Copyright Law - Misconceptions.

Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!

Tabberone Logo

The latest Hartsel weather.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Edmund Burke

Around the end of May 2009, we received a request from someone asking for our permission for them to use the information on our web site concerning copyrights.

May I please use copies of your articles for a teacher's workshop relating to copyright issues. I will provide the class members with your web site for further information.

To which we replied:

Under the US Copyright Act reproducing copyrighted articles for educational purposes does not require permission under the fair use provisions of the act. Copyright statements when available should be included with the copy of the article.
If you are referring to our comments and assessments of copyrights, corporate lawyers, etc, go right ahead. We state in our disclaimer the information is there to be used. Besides, using that information is still covered under fair use.

She replied:

I understand. I still like to ask and let you know I am using it.

We present this exchange as an example of how misconceptions are formed, whether intentionally or not. This person, who is in a teaching postion, prefers to ask for permission rather than just doing that which is allowed by law. What would she have done if we had said "No"? Used some other source? Argued with us? We don't know.

However, it is her attitude here we find dangerous. She prefers to ask for permission even when permission is not required. Why? Just being nice? Or, it is the civilized thing to do? Perhaps, that's how my mother taught me to behave? It isn't the act of asking for permission that is disturbing; it is the continuation of the idea that permission is desirable. This "niceness" morphs into the perception that it is required and then it gets passed onto to others as gospel. And the damage goes on.

We can easily image this teacher in front of her students, telling them that while permission is not required, asking first is the "moral" thing to do. What gets remembered here most by the students is the "asking first" part. That easily gets altered into one "must" ask first. Then, the logical transformation of the sound bite is the addition of the "why" must one seek permission first? Why? Because it belongs to someone else and one needs their permission to use their property. Now, the "being polite" phase has been transformed into the "urban myth" phase. This is where the person repeating the urban myth believes it either because they were told it by a person whom they respect, or, because the urban myth seems reasonable and therefore it must be true.

And these spreaders of "truth" do not want to hear the facts for their minds are fixed on the subject. They are right and you are wrong.

Here is a classic example from the About.Com web blogs on "quilting" (click here for more details and the full link) that started May 12, 2009.

Infringement- may not be!
SillyPoet
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/HallOfShame/HallOfShame.shtml
Check out this site- I got this from a good friend's website. :)
Posted: May 12 09 07:25 AM

It all stared out innocently enough. Sillypoet was sharing a link with others. What followed is an example of our arguments concerning how misinformed people spread the "urban myths" and misconceptions about copyrights (and trademarks). User Dorothy (DMWA) soon responded in part:

When it comes to intellectual property, copyright, trademark, soccer balls or garden tools, if it's not yours, you can't use it without the owner's permission. The end. And if the owner says no, then no it is.

Followed in part by:

Personally I find the restrictive use statements on many of those licensed fabrics to be mean spirited and unfair. Rather than break the law, though, I just don't buy them.

The problem here is the tone: "you can't use it without the owner's permission" and don't "break the law". Her position is firm, direct and forceful. She is right and she is convinced of it. However, when confronted by a counter posting by Tabberone concerning her position, user Dorothy (DMWA) responded on May 26, 2009:

I stated my OPINION.

Honestly folks, did her statement above sound even close to being an opinion? Quote: "you can't use it without the owner's permission. The end." Where does she hint, imply or remotely suggest that she is stating her opinion? She was being emphatic about her subject. No beating around the bush here.
This is why we go after people like this. They do not know what they are talking about but they present it to the world as if they are experts in the subject. They parade around their opinions as being facts and promote the urban myths about the do's and dont's. To us, this is criminal indifference to the facts. It is misleading and dishonest. It is harmful. And they do not care because it is their "opinion".

Federal Court Cases
Alphabetically | by Federal Circuit | by Subject | by Court Quotations

Federal Statutes
Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 5 | Digital Millenium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 12 | Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 22
<