Torchwoodgate
Monday, September 8th, 2008 03:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Further to this morning's post about whether it is Right / Ethical / Legal for an author of a published, dead-tree book to quote extensively (up to 400 words at a time) from LJ posts, attributing them to the authors but not contacting said authors ...
- Selected extracts from author's response to complaints. Includes the priceless comment "I read out [author's] reply at work. The sound you hear if you listen carefully is a room full of high priced lawyers dissolving into hysterics."
- Daily Mail paid a blogger for using his material under similar circumstances -- but only after he invoiced them. Some interesting legal points there.
- Selected extracts from author's response to complaints. Includes the priceless comment "I read out [author's] reply at work. The sound you hear if you listen carefully is a room full of high priced lawyers dissolving into hysterics."
- Daily Mail paid a blogger for using his material under similar circumstances -- but only after he invoiced them. Some interesting legal points there.
no subject
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2008 05:29 pm (UTC)The only serious charge, as far as I can see, that can be laid against Walker is that what he quoted violates fair use. And that's a tricky question that varies from case to case (it's certainly not just 300 words of quotation per volume in toto), and it may well be that Walker hasn't broken that. The assertions that what Walker has done is intrinsically immoral and violates copyright law are going too far, and you can't hand-wave away fair use whilst trying to insist on the protections afforded by copyright, unless you want the BBC to exercise its copyright to stop you talking about Torchwood in the first place.
I don't think the Mail on Sunday case is entirely comparable, as those blog posts were quoted in their entirety. I think that makes a difference.
But I'm not an expert on this, and it would be interesting to see what
no subject
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2008 05:41 pm (UTC)As for violating copyright, The author retains all patent, trademark, and copyright to all Content posted within available fields, and is responsible for protecting those rights (http://www.livejournal.com/legal/tos.bml) -- that's LiveJournal's Terms Of Service.
I'm not really qualified to pontificate on this -- haven't seen the book, and haven't had reviews used in such a way -- but I know I'd be mightily annoyed if my book reviews were reproduced without my knowledge and consent. And I do think I'd have a case for breach of copyright.
no subject
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2008 05:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2008 06:02 pm (UTC)The average length seems to be 200-300 words or so, which is hard to sustain as any sort of fair dealing given that the original posts are around 1000 words or so.
no subject
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2008 06:25 pm (UTC)* Though Walker may be being a prat by suggesting that had he asked permission, it would imply that he did have such an obligation - on the other hand, if you do ask permission then you have a moral obligation to respect the answer you get, so perhaps he felt it was easier to avoid that issue.
no subject
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2008 06:48 pm (UTC)I think we'd better leave morals out of this! (Because yes, I do feel that quoting at length from someone else's writing incurs a responsibility to, at the very least, inform them; ideally, to ask first.)