the purpose of the quote,
b) the size of the quote (10% of the original is often quoted, although it actually depends on a number of things),
c) whether it is transformative, and
d) whether it is commercial.
The law is fundamentally the same for all types of copyright, but the detail of fair use varies substantially between writing, music and images.
As a publisher, it is a great deal easier and cheaper to form an opinion after the fact than before; the last thing I'd want to have to deal with is requests for permission.
My own rough check list as a publisher goes:
1. Is the quote correctly attributed? (ton of bricks policy regarding plagiarism; unimpressed if it's just not attributed correctly).
2. Does it enhance or harm my own commercial value? (majority of cases enhance, working like free advertising).
2.i. If harm, is it material?
3. Is it a fair use purpose (eg education, commentary)?
4. Is the amount quoted proportionate to that purpose?
5. Is the user making money on the back of it (because, if so, I want a share so long as it is material)?
I use the same list whether I am the copyright owner or am doing the quoting. My overarching principle is that the creator, their work and their income should be respected.
As a writer, I mostly just want people to like what I wrote, especially if they like the same aspects I do. However, I most enjoy perceptive criticism, although there's always the risk that it can feel threatening. In practice, post publication, I pay no attention.