Forum reading group possibility?

[pattricia]

I would have thought it must do.

 

There are thousands of reviews and articles online that quote - sometimes fairly extensively - from works that are still in copyright.

 

Yes I thought the same as you Jessica.

[sauerkraut]

I would have thought it must do.

 

There are thousands of reviews and articles online that quote - sometimes fairly extensively - from works that are still in copyright.

 

You are allowed a single extract of up to 400 words of prose, or a series of extracts of up to 300 words each (no more than 800 words total) or up to 40 lines of poetry (but not more than 25% of the poem).

 

I confess. I've been reading the Copyright Act.

[History man]

I think a lot of people are being negative towards this idea, whilst there is some really great feedback. How about we give it a go and see how we get on. Any suggestions for the first book?

[Jessica23]

You are allowed a single extract of up to 400 words of prose, or a series of extracts of up to 300 words each (no more than 800 words total) or up to 40 lines of poetry (but not more than 25% of the poem).

 

I confess. I've been reading the Copyright Act.

 

Ah well, that's fine then!

 

If anyone needed to use more than 800 words of quotation in their review, I'd say they were all out of ideas anyway.

 

Thanks for the clarification, sauerkraut.

[Falls]

I think the reading group format works best when they discuss the book face to face, batting ideas back and forth in an active discussion, particularly if you have the ability to dissect the authors writing style and apply any lessons learnt to your own writing.

 

When might the first (or any other) face-to-face discussion meeting be held?

 

If one is held between April 22nd and June 1st, I will make the effort to attend.

 

Otherwise, it will have to be a "teleconference call."

 

Regards

[coyleys]

Is it ok if I send a life size cardboard cut-out?

You will probably get more sense out of that, than me.

I thought I would get that comment in before Shoeshine did.

[shoeshine]

Is it ok if I send a life size cardboard cut-out?

You will probably get more sense out of that, than me.

I thought I would get that comment in before Shoeshine did.

 

I am a cardboard cut-out, coyleys!

 

I'm "Desperate Dan", the Cardboard Man!

[Ron Blanco]

I think a lot of people are being negative towards this idea, whilst there is some really great feedback. How about we give it a go and see how we get on. Any suggestions for the first book?

 

I think on the whole everyone sees the potential of your idea - with just a few reservations about some of the practicalities (which we can regard as tests of resourcefulness rather than problems!) .

 

In terms of suggestions, I remember Mantaspook recommending a book called "Survive the savage sea". My library doesn't seem to have it but I notice on Amazon there is also a "marketplace" where you can buy the book secondhand for about £2 + P&P.

 

Our current book for the book club i'm part of is "Mister Pip" by Lloyd Jones. It's quite short, has good reviews and you should be able to get hold of it in the library.

 

I notice also there are places you can read things on line. One of my favourite short stories is called the Lumber Room by Saki:

 

http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/397/

 

SK, as our copyright expert can you clarify whether such online sites are all above board?

[sauerkraut]

 

SK, as our copyright expert can you clarify whether such online sites are all above board?

 

Gulp! I don't think I warrant that title!! But I had a quick look at the readbooksonline site, and - if the names of the authors referred to on the homepage are anything to go by - it looks like the site makes available works which are out of copyright anyway (author dead 70+ years). So in my humble opinion I think that should be OK! Anyway, I would have thought that if they should breach anyone's copyright [which I'm not saying they do!!] then that's their problem!

 

If we keep any quotes we make within the relevant word limits (which as Jessica says we're hardly likely to exceed!), credit author and title appropriately, and so long as we're quoting for the purposes of criticism/review then as I understand it we're in the clear.

 

But I'm willing to be corrected if there's a genuine expert out there!

[Mantaspook]

Hi Sauerkraut,

 

I’m no expert either but this is my interpretation of the situation with regards to UK law.

 

Most published written work where the author had been dead for 70 years is out of copyright and it can be reproduced.

 

The European Union Directive on Term of Copyright (adopted by the UK on 1 January 1996) extended the duration of copyright from 50 to 70 years after the authors death. Therefore in 2008 works by authors who died in 1938 or any year thereafter remain "in copyright".

 

For the purposes of quoting text the relevent stature is The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 Section 30.

 

“Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.”

 

The term "sufficient acknowledgement" is subject to judicial interpretation.

 

As far as I can tell, the ‘single extract of 400 words’ etc. that you quoted earlier in this thread refers to American law, It is worth noting that the 1988 Copyright Act (UK) does not specify a quantitative value with regard to the reproduction of copyrighted work. It only refers to the idea of a “substantial part” of a text.

 

Also, a lot of books have a clause like this near the front cover:

 

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers.

 

Therefore a publisher could argue that a quoted text wasn’t given ‘a sufficient acknowledgement’ or that the text was quoted without their express permission.

 

So theoretically they could sue for damages against the person who posts the quoted text, and they could threaten litigation against the website that ‘publishes’ the text.

 

I’m sorry to be so negative, but as you can see there are hidden pitfalls. You have to be circumspect about what would be permitted, not only under UK law but also by the website owner & his affiliates.