# Copyright question **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [August 30, 2006, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/370769 "2006-08-30T08:32:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/370769/1 "2006-08-30T08:32:17Z")
If I understand correctly, everything posted on these boards is copyrighted by the publishers of the SDMB. Is that right? If I’m working on a poem which includes snippets from things posted on these boards: 1. Am I legally allowed to submit it for publication without asking SDMB staff for permission? 2. Am I legally allowed to submit it for publication wtihout asking the individual posters for permission? 3. Am I morally obligated to ask posters for permission? (The poem doesn’t lift entire quotes–just snippets here and there lifted out of context and recontextualized. Hard to explain. Yes, it’s one of _those_ kinds of “poems.”) -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Tabby\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tabby\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabby_Cat)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/370769/2 "2006-08-30T09:30:02Z")
1. The board doesn’t hold the copyright to everything that you post, you (the poster) still holds the copyright. However, you grant the Reader a licence to use the material you post. Therefore, you do not need to ask the Reader if you want to use your own material in other works. 2. Depends on how much you copy. If you copy to the extent that it becomes a “derivative work”, or you copy “substantial portions”, then you may be sued. You could do it anyway, and hope that nobody sues you, but it’s hard to say exactly how much is infringing and how much isn’t. “Snippets” sounds like it wouldn’t infringe, but it depends on the importance of what you copied. 3. Dunno. Ask someone else. =^^= I personally wouldn’t care too much, but Master Wang-Ka would definitely have something to say if you lifted substantial portions of his work, especially since he is selling his work compiled into a book. My 2 centivos. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/370769/3 "2006-08-30T17:01:26Z")
## I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. I’m just some dude throwing out WAGs and Wikipedia links. The OP reminds me of collages; this sounds like a literary collage rather than a visual. Thus, checking the Wikipedia: > **[Collage | Legal issues](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collage#Legal_issues)** > > When collage uses existing works, the result is what some copyright scholars call a derivative work. The collage thus has a copyright separate from any copyrights pertaining to the original incorporated works. > Due to redefined and reinterpreted copyright laws, and increased financial interests, some forms of collage art are significantly restricted. For example, in the area of sound collage (such as hip hop music), some court rulings effectively have eliminated the de minimis doctrine as a defen... Which then takes us to: > **[Derivative work](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work)** > > In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work (the underlying work). The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent in form from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright. Translations, cinematic adaptations and musical arrangements are... Which pretty much says that you can only do it if you have the permission of the original author. However for single line snippets, that seems rather excessive. One can, after all, quote famous lines from movies anywhere you want without needing to particularly worry. “Do not underestimate the power of the Force!” So, let’s check out Fair Use: > **[Fair use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)** > > Fair use is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. Unlike "fair dealing" righ Some choice quotes are: > [@Pro](#): > > The first factor questions whether the use under consideration helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only “supersede the objects” of the original for reasons of, say, personal profit. > [@Con](#): > > Prior to 1991, sampling in certain genres of music was accepted practice and such copyright considerations as these were viewed as largely irrelevant. The infamously strict decision against rapper Biz Markie’s appropriation of a Gilbert O’Sullivan song in the case Grand Upright v. Warner, 780 F. Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), changed practices and opinions overnight. Samples now had to be licensed, so long as they rose “to a level of legally cognizable appropriation” (see Bridgeport Music Inc. v. Dimension Films, 230 F. Supp.2d at 841 [2]). In other words, de minimis sampling was still considered fair and free because, traditionally, “the law does not care about trifles.” The recent Sixth Circuit Court decision in the appeal to Bridgeport Music has reversed this standing. The new rule in that Circuit is even more strict in its rendering of copyright law: “get a license or do not sample.” Fair use does not come into play at all. So even here, it looks like one could theoretically make a case against you. However, one will note that in the music case, the things being sampled into the music are also music. In your case (presumably) you would be taking random snippets of **dialogue** and working them into poetry, not taking other poetry and working it into yours. My personal bet would be that you are safe to go ahead so long as you don’t take anything more than under a single sentence and don’t take any lines that were in another poster’s poetry. Also, you could post a list of all the quotes and their writers with a “Write if you don’t want me to use this” though I’m not sure how strong a defense that would be in court (when theoretically you could have tried to individually emailed and attain direct permission, rather than assuming implicit permission.) If you are in no hurry, the safest method is to individually email the posters and seek their permission. Following that with a “Write if you don’t want me to use this” for the sake of posters who don’t have their email listed would probably be fine. ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2006, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-question/370769/4 "2006-08-30T19:21:46Z")
What they said, more or less. If you wish to republish the work of other posters somewhere else – in real print or cyberspace or whatever – you should get permission from them. There is probably some “fair use” attribution allowed, but I suspect that would not, for example, allow you to reproduce someone else’s entire posting or an entire thread in toto; you could briefly quote from someone else’s posting but that’s as far as it goes. You have the right to republish your own postings anywhere you like. We do tend to take a very conservative approach to copyright issues here and will always err on the side of less rather than more.