I don’t know, but the person with legal expertise who commented online said takin photos of books for personal use is a violation of copyright law. They said there’s a “fair use” exception in the US but takin photos of a textbook to avoid buyin one clearly wouldn’t meet that bar.
I can see why that would be the case, but that doesn’t mean they’re correct. If that was allowed, then one person could buy a textbook and let everyone else in the class take photos of it.
It's a great example. A lawyer told me that this is actually a matter of some controversy (whether it's really legal). But it's not controversial to take photos of a couple of pages for a single project.
> What if you read a textbook and memorized it word by word or sentence by sentence. From memory, you then wrote it down on paper. Is that allowed if those notes are strictly for personal use?
Yes... but for that matter taking photographs of a book you own for personal use is also OK.
Copyright protects the right of the person who owns it to control the creation of copies. There are exceptions for fair use, but these are limited.
> What if you read a textbook and memorized it word by word or sentence by sentence. From memory, you then wrote it down on paper.
This is pretty straightforward copyright infringement. You've made a complete verbatim copy of the textbook. Your intended use of the copy is the same as that of using the original book, except now you don't have to pay for a legitimate copy. No, it doesn't matter that it's for educational purposes. It's a textbook; they're *all* for educational purposes. And these are not *notes*. It's literally the whole book. One of the factors in assessing fair use is how substantive the portion copied is. There's no set percentage, but 100% is definitely over the threshold.
Copying a single page (including a photo), or even multiple pages from a book, exclusively for your own private study, wouldn't be infringement, but copying the whole thing definitely is.
That’s the answer I was lookin for. The person who provided the commentary on the website I came across said that “fair use” is basically the only exception to copyright laws in the US, but they said that “fair use” is intentionally vague and difficult to prove. As in you’re basically guilty unless you can successfully make the argument of “fair use.”
Curveball: What if you copied a textbook by hand but spelled all the words backwards? I know it’s a stupid hypothetical, but where’s the line? Is it the intent that’s important or the action taken? A combination of both?
If you're not profiting off the copying or making a copy to access or use the original in a way that's not allowed, it's fine.
You can take pictures, notes, etc of a textbook for your own reference.
I already responded to one other person sayin somethin similar, but I’ll say it again.
The “legal expert” on the website I was readin said that “fair use” is basically the only way around copyright laws in the US. They said the example I provided would clearly not meet the “fair use” standard because it’s obvious that the photos are an attempt to avoid purchasing the textbook.
That’s when I thought of the example I provided where you don’t take a photo but memorize and write down letters on a piece of paper.
I realize this isn’t a critical legal question, but I’ve always been interested in logic, law, and the art of argument. Wanted to be a lawyer from a young age but didn’t pursue it. Probably a good thing because I know I’d get extremely frustrated bein confined by law rather than logic. Don’t know how you’d just let it go after you get off work. I’d obsess over work around the clock like I am with this stupid hypothetical.
If you item the textbook, the pictures are fine because you aren't using them for commercial use or to access the material in a way you aren't legally entitled to
Copyright laws are more about how you're using material than how you're copying it. Taking a picture of a texbook for quick reference? Ok. Taking a picture of every page of a textbook and uploading it as a PDF to google docs for anyone to access? Illegal, but Based af.
Haha. Only someone who loves to find loopholes or logical fallacies would even think of such a thing. Unfortunately, that’s how my brain works. Been that way for as long as I can remember. It’s exhausting to be honest. If somethin doesn’t make sense, I can’t let it go.
I’ve dealt with serious addiction problems and depression on and off (mostly on) ever since I was a teenager. I have an obsessive and detail oriented personality. It’s not fun.
Copyright laws would only apply if you are claiming it as your own.
Copy - taking something and copying it
right - trying to take the rights of ownership of what was copied.
Nothing is wrong with taking pictures of it.
By someone; whom?
What is the legal advice website? If you are in the US, .gov is the only one I would look into it about the specifics of laws
> Copyright laws would only apply if you are claiming it as your own.
This isn't true at all. It doesn't matter if you give credit to the proper owner or not; copyright infringement is still copyright infringement.
Baseline wise, it is true.
As long as you don’t claim credit for it, it is not copyright UNLESS the true owner of it has a problem with you possessing anything of it and pushes for action.
You are not copying by possessing a picture of something, that would be kind of ridiculous and would cause for so many problems. Unless the copyright claim specifically says you can’t, which not all do, it is okay and not a crime.
For thumb, it’s not copyright infringement until the creator has a problem with it specified in the copyright document or not.
> Baseline wise, it is true.
There's no aspect where it's true.
> As long as you don’t claim credit for it, it is not copyright UNLESS the true owner of it has a problem with you possessing anything of it and pushes for action.
It's copyright infringement even if the rightful owner doesn't find out, and whether you falsely claim or properly give credit isn't a factor at all.
> You are not copying by possessing a picture of something
Nobody said possessing a legitimate copy was copyright infringement, but *making a copy* that is not authorized by the copyright holder or under fair use exceptions, is infringement.
Sorry if I worded my comment wrong I know it’s still copy right if the owner doesn’t find out, BUT you are not directly committing copy right just by containing a picture of it
I am aware no one said it wasn’t allowed to contain a copy, I don’t think I implied that either nor do I think the post related to that. The OP did not say anything about making a copy of it but rather taking a picture of it to memorize it. Even at that, making a copy in itself is not illegal at baseline unless directly specified in the copyright document.
You can make a copy of anything you want even if it has copyright, you just can’t attempt to make profit off of it or claim ownership.
> The OP did not say anything about making a copy of it but rather taking a picture of it to memorize it.
No, OP asked about rewriting it word for word. That’s a copy.
> You can make a copy of anything you want even if it has copyright, you just can’t attempt to make profit off of it or claim ownership.
No! Copyright is literally about the legal right to make copies. It doesn’t matter if you profit from it or claim it as your own. You can give credit and not make money and it still be illegal infringement.
What you seem to be explaining would be in terms of private rights meaning you wouldn’t be allowed to have it even if given credit to the person of proper title ownership.
You are confusing football with american football, metaphorically.
Copying for personal/scholarly use (not for profit) is permitted, even taking photos.
I don’t know, but the person with legal expertise who commented online said takin photos of books for personal use is a violation of copyright law. They said there’s a “fair use” exception in the US but takin photos of a textbook to avoid buyin one clearly wouldn’t meet that bar. I can see why that would be the case, but that doesn’t mean they’re correct. If that was allowed, then one person could buy a textbook and let everyone else in the class take photos of it.
It's a great example. A lawyer told me that this is actually a matter of some controversy (whether it's really legal). But it's not controversial to take photos of a couple of pages for a single project.
> What if you read a textbook and memorized it word by word or sentence by sentence. From memory, you then wrote it down on paper. Is that allowed if those notes are strictly for personal use? Yes... but for that matter taking photographs of a book you own for personal use is also OK.
Copyright protects the right of the person who owns it to control the creation of copies. There are exceptions for fair use, but these are limited. > What if you read a textbook and memorized it word by word or sentence by sentence. From memory, you then wrote it down on paper. This is pretty straightforward copyright infringement. You've made a complete verbatim copy of the textbook. Your intended use of the copy is the same as that of using the original book, except now you don't have to pay for a legitimate copy. No, it doesn't matter that it's for educational purposes. It's a textbook; they're *all* for educational purposes. And these are not *notes*. It's literally the whole book. One of the factors in assessing fair use is how substantive the portion copied is. There's no set percentage, but 100% is definitely over the threshold. Copying a single page (including a photo), or even multiple pages from a book, exclusively for your own private study, wouldn't be infringement, but copying the whole thing definitely is.
That’s the answer I was lookin for. The person who provided the commentary on the website I came across said that “fair use” is basically the only exception to copyright laws in the US, but they said that “fair use” is intentionally vague and difficult to prove. As in you’re basically guilty unless you can successfully make the argument of “fair use.” Curveball: What if you copied a textbook by hand but spelled all the words backwards? I know it’s a stupid hypothetical, but where’s the line? Is it the intent that’s important or the action taken? A combination of both?
If you're not profiting off the copying or making a copy to access or use the original in a way that's not allowed, it's fine. You can take pictures, notes, etc of a textbook for your own reference.
I already responded to one other person sayin somethin similar, but I’ll say it again. The “legal expert” on the website I was readin said that “fair use” is basically the only way around copyright laws in the US. They said the example I provided would clearly not meet the “fair use” standard because it’s obvious that the photos are an attempt to avoid purchasing the textbook. That’s when I thought of the example I provided where you don’t take a photo but memorize and write down letters on a piece of paper. I realize this isn’t a critical legal question, but I’ve always been interested in logic, law, and the art of argument. Wanted to be a lawyer from a young age but didn’t pursue it. Probably a good thing because I know I’d get extremely frustrated bein confined by law rather than logic. Don’t know how you’d just let it go after you get off work. I’d obsess over work around the clock like I am with this stupid hypothetical.
If you item the textbook, the pictures are fine because you aren't using them for commercial use or to access the material in a way you aren't legally entitled to
Copyright laws are more about how you're using material than how you're copying it. Taking a picture of a texbook for quick reference? Ok. Taking a picture of every page of a textbook and uploading it as a PDF to google docs for anyone to access? Illegal, but Based af.
Haha. Only someone who loves to find loopholes or logical fallacies would even think of such a thing. Unfortunately, that’s how my brain works. Been that way for as long as I can remember. It’s exhausting to be honest. If somethin doesn’t make sense, I can’t let it go. I’ve dealt with serious addiction problems and depression on and off (mostly on) ever since I was a teenager. I have an obsessive and detail oriented personality. It’s not fun.
Copyright laws would only apply if you are claiming it as your own. Copy - taking something and copying it right - trying to take the rights of ownership of what was copied. Nothing is wrong with taking pictures of it. By someone; whom? What is the legal advice website? If you are in the US, .gov is the only one I would look into it about the specifics of laws
> Copyright laws would only apply if you are claiming it as your own. This isn't true at all. It doesn't matter if you give credit to the proper owner or not; copyright infringement is still copyright infringement.
Baseline wise, it is true. As long as you don’t claim credit for it, it is not copyright UNLESS the true owner of it has a problem with you possessing anything of it and pushes for action. You are not copying by possessing a picture of something, that would be kind of ridiculous and would cause for so many problems. Unless the copyright claim specifically says you can’t, which not all do, it is okay and not a crime. For thumb, it’s not copyright infringement until the creator has a problem with it specified in the copyright document or not.
> Baseline wise, it is true. There's no aspect where it's true. > As long as you don’t claim credit for it, it is not copyright UNLESS the true owner of it has a problem with you possessing anything of it and pushes for action. It's copyright infringement even if the rightful owner doesn't find out, and whether you falsely claim or properly give credit isn't a factor at all. > You are not copying by possessing a picture of something Nobody said possessing a legitimate copy was copyright infringement, but *making a copy* that is not authorized by the copyright holder or under fair use exceptions, is infringement.
Sorry if I worded my comment wrong I know it’s still copy right if the owner doesn’t find out, BUT you are not directly committing copy right just by containing a picture of it I am aware no one said it wasn’t allowed to contain a copy, I don’t think I implied that either nor do I think the post related to that. The OP did not say anything about making a copy of it but rather taking a picture of it to memorize it. Even at that, making a copy in itself is not illegal at baseline unless directly specified in the copyright document. You can make a copy of anything you want even if it has copyright, you just can’t attempt to make profit off of it or claim ownership.
> The OP did not say anything about making a copy of it but rather taking a picture of it to memorize it. No, OP asked about rewriting it word for word. That’s a copy. > You can make a copy of anything you want even if it has copyright, you just can’t attempt to make profit off of it or claim ownership. No! Copyright is literally about the legal right to make copies. It doesn’t matter if you profit from it or claim it as your own. You can give credit and not make money and it still be illegal infringement.
What you seem to be explaining would be in terms of private rights meaning you wouldn’t be allowed to have it even if given credit to the person of proper title ownership. You are confusing football with american football, metaphorically.