From a document you've mentioned on the website Ron:
Quote:
4.10 As part of its recommendation, the Franki Committee commented on why the matters now in s. 40(2) do not provide specific guidance as to what is a fair dealing for the purposes of research or study:
We see section 40 as being a section mainly directed to the acts of an individual, and there are so many factors which may have to be considered in deciding whether a particular instance of copying is ‘fair dealing’, that we think it is quite impracticable to attempt to remove entirely from the Court the duty of deciding the question whether or not a particular instance constitutes ‘fair dealing’.[7]
4.11 The determination of what is a fair dealing in relation to the copying of a work for the purpose of research or study is assisted by a quantitative test provided under s. 40(3) of the Act, which provides that, subject to certain qualifications, the copying of the whole or part of an article in a periodical publication or the copying of not more than a ‘reasonable portion’ of a work or adaptation is deemed to be fair, notwithstanding the factors to be taken into account in determining fairness under s. 40(2).
4.12 A ‘reasonable portion’ is defined non-exhaustively in s. 10(2) of the Act. The definition provides that a copy will be a ‘reasonable portion’ if the pages copied, in relation to a published edition of a literary, dramatic or musical work,
(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 single chapter of the work.
|
This is open to interpretation, and whilst it is by no means implying that this website acts in breach of implied copyright law - I'd just like to advise participants and contributors that just because the website assures them that it's OK to distribute and store copywritten material via their service, in whole, and in it's original form (presumably) they should be aware that interpretation of copyright law may be enacted upon by different owners in different ways. Some may not see this scanning of their printed material as a problem - others may. I'm just not sure that you will be able to bat off those who object with a "we'll consider" answer.
Quote:
|
We can all help by sending copies of different telescopes and mounts, in PDF format to info@manualmuseum.com scan each page using PDF format, that way it will come out looking exactly the same as your real world copy.
|
Is requesting people to scan (and therefore copy) entire paper manuals a breach? hmm... As stated, storing a manual that is already in a locked PDF format is different to scanning one. Canon would probably come after me for scanning their work, not you, for doing so. I'd just like to see that people understand the law in this regard by reading it for themselves rather than taking it for granted that all is simply kosher. I'm sure you'd have to agree.
On the flip side of my argument, I'm just looking t the instruction manual for my George Foreman Grilling Machine - as an example. It doesn't even contain a copyright notice of any kind. Even still - is it protected by copyright?
Personally? I think it's neat idea. It fills a great niche - as long as the legals are undisputed world wide and people can be absolutely and unequivocally assured that their participation is not going to end up with them in court over something they didn't understand or realise. I wish you luck with it - I think it's a ripper idea.