On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 10:40:49 AM UTC-4, Alex Miller wrote: > > I have no idea what the legal rules are around publishing transcripts of > talks regarding license or copyright. Using images of every slide in the > talk and transcribing every word is well beyond any possible "fair use" > provision - that's generally something that would require some kind of > rights. >
Actually, proportion of the work used is only one of the four factors involved in fair use decisions. Effect on the market for the work is the most significant factor, and is nil for any of these talks that are being freely distributed rather than sold or delivered with advertising. The other factors are nature and character of the use (here, somewhat transformative and for educational purposes) and nature and character of the work (here, published and non-fictional). These factors all favor a finding of fair use in this case. Furthermore, what actual copyrights are held? Let's assume that person A points a video camera at person B who gives a talk, with slides, on a stage, and the latter is not performing hired work the way a Hollywood actor would be. Person A, or the venue that hired him, ends up with a copyright in the aspects *he had creative control over*, which amounts to the camerawork only. A transcript destroys every copyrightable element of the video owned by person A, and so is not derivative of A's copyright. The same transcript could have been generated by someone else in the audience with no camera taking stenographer's notes! Under the law, A has no copyright interest in the transcript. Assuming B prepared the slides, at that time the slides were fixed in a tangible medium and B holds a copyright in each slide. B may also hold a copyright in his stage performance, if that was preplanned in some script or other document of B's (fixing it in a tangible medium). Based on all of this, the copyrights transcripts of Rich's talks could potentially infringe are just Rich's own, as long as he wasn't hired to give the talks in a manner that transferred copyright itself (and not just a nonexclusive license) to the filming venue. And Rich is a) unlikely to be profiting from selling his past talks, making three of four factors favor such transcripts being fair use. And b) he's probably happy to license his copyright interests in the talks, like the rest of his Clojure work product, under the EPL anyway, though you'd have to ask him to be sure. But, you should get a second opinion from a practicing lawyer before proceeding, unless the plan is to just "leak" the fan translations anonymously in some untraceable way. :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
