Re: Webster copyrights

[Kevin McLauchlan <KMcLauchlan -at- CHRYSALIS-ITS -dot- COM>]

Randall Larson-Maynard said to Debbie, about a copyright
gaff:

        Copyright is an important issue and I would have thought someone at
your company
         would have known the issues involved.
        The ramifications can be very serious. I provide this link on my
nature
        photography web site before the photos are shown.
        Basically, what it comes down to is this; someone made it and if you
want to use
         it, for any reason, you'd need to get written/signed permission.

So, just printing the darn quotation or excerpt with attribution
is never sufficient, except in reviews?

Humph!

I could see the point if the entire work -- or the substantive
portion -- were being reproduced.  But, one definition out of
100,000?  Sheesh!

I haven't made a study of copyright, because my work doesn't
normally include other people's work, outside the company in
which I work (at the time).  The exception might be quotations
of the relevant sections of standards, in which case I simply
state the source and consider myself done with it.

As for the particular example of a Webster's Dictionary definition,
the whole POINT of a dictionary is to be used, referenced and
quoted. If they attributed, in the ad "Websters Dictionary says...",
then it looks like "fair use" to me.  In fact, the Webster people
should be pleased that someone confirmed them as an
authoritative reference?  They could have used Oxford or
Collins or Whosit's New Collegiate, etc. etc. etc....

In general, I don't have much sympathy for copyright and
other "artificial" laws, but since we're currently stuck with that
model...

My $0.012   (that's the Canadian two-cents, expressed in USD)


Kevin McLauchlan
kmclauchlan -at- chrysalis-its -dot- com    (aka  kevinmcl -at- netrover -dot- com)
Journeyman techy writer, duffer skydiver, full-time unrepentent chocoholic

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=