Just a reminder to everyone that you cannot post full news articles, as it violates the copyright. Posting a link with an introductory paragraph is fine, but please don't cut & paste entire articles, word-for-word. Thanks!
Re: Re: Posting news articles It requires a lawyer to understand and/or explain "fair use"? Most people post an article (or a link thereto) becuause the article makes some kind of point that they wish to either make or share with everyone here. A link to the article accomplishes that. Within the article may be a paragraph or two or three or even ten which the poster believes most succinctly makes the point or which s/he believes everyone here might find most interesting. To post just those paragraphs -- or snippets therefrom -- easily falls within the "fair use" doctrine. Making sure the reader, here, knows precisely where the article came from by naming the publication, its author, and including here a link thereto in whatever is posted here goes a long way toward assuaging any anger a publication that worries that something posted here might go a bit beyond fair use. Attribution is terribly important in the copyright game, and can make a publication not worry so much about a poster here who might have gone too far. Though I'm not suggesting that anyone should ignore Bruce's thread-starting admonition, many publication will not complain about the occasional publishing here of an entire article as long as its title, it's byline, the date of its original publication and a link thereto, and its copyright notice, are intact. That said, it is far better, as Bruce suggests, to write some kind of introductory paragraph and then just follow it with a link to the article. Going ahead and adding, after said, link, a copy of the sentences or paragraph from the article that the poster most wants the readers to not miss, as long as it's not substantially all of the article, is precisely what the "fair use" doctrine anticipates and intended.
I'm a librarian (MLS) and I have a law degree (LLB ): post the link or an excerpt. Of course free legal advice should be be valued based on what you paid for it. Truthfully this is not legal advice because I am most probably not licensed in your state and I don't want someone screaming UPL at me.
If your law degree is an LLB, you're probably not licensed in any (U.S.) state, are you? I'm not trying to challenge, by the way. I'm seriously just curious.
I am not licensed to practice law in any state, however I was licensed by the state of Georgia as a Foreign Law Consultant when I worked for a consulting firm providing advice to a company dealing with manufacturing facilities in Ireland. The rules are quite complex and I'm not certain that it was required but since my employer asked for it I did it. I have appeared pro hac vice in Florida one time on a very minor matter at the insistance of a family friend. That too was more trouble that it was worth, but I felt obligated to the person because of his longstanding ties to my family. I really have no desire to practice law, although I contemplated completing Stetson's evening program the idea of listening to people bitch and moan all day really does not appeal to me. As for the LLB, I thought a number of law schools in the US awarded this degree some years ago until they went with the at that time trendy JD. I also said most probably because I don't think I am still licensed in Georgia ...their licenses must expire at some time and I left that firm quite some time ago.
You should do it. For starters, the Stetson program is good; and, secondly, there are all kinds of practice areas that are interesting, allow you to really help people, and don't involve listening to alot of bitching and moaning. Reluctant lawyers are sometimes the best because their ego doesn't as easily get in the way. But it's been long enough ago that the U.S. changed to the J.D. that most lawyers with the LLB (or BSL) are older (not ancient, mind you, but just older). That said, indeed there are LLB and BSL degree holders who are lawyers still practicing... and will be for a long time yet. Also, as I recall, some states will allow foreign LLB holders to take a year or so of a J.D. program and then they can sit for the bar. I can't remember, off hand, which states... but I'll bet Nos knows. I wonder if your LLB, mdoneil, could be transferred into the Stetson program and maybe you wouldn't have to take the entire thing. I don't know, mind you... but I'm just wondering. Where's your LLB from?
co-pope here Wow. People are gonna start rummaging through Gregg's posts like they do through Pope Benedict XVI's writings from when he was plain old Sepp Ratzinger. What'll he say next?
I'm sort of curious about this. In my recent course on teachers and copyright, I believe they said that straight news publications could not enforce "fair use." Can anyone clarify?
For starters, the premise of your question is flawed. "Fair use" is a defense that an alleged copyright violator would use against a charge of copyright violation leveled by a copyright holder. I think what you're trying to say is that you believe you heard, while taking a course on teachers and copyright, that if a so-called "straight news" publication alleges, as plaintiff in a complaint, that its copyright has been violated; then the defendant's invocation of the "fair use" defense, solely because the plaintiff is a "straight news" publication, will always be successful and, therefore, the defendant will prevail. Is that, in essence, what you're saying... or, rather, perhaps more accurately: Is that what you are attempting to determine is or is not the case? Do I have it right? Or do I have it essentially backwards. If so, then are you asking if a straight news publication can use copyrighted material as part of its straight news presentation; and then are you wondering if it can or cannot the "fair use" defense if the copyright holder claims infringement? Or are you simply asking if so-called "straight news," as broadcast or published, is (or can be) protected by copyright; and, if it is (or can be), then may others -- in particular, teachers or perhpas libraries -- reasonably expect the fair use doctrine to protect them if they then use said "straight news" broadcast or publications, in whole or in part, without first securing permission from the broadcaster or publisher? I'm confused as to precisely what you're asking. Please clarify.
I would also point out that you should avoid using any trade marks. Although your unauthorised use would not be for gain (in UK law an offence liable to up to 10 years imprisonment) the owners will still kick up a fuss if they feel their mark has been associated with 'inappropriate' material)
