May I please trespass on the combined erudition of this board to ask their opinion on a work-related issue in unravelling some tangled syntax? The following passage is from the Australian Copyright Act,describing what is a "reasonable portion" for the purposes of the fair dealing (USn = fair use) defence to copyright infringement.
<<<<Without limiting the meaning of the expression reasonable portion in this Act, where a literary, dramatic or musical work (other than a computer program) is contained in a published edition of that work, being an edition of not less than 10 pages, a copy of part of that work, as it appears in that edition, shall be taken to contain only a reasonable portion of that work if the pages that are copied in the edition:
(a)do not exceed, in the aggregate, 10% of the number of pages in that edition; or
(b)in a case where the work is divided into chapters exceed, in the aggregate, 10% of the number of pages in that edition but contain only the whole or part of a single chapter of the work.>>>
First point is - if the book is divided into chapters must you go under (b) and are you precluded from using (a)?
Next: Does it mean, for a 100 page book, that you can copy
(a) an 8 page chapter OR indeed a 15 page chapter;or
(b) you can copy an 8 page chapter plus 1 or 2 more pages from the book (10 pages in all) but no more, or
(c) you can copy an 8 page chapter but not any more, and you cannot copy a single 15 page chapter?
There are no case authorities on point.
jj
What I think it means, johnjohn, is that if you have a book of 100 pages which is divided into chapters, if the pages you copy are from different chapters the limit is 10% of the whole book, i.e., 10 pages, but if the pages you copy are from just one chapter there is no limit on the number of pages you copy.
In other words, if you copy from different chapters you come under (a) and the limit is 10%, the same as it would be for a book which wasn't divided into chapters. But if you copy from just one chapter you come under (b) and can go over the 10% limit.
Bingley
Note: RP; Reasonable Portion
My two cents:
Both clauses a and b specify the 10 percent rule. Clearly, 10 percent is a criterion, irrespective of whether the book contains chapters or not.
We shall also assume that the pages can be picked either in a serial or random fashion.
Scenario 1: If it is a 100 page book with no chapters at all(!).
RP: is simply 10% of the book - 10 pages, either in serial order or randomly.
Scenario 2: It is a 100 page book with chapters and all chapters are 10 pages each.
RP: is 10%, i.e., 10 random pages OR 1 chapter of 10 pages
Scenario 3: It is a 100 page book with three different size chapters - a)below 10, b)10, c)above 10
RP for, (in all cases conforming to the 10% quota, is only 10 pages):
3a: 1 chapter + [(10 - chapter size) pages]
3b: 1 chapter OR part of 1 chapter + [(10-chapter size) pages]
3c: 10 pages only of 1 chapter or 10 random pages from the book.
It's certainly badly worded and could be taken either way. However, it seems to be
(a) 10% of the work in aggregate where the work is not divided into chapters, presumably a random 10% would be fine.
(b) Where the work is divided into chapters, copies can only be taken from one chapter to a total of no more than 10% of the complete work.
- Pfranz
After reading all my learned colleagues' opinions I can only offer this Fool's thoughts.
It's simple. 100 page book, you can't use more than 10 pages. If the book is divided into chapters those 10 pages cannot come from more than one chapter.
But it could use a that here:
in a case where the work is divided into chapters that exceed, in the aggregate, 10% of the number of pages in that edition…
No, Faldage. If you put "that" in, you change the meaning.
... a copy of part of that work, as it appears in that edition, shall be taken to contain only a reasonable portion of that work if the pages that are copied in the edition:
(a)do not exceed, in the aggregate, 10% of the number of pages in that edition; or
(b)in a case where the work is divided into chapters exceed, in the aggregate, 10% of the number of pages in that edition but contain only the whole or part of a single chapter of the work
The subject of "exceed" in (b) is "pages" in the lead-in; if we follow your suggestion the subject of "contain" would also be "that" with "chapters" as its antecedent.
Bingley
... a copy of part of that work, as it appears in that edition, shall be taken to contain only a reasonable portion of that work if the pages that are copied in the edition…exceed, in the aggregate, 10% of the number of pages in that edition but contain only the whole or part of a single chapter of the work
That makes it sound like they could copy the whole of the larger of two chapters of a two chapter book, even if that chapter were 90% of the book.
That makes it sound like they could copy the whole of the larger of two chapters of a two chapter book, even if that chapter were 90% of the book.
I do believe that's what it does mean. If you're photocopying a whole chapter, and only one, you're in the clear, no matter how long it is.
We're all agreed on the meaning of (a), ie for an "unchaptered" edition its a straight 10%.
If it's a chaptered, 100 page edition, query whether it's
(1)10 pages or 1 chapter, whichever is the lesser (Faldage, Capfka) or
(2)10 pages or 1 chapter, whichever is the greater (Bingley, Bean)or
(3) 10 pages of 1 chapter; or 1 chapter (being less than 10 pages) + odd pages to take it up to 10 pages in total (maahey).
I've got to say (1) is odd because you're penalised simply on account of the book being chaptered rather than unchaptered. (3) is unlikely because surely then there's no difference between (a) and (b) in the provision. I think that (2) does seem to be the most likely...
Thanks for all your inputs.... Send me your invoices,
Send me your invoices,Hey JJ!, can I send you one even if I was wrong!?
Bingley and Bean are reading the 'letter' of the law and read that way, choice 2 is exactly what is specified in the words.
The question is, who is the law written for?
If written to protect the interests of the author, then choice 1 is it.
If written to help disseminate information, choice 2 is it.
If it is trying to be equitable and aid both parties, then choice 3 should be it. It seems unfair that the simple matter of a chaptered book should benefit either party to the obvious disadvantage of the other. This way, the ten percent rule could be maintained, even for a chaptered book, could it not?
Legally speaking, would Choice 3 be right in the spirit of the law?
If written to help disseminate information, choice 2 is it.
I think that is the point of the law. Universities here operate under something called the CanCopy agreement, which makes provisions like the one in the original query. In reading that agreement, it seemed clear to me that (2) was intended, becuase universities are in the special position where the material is used for either teaching or research.
I've just Googled for CanCopy and of course, it's been changed since I last read it, and the 1-chapter-or-10% rule has been altered to just 10%, period. There are slightly different rules for textbooks (5% or 1 chapter, whichever is less). But I maintain that the previous version of CanCopy was consistent with (2) above.
If it is trying to be equitable and aid both parties, then choice 3 should be it.
I disagree here, maintaining that choice 2 is the equitable one: If quotation is limited to one chapter of a chaptered book, it can convey coherent information without revealing (summarizing) the whole work, even if the number of pages is not limited.
Personally, I think that 10% is a little excessive (in favor of the plagia… um, quoter) anyway.
there is a plot turn in The Emperor of Ocean Park based on the *particular portion you might choose to quote. (not all 10%s are both the same)
a little excessive (in favor of the plagia? um, quoter) anyway
Usually this doesn't end up being someone quoting 10% of someone else's work in their own work, rather, it's a person photocopying someone else's work for whatever reason. For example, it could be a student photocopying a chapter of a book from the library, instead of buying the whole book, or a professor handing out a photocopied portion of a textbook that it isn't worthwhile for the students to buy, that sort of thing. Or the photocopying of a journal article out of a journal to which you do not subscribe, but would like to have the article on hand to refer to (and usually the library wants journals back in a rather short time).
Sorry to respond so late, but this is the first time I've looked at this when my brain isn't completely fuzzy from lack of sleep. I'm going to talk myself through the first para., to see if I can get down to what it really means. I will assume for this purpose that "this" book has only one darned edition. (Those extra qualifiers really get in my way!)
<<<<Without limiting the meaning of the expression reasonable portion in this Act, where a literary, dramatic or musical work (other than a computer program) is contained in a published edition of that work, being an edition of not less than 10 pages, a copy of part of that work, as it appears in that edition, shall be taken to contain only a reasonable portion of that work if the pages that are copied in the edition:
Okay; I'm pretty sure this means, essentially: You have a book that is at least ten pages long. The part(s) you copy will only be considered to be a reasonable portion if:
Okay, (a)is pretty simple: you copy 10% or less of the number of pages.
(b)in a case where the work is divided into chapters exceed, in the aggregate, 10% of the number of pages in that edition but contain only the whole or part of a single chapter of the work
Maybe: you copy more than 10% of the total number of pages, but these are confined to one chapter only.
I don't remember who I might agree or disagree with; but this is how it reads to me.
who I might agree or disagree with
Knowing now the nature of the use, I have moved into this camp, which we may refer to as Camp 2.
Yup, I think camp 2 does have the attraction of logic and a perceptible policy in its favour, as well as being consistent with the actual wording....
Bean's right, this is a provision usually invoked by universities to justify photocopying rather than a mere quotation in the middle of a paper or other book - the defence is of "fair dealing for the purpose of research or study".
jj
have tip-toed under cover of darkness, surreptitiously into Camp 2
Camp 2 may have the spirit, but they don't have the letter. And the spirit gets you convicted where there isn't a 1:1 correspondence between the two.
Camp 2 may have the spirit, but they don't have the letter.
Whaddya mean? It's right there under (b) in the alpha post: You're OK to exceed 10% if all the pages are taken from a single chapter of the book.