HOw does copyright law apply to very short works?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Thanks, exapno–that seems like a pretty definitive answer to my question (i.e., there’s not a clear-cut answer). I appreciate the detailed response!

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Exapno Mapcase

I think this all backs up my original position. The use of a complete short poem in legitimate discussion, review, or commentary in almost certainly protected as Fair Use. But you cannot go on to use the poem in any commercial sense.

I hope this is a fair example of when it’s okay to resurrect a zombie, because for a class project, I just came across a definitive answer to the OP, even better than exapno’s very educated guess.

From the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction’s website:

Fair Use Guidelines for Multimedia
Poems
Entire poem if less than 250 words
250 words or less if longer poem
No more than 5 poems (or excerpts) of different poets, from an anthology
Only 3 poems (or excerpts) per poet

So my recent use of Shel Silverstein’s poem Help! in a third-grade lesson was legal, but only because the poem is 165 words long.

It’s good finally to see a definitive answer to this–I’ve still been sorta wondering about it ever since this thread.

Daniel

[Exapno_Mapcase]

Sorry, you’ve misunderstood that site.

Those restrictions are specifically for student multimedia productions in a classroom setting. You cannot apply them to any other use of any materials. Educational uses of copyrighted materials have always been given more leeway than other uses.

You cannot, for example, copy a 250 word poem here on the SDMB and expect it not to be deleted by the mods. You would be violating copyright if you did so.

For that matter, those guidelines don’t apply to any other state schools. If you’re not a student at a North Carolina school they are meaningless to you.

We’re back at the beginning. Fair use of short works is what a court says it is.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Exapno Mapcase

Sorry, you’ve misunderstood that site.

No, I just poorly explained my concern (which admittedly has changed a bit since the OP): I’m primarily interested in fair use guidelines for educators.

For that matter, those guidelines don’t apply to any other state schools. If you’re not a student at a North Carolina school they are meaningless to you.

This part is incorrect: these guidelines appear in multiple places. For example:

@Stanford University Libraries

permissible. For example, these standards may help you formulate a fair use analysis, as described in Chapter 9. You can access the full report from which these proposed guidelines originated at the Patent and Trademark Office’s Conference on Fair Use (CONFU) site at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/confu/index.html . For current information as to whether any of these proposed guidelines have been adopted, check Christine Sundt’s Art and Copyright website at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~csundt/copyweb/. For further information on the proposed guidelines, see the resources section at the end of this chapter.

Almost identical guidelines for poems appear here.

Here’s a better link, from the US Patent and Trademark office:

Up to 10% or 1000 words, whichever is less, in the aggregate of a copyrighted work consisting of text material may be reproduced or otherwise incorporated as part of an educational multimedia project created under Section 2 of these guidelines. An entire poem of less than 250 words may be used, but no more than three poems by one poet, or five poems by different poets from any anthology may be used. For poems of greater length, 250 words may be used but no more than three excerpts by a poet, or five excerpts by different poets from a single anthology may be used.

A very brief search of the USPTO doesn’t turn up guidelines for poem copyrights outside of an educational context, but it does appear that the rules are very specific within an educational context.

Danile

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Exapno Mapcase

Sorry, you’ve misunderstood that site.

No, I just poorly explained my concern (which admittedly has changed a bit since the OP): I’m primarily interested in fair use guidelines for educators.

For that matter, those guidelines don’t apply to any other state schools. If you’re not a student at a North Carolina school they are meaningless to you.

This part is incorrect: these guidelines appear in multiple places. For example:

@Stanford University Libraries

permissible. For example, these standards may help you formulate a fair use analysis, as described in Chapter 9. You can access the full report from which these proposed guidelines originated at the Patent and Trademark Office’s Conference on Fair Use (CONFU) site at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/confu/index.html . For current information as to whether any of these proposed guidelines have been adopted, check Christine Sundt’s Art and Copyright website at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~csundt/copyweb/. For further information on the proposed guidelines, see the resources section at the end of this chapter.

Almost identical guidelines for poems appear here.

Here’s a better link, from the US Patent and Trademark office:

Up to 10% or 1000 words, whichever is less, in the aggregate of a copyrighted work consisting of text material may be reproduced or otherwise incorporated as part of an educational multimedia project created under Section 2 of these guidelines. An entire poem of less than 250 words may be used, but no more than three poems by one poet, or five poems by different poets from any anthology may be used. For poems of greater length, 250 words may be used but no more than three excerpts by a poet, or five excerpts by different poets from a single anthology may be used.

A very brief search of the USPTO doesn’t turn up guidelines for poem copyrights outside of an educational context, but it does appear that the rules are very specific within an educational context.

Daniel

[Exapno_Mapcase]

Yes, I should have said don’t necessarily apply elsewhere, and that you need to check first. I thought that went without saying, but I forgot that on the Internet nothing goes without saying.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Exapno Mapcase

Yes, I should have said don’t necessarily apply elsewhere, and that you need to check first. I thought that went without saying, but I forgot that on the Internet nothing goes without saying.

Meh. I saw the guidelines on multiple sites before I posted; the NC one was just the first one I’d seen it on, so that was the one I quoted. Nothing goes without saying indeed :).

Daniel

[KGS]

Got a question. Do these rules apply to song lyrics, as well as poetry?

For example, if I post the full lyrics to “Wipeout” or “Tequilla”, would I get in trouble?

[RealityChuck]

@KGS

Got a question. Do these rules apply to song lyrics, as well as poetry?

For example, if I post the full lyrics to “Wipeout” or “Tequilla”, would I get in trouble?

Song lyrics are generally more strictly regulated; yo usually can’t quote any part of the lyrics without permission.

However, in the cases you give, it’s hard to think anyone would sue you over them. It would only be a case if you were playing the song.

[scotandrsn]

@Exapno Mapcase

There is no good guidance from the courts as to what is Fair Use and what is reasonable. Each case appears to make it up from scratch.

My personal opinion is that authors do not have a reasonable expectation that they can exclude the quotation of extremely short works. One of the best known examples is Ogden Nash’s poem, “Reflections on Ice-Breaking.”

People quote this all the time, although probably not in its correct format as given above. Indeed, most people don’t have a clue that it is a poem and has a formal title.

Apparently someone has been reminded.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

Since that is a poetry site, it probably gets more scrutiny than most. Even so, it would be very interesting to know whether that one particular poem was removed or just whether the Nash estate made a blanket request that all poems be removed.

[scotandrsn]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

No, I just poorly explained my concern (which admittedly has changed a bit since the OP): I’m primarily interested in fair use guidelines for educators.

This part is incorrect: these guidelines appear in multiple places. For example:

Almost identical guidelines for poems appear here.

Just because two different schools list similar guidelines about fiar use does not mena there is overarching authority to them. They are simply guidelines the school is giving to its own people about how to try no to get sued when borrowing copyrighted materials.

Here are Stanford’s guidelines to all and sundry on how not to get sued, which are quite vague.

Just because the same guidelines are trumpeted by a million websites as being the “official guidelines for everyone everywhere”, doesn’t mean there aren’t a million web site authors who are full of shit.

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Here’s a better link, from the US Patent and Trademark office:

A very brief search of the USPTO doesn’t turn up guidelines for poem copyrights outside of an educational context, but it does appear that the rules are very specific within an educational context.

First of all, the Patent Office does not have authority over copyright, the Copyright Office does, and this page is the full, up-to-date guidelines they have on what constitutes fair use.

The Patent Office link you provided refers to some of the guidelines that were tossed around at part I of the Conference on Fair Use in (CONFU) 1997, a meeting organized by the PTO with numerous interested parties to generate an agreed set of fair use guidelines that could be adopted into law. At part II of the conference in 1998, all parties agreed to disagree, and the matter died. That’s why the PTO links to other parts of the document don’t all work. The multimedia guidelines you linked to are merely what someon thought was a good idea 8 years ago, nothing more.

More info here and here

[Acsenray]

@RealityChuck

Song lyrics are generally more strictly regulated; yo usually can’t quote any part of the lyrics without permission.

Nonsense.

The Copyright Act does not distinguish between different kinds of works. Either a work is protected or it isn’t. Short phrases are not protected.

Fair use applies to all kinds of works.

The “amount and substantiality” prong of the fair use test is not so simple. Reproducing 100 percent of a 500-page novel is far less likely to constitute fair use than reproducing 100 percent of a 50-word poem or song lyric.

The “purpose and character” of the use you are making is an equally important work. If, here at the SDMB, you engaging in commentary and analysis of a particular song’s lyrics – say, doing a line-by-line dissection of the meaning and implications of the song – that is almost certainly going to be fair use. In that respect, the SDMB’s rules regarding song lyrics is unnecessarily stringest, strictly speaking, but it is easier to administer than a rule that takes into consideration the nuances of the actual law of fair use.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@scotandrsn

The Patent Office link you provided refers to some of the guidelines that were tossed around at part I of the Conference on Fair Use in (CONFU) 1997, a meeting organized by the PTO with numerous interested parties to generate an agreed set of fair use guidelines that could be adopted into law. At part II of the conference in 1998, all parties agreed to disagree, and the matter died. That’s why the PTO links to other parts of the document don’t all work. The multimedia guidelines you linked to are merely what someon thought was a good idea 8 years ago, nothing more.

More info here and here

Ooh. Ignorance fought, with my thanks! Never an easy answer, is there?

Daniel

[Chronos]

The “purpose and character” of the use you are making is an equally important work. If, here at the SDMB, you engaging in commentary and analysis of a particular song’s lyrics – say, doing a line-by-line dissection of the meaning and implications of the song – that is almost certainly going to be fair use. In that respect, the SDMB’s rules regarding song lyrics is unnecessarily stringest, strictly speaking, but it is easier to administer than a rule that takes into consideration the nuances of the actual law of fair use.

Correct. The administration here is open about the fact that they take a stricter interpretation of copyright than is legally required. This is for two reasons: First, a lawsuit (win or lose) could be very damaging to the board, and therefore the Powers that Be want to be sure to stay comfortably out of any grey area. Second, the owner of this board is a newspaper, which therefore has a vested interest in strong copyright laws and interpretations thereof.

It should also be noted, incidentally, that the copyright laws are left intentionally vague, for the same reason that many of this board’s rules are left intentionally vague. If you make everything completely clear and unambiguous, then some clever yahoo is going to come along and find a loophole which violates the spirit but not the letter of the rules. So you leave the rules somewhat ambiguous, and when that yahoo comes along, the issue is decided by humans (judges or moderators) who can hopefully apply a measure of common (or uncommon) sense to the question, and uphold the spirit of the rules.

[Johanna]

You will now hear me playing 4’33" by John Cage.

Shh! Don’t tell ASCAP!