Hi, guys.
And "hi, johnN" especially.
In general, I think we can legally and ethically post links to articles we've found elsewhere, summaries of them, excerpts from them (though there's no "bright line" on the permissible extent of the excerpt) and arguments about them. We can't post essentially an entire article without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.
I'm mentioning this because johnN posted an article on which gurus you can trust, which another member of the board flagged as a likely copyright problem. I checked, agreed and pulled the post. I should have written johnN immediately about it (sorry, john) but my good intentions got eaten by the ten other things I was behind on.
No big concerns, just a cautious reminder.
As ever,
David
Comments
hagd
17 U.S.C. § 107 states, in pertinent part:
[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Here, we are discussing these articles for educational purposes; there is no commercial use made of such materials; we are not quoting the articles in total; and there should be little if any effect on the commercial value of the underlying works.
Just my opinion. But I think we're fine.