• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

permission

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Z3R0

Member
Very generally speaking, small quotes or excerpts properly attributed are not going to cause you trouble. But there are exceptions, with one notable exception already mentioned (i.e., Einstein material). Because there ARE exceptions, getting permission even when technically not needed, is wise and advised.
Q1 is this considered fair use, or something else?
i understand what your saying, there are exceptions.

Q2 i only used one definition from a dictionary. I researched it, it almost seems like they want me to send them a letter asking for permission. is this true or did i miss something?

Q3 i paraphrased a portion of the movie Indiana jones, the one with the holy grail in it. i thought i read somewhere it was ok to use things like this what do you think? i related it to a something i was talking about. the portion of the movie i described was about 1 or 2 minutes long apx. this movie is from the 80s or 90s somewhere.

Q4 i referred to a tv show that started maybe 10 years ago(im not sure if they are still running) and how they generally act and made comments about that it wasnt nessisary to do that in life, what about this? i didnt name the show in the book but refered to a tv show and the actions generically. i wanted to be vague on the name.just silly actions that were taken.

Q5 i mildly critisized a well known ministry but at the end i said im happy that they are there at minimum they do good things, what about this?

Q6 i also critisized a few churches i went to and things they do or did, what about this?
 


quincy

Senior Member
Q1 is this considered fair use, or something else?
i understand what your saying, there are exceptions.

Q2 i only used one definition from a dictionary. I researched it, it almost seems like they want me to send them a letter asking for permission. is this true or did i miss something?

Q3 i paraphrased a portion of the movie Indiana jones, the one with the holy grail in it. i thought i read somewhere it was ok to use things like this what do you think? i related it to a something i was talking about. the portion of the movie i described was about 1 or 2 minutes long apx. this movie is from the 80s or 90s somewhere.

Q4 i referred to a tv show that started maybe 10 years ago(im not sure if they are still running) and how they generally act and made comments about that it wasnt nessisary to do that in life, what about this? i didnt name the show in the book but refered to a tv show and the actions generically. i wanted to be vague on the name.just silly actions that were taken.

Q5 i mildly critisized a well known ministry but at the end i said im happy that they are there at minimum they do good things, what about this?

Q6 i also critisized a few churches i went to and things they do or did, what about this?
You really need to have an IP professional in your area go over with you all of your specific uses.

Fair use of rights-protected material is decided on a case-by-case basis. If a rights-holder objects to your use of their material - regardless of how much you use or how you use it - you can be sued. It will then be up to a court to determine if your use falls safely within the Copyright Office’s fair use guidelines.

Very generally speaking, you can comment on or criticize the works of others. You can use small amounts of rights-protected material to illustrate your points. How small is small enough, however, is generally left for the copyright holder to determine initially and for a court to determine ultimately. I believe I already listed the factors a court will consider.

Dictionary definitions, as a note, can be copyright protected. It depends on the word and how it is defined and how much additional information is included in the definition. Although FACTS are not copyrightable, how these facts are EXPRESSED can be protected.

Other areas of concern beside copyright infringement are defamation (publishing false facts that injure a reputation), right of publicity (trading off a famous name or image), invasion of privacy (publishing private or personal information), trademarks (capitalizing on a company’s identifying name or reputation).

Getting permission from rights-holders will be the best way to avoid a lawsuit. Careful review and editing of content by a professional prior to publication is another way you have to protect against a lawsuit. And, in the event all of your efforts to avoid a lawsuit fails, having good insurance coverage can keep you from losing everything you own. :)
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
Q1 is this considered fair use, or something else?
i understand what your saying, there are exceptions.
Is what fair use?
Q2 i only used one definition from a dictionary. I researched it, it almost seems like they want me to send them a letter asking for permission. is this true or did i miss something?
Most likely, your work is not a review or parody of the dictionary. You're using their work for other purposes and is outside fair use.
Q3 i paraphrased a portion of the movie Indiana jones, the one with the holy grail in it. i thought i read somewhere it was ok to use things like this what do you think? i related it to a something i was talking about. the portion of the movie i described was about 1 or 2 minutes long apx. this movie is from the 80s or 90s somewhere.
"I thought I read" is not compelling. Your paraphrase may or may not be infringing. Again, as Quincy said, you should run the actual material past an attorney.
Q4 i referred to a tv show that started maybe 10 years ago(im not sure if they are still running) and how they generally act and made comments about that it wasnt nessisary to do that in life, what about this? i didnt name the show in the book but refered to a tv show and the actions generically. i wanted to be vague on the name.just silly actions that were taken.

Q5 i mildly critisized a well known ministry but at the end i said im happy that they are there at minimum they do good things, what about this?

Q6 i also critisized a few churches i went to and things they do or did, what about this?
Referring and criticising is outside of copyright concerns. Copyright is about using their creative expression, either directly or by paraphrase.
You may be in trouble in other legal aspects (libel, for example) for your criticisms. Again, before you go big on publishing things, you should probably vet it with an attorney.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Z3R0, I earlier provided a link to the Knight Community News Network (KCNN). Here it is again: http://kcnn.org

I again recommend that you read the “Limiting Legal Risk” learning module found on that site. It covers nicely the legal issues that can arise for a writer when publishing their writing.

The KCNN lists 10 Rules for limiting your legal risks and we have mentioned several of them here already. Read the 10 Rules to learn about checking facts, avoiding virtual vendettas, obeying the law, weighing promises, revealing secrets, copying, recording limits, anonymity, conflicts of interest, and seeking legal advice.

The information provided is an excellent guide.

Good luck.
 

zddoodah

Active Member
Q1 is this considered fair use, or something else?
Is what considered fair use? As I indicated earlier in the thread, assessing copyright infringement requires review of both the original and allegedly infringing work. Same goes for fair use.

i only used one definition from a dictionary. I researched it, it almost seems like they want me to send them a letter asking for permission. is this true or did i miss something?
I'm not sure who "they" are, but no one here knows what "they" might want from you.

i paraphrased a portion of the movie Indiana jones, the one with the holy grail in it. i thought i read somewhere it was ok to use things like this what do you think?
See my response above.

i referred to a tv show that started maybe 10 years ago(im not sure if they are still running) and how they generally act and made comments about that it wasnt nessisary to do that in life, what about this?
See my response above.

i mildly critisized a well known ministry but at the end i said im happy that they are there at minimum they do good things, what about this?

Q6 i also critisized a few churches i went to and things they do or did, what about this?
Criticizing someone doesn't implicate intellectual property law, but one would still need to know exactly what you wrote.
 

quincy

Senior Member
A personal review of the manuscript by an attorney well-versed in IP/publishing law remains the best recommendation that can be made.

There are limits to what a forum can do. We appear to have reached that limit.
 

quincy

Senior Member
the quote i put above the question

on getting permissions by email doesn't it have to be signed for it to be legal,or just an email them saying the permission unsigned?

thanks
When a copyright owner transfers exclusive rights to their copyright-protected work to another, THAT transfer of rights must be in writing and signed by the copyright holder. A transfer of one or more of the exclusive rights held by a copyright owner changes the copyright ownership.

Permission granted by a copyright holder to another to use their copyright-protected work in a specific way does not have to be in writing. But, should a copyright holder later say they did not grant permission, a user of a copyright-protected work will find having a written document that shows permission was granted a valuable document to have.

Fair use, once again, is NOT permission to use copyrighted material. It is an affirmative DEFENSE to a claim of copyright infringement.
 
Last edited:

quincy

Senior Member
Q1 will it be legal enouth to just have an unsigned email if i had to provide proof

Q2 is the phrase inner child copyrighted, its a Psychologist term, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_child
A1 If the copyright holder will only provide permission by email, this is better than nothing. If you can write a letter and get a letter from the copyright holder with permission in return (perhaps include a stamped self-addressed envelope), that is better.

A2 “Inner child” is not copyrightable and it is not on its own a federally-registered trademark (although there are trademarks that include those words).
 
Last edited:

Z3R0

Member
do you know what i can and cant do in criticism in a published book, i understand false facts would be one i dont do that, but i put my opinions in
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top