| If the amount you are quoting is substantial then you need a lawyer
specialised in the subject, or explicit approval of the owner of the
copyright. Under British law the amount you can quote of copyrighted
text will be decided by the jury at the trial. There are quirks, like a
British author publishing first in Britain and avoiding publication in
the U.S. for 6 months has more rights in the U.S. than a U.S. author
publishing in the U.S..
Quoting a small amount of text for critical purposes is normally
accepted as reasonable. If you are talking about substantial
percentages, or laws not closely modeled on the British system then you
need to consult a suitable lawyer. As a random example, I am told that
China has no copyright laws, so both quotations of the original text
and quotations of your review will have unlimited copying and
distribution there.
As a reasonable rule of thumb (if that is all you want) then assume
that your review causes someone to think that you have completely
misunderstood the original work. How much of your text compared to how
much of his text would you expect to be permitted in *his* publication
on the subject.
Producing a book that includes the whole of "Lord of the Rings"
plus "This is rubbish; nobody believes in hobbits anyway" would be
unlikely be accepted by a British jury as valid literary review and
criticism.
In the end it is juries operating within the scope of their
national law that will decide on what is legal, so even if there were
an international lawyer well versed in the subject contributing to
this notes file (and I doubt there is) he would only be able at best to
give you an opinion or a statistical chance on getting away with it.
|
| Adding to what Dave said, and with which I agree...
The British test is to apply the opinion of a 'reasonable man'.
So I suspect you have to strike a balance.
First balance:
The length of the quotation versus the length of the original.
This is the hard one to judge.
Second balance:
The length of the quotation versus the length of your article.
This is easier because I would suggest that your contribution
should exceed the quotation by a factor of at least three to one.
If in doubt consult a lawyer, or ask permission from the copyright
holder, or both.
Nick
|
| In .2, Nick Hill writes:
>Adding to what Dave said, and with which I agree...
>
>The British test is to apply the opinion of a 'reasonable man'.
>So I suspect you have to strike a balance.
>
>First balance:
>
>The length of the quotation versus the length of the original.
>This is the hard one to judge.
>
>Second balance:
>
>The length of the quotation versus the length of your article.
>This is easier because I would suggest that your contribution
>should exceed the quotation by a factor of at least three to one.
>
>If in doubt consult a lawyer, or ask permission from the copyright
>holder, or both.
>
>Nick
Mr. Hill's explanation makes perfect sense, and I have to agree completely.
|