--- "Alex R." <alex756(a)nyc.rr.com> wrote:
The 108 notice is the notice frequenters to physical
paper libraries
often encounter. Usually the notice is affixed to
the photocopy
machines. At the NYPL (New York Public Libary) the
notice has actually
appeared on each photocopy page, marginally on the
copy and the NYPL
has stopped allowing individuals to make copies,
they must order the copies
from the Copyright service in the Main Library on
42nd Street. The glass
platen
has the photocopy notice pasted to it, so all copies
have the notice on it.
You also have to sign a form stating that you are
aware of the copyright
law.
Most libraries still allow self service photocopying
and they just put a
notice
near the photocopy machine. I often see them in law
libraries:
"NOTICE: Photocopys may be protected by Copyright
Title 17 United States
Code."
This section was advocated by library association
lobbyists who were worried
that libraries might be held responsible for
copyright violations that
occurred
on their premises due to the proliferation of
photocopy machines. It is seen
as
a way to give notice to the person that their use of
copying devices
provided
by the library or archive, may result in potential
copyright infringement.
The original requirement was either to provide a
copy of the notice from the
work
(i.e. copy the copyright notice page when any
photocopies were made by
library
staff or to affix a notice) the law was interpreted
different ways and there
was
not one way in which it was applied.
THE DMCA clarifed the confusion about the notice
that was required and the
legal opinion your cited below Jimmy deals with the
minimal notice
requirements,
i.e. "a legend stating that the work may be
protected by copyright" if
there is
no notice on the work itself (the copy is only of a
page out of a book is a
good
example and it seems this might apply to the kind of
potential infringement
that
occur when people paste stuff from copyrighted web
sites onto Wikipedia that
later end up in the history pages.
This article gives a pretty good background and
explanation of the
provision:
http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/super_copying.htm. It
is pretty clear to me,
but then again IAAL!
Also 108(f) might be a good reason to place a notice
on all of Wikipedia
as it will put users on notice that it is there
responsiblity to check
copyright
(actually this is equivalent to a copyright warranty
disclaimer, though
specifically
mentioning sec. 108 might give Wikipedia some added
protection, it is
another
argument to use if infringement is alleged).
Alex756
I don't want to have to say on every page "We might
not have written this, so you should use it as if it
was coppied from something". And a cryptic "Use of
Wikipedia is protected under Title 17" won't do
anything, except placate the non-existant lawyers who
are prosecuting us for temporary copyright infringment
that we've fixed by the time it goes to court.
LDan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com