I'm just wondering if there are any legal issues with outlining textbooks and placing those outlines online as long as you reference the textbook publishers information. These textbooks would be for classes like US History.
You shouldn't do it. You technically can't even just publish their table of contents to say what's in the book without their expressed permission. Jenn
I think it depends a lot on the amount being published and the use. Read all you can about "Fair Use". Here is a starting point for you. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Thanks for the link. I wouldnt be copying word for word anything from the chapters. I would be summarizing the key points covered in each of the chapters. The only word for word text would be the book's title, publisher info, and chapter title. Does that help? -Chris
Like I said, you're not even allowed to list a table of contents w/o their permission (I've worked with a variety of small and large publishers), and some aren't even willing to let you do that. Listing the title and chapter titles is the same thing. It's also why you don't see it done for every book on sites like Amazon... only when the publishers opt-in. Don't do it. Jenn
Ok, well - its been done for the past 4 years (on my site alone- much longer on some others) and I have yet to receive a complaint. I'm not saying that that makes it legal, but I am going to say I would think they wouldve contacted me by now if they were worried about copyright infringement. -Chris
To the best of my knowledge, most publishers don't exactly employ people to go around searching for outlines or TOCs, especially the small publishers. But unless you're a teacher or educational institution, it falls out of the fair use protection, and it's illegal whether they happen across it or not. Especially because you're talking here about textbooks (which usually carry a much higher price tag than the average book), the publishers have even more of a reason to come after you if they do come across it. As I said, I've worked with a variety of publishers through the review process (they send me books regularly, from pre-publication manuscripts to recent releases), and it depends entirely on the publisher. Some are completely fine with it being posted online, b/c they view it as extra promotion and no extra work on their part. Other publishers get extremely defensive if you even suggest it, and at most will let you link to their own site if they have a TOC published there as an added detail. All you have to do is upset one wrong publisher and you're in trouble. It's not worth it in the slightest. Why not review the text books instead, listing the best and worst sections in your opinion, or doing something else that falls within fair use?
In law school, outlines are frequently created and sold/distributed. I am not saying to let this be your guide, but it's something to think about. Also, there are various types of outlining. There may be a big difference in what I am talking about and what you are doing.
Jenn, you are on a very slippery slope with some of your comments. Unless you are an intellectual propery attorney, you probably should reconsider some of them. Intellectual property issues relating to the web are being discussed in high places and many are being litigated. What publishers "want" and what they "allow" has nothing to do with the law. Sort of like TOS. And unless you are a judge, you can't really make a statemet like the one above and be credible. An excerpt from the US Copyright Office site:
If anything, you just supported my point. Without being a teacher or a part of an educational institution, it's pretty reasonable to assume that the original poster would have some interest in making a profit, which generally does lead to judgement against fair use, not for it. And if you looked carefully at what I said, I did say "unless" as the original poster didn't exactly go into much detail in the beginning as to their intentions. The nature of the copyrighted work is a large, generally high cost, textbook. As to the substantiality, outlining an entire book, and essentially giving away what's included would be on par to something such as Cliff's Notes as far as substantiality, which would absolutely be in violation if it's being published in some form for a profit rather than purely educational use. As to the effect it would have, again, that depends how it's being published. If it were being published on a professor's website as a reference for their students who were already required to purchase the book, it would have little to no effect. Yet if it's made available publicly, what's the motivation for someone to buy that textbook if they're not specifically being required to? They already know what's contained, as well as a summary of all or most of the important points, which likely were the result of someone else's research. That's entirely different than simply jotting down a few notes, if you're giving away the entire essence of the contents.
I am not going to argue either side here. Just remember that codified law is only one part of the equation. You MUST look at actual cases to really know the law. One thing is for sure: Contact an Intellectual Property lawyer to get your answer.
I'll take one more turn at this and then I'm done. I really don't see how. I responded to a statement you made: But "fair use" seems to cover The bolded applications are not necessarily "..a teacher or educational institution..". These are very subjective and ill-defined comments, nothing more than a lay person's opinion and have no basis in law. You can continue all you want telling us what publishers want and how they operate, but what they get will likely come at the end of some extensive litigation, not from a policy manual perched on the editor's credenza.
Maybe it's just because I'm old and an expat, but I'm on the side of old_expat here. First, if it would ruin your day to have to shut the site down or to be served with a lawsuit, talk to a competent attorney with a specialty in copyright law. The devil is always in the details, and no one, not even an expert, can tell if you what you are doing is ok without being immersed in the specifics of what you are actually doing. Second, to the extent I ever knew anything about this stuff when I practiced law (and I didn't know much, for sure), the governing generality I took away was that copyright protects expression, not ideas. Someone can steal every brilliant idea in a textbook, and so long as it is put in their own form, there is no possible claim for copyright infringement. Indeed, as I understand, or misunderstand, the law, someone could rewrite a textbook, very nearly page by page, and not violate copyright because they would not be duplicating expression. I suppose someone could argue that there is some expressive component in a how a book like a textbook is structured; this is exactly the kind of stuff where you would need to look at the case law to see if there are any cases on point where you live. The leading case I recall on what constituted expression involved phone books - a company came into the market, scanned the existing phone books into a database, and started selling ads for their version of the phone book. In a word, the old company just lifted the listings from the old phone book, and used them to create their own book with identical listings. The old phone book company sued, and much to my amazement at the time, lost, on the theory that the names and numbers in the white pages were just data, and had no expressive component. Third point - just because you may be right on the law doesn't mean that a publisher can't screw with you if they want. They are business people, and generally have no interest in filing losing cases, and have less interest in making the first test suit they file the hardest to win even if they are on a MPAA type campaign to chill behavior, but businesses sometimes do file lawsuits even when they have been advised that they probably won't win. So long as they are not in bad faith - which is to say, so long as they have a leg of some kind to stand on - nothing ethically or legally prohibits them from making your life difficult even if a determined and well funded opponent might actually beat them in court. Fourth point - someone interested in the general issue might want to wander by your local Borders or Barnes & Noble and check out the Sparksnotes or the Cliffnotes. It would be instructive if they don't do books still under copyright; it would also be instructive if they had the standard acknowledgement and thanks for permission from the copyright holders in all such cases. Folks who are interested might also want to Google up the interesting tale of James Joyce's grandson, who is doing everything he can, as holder of the copyrights, to control who writes about his grandfather's works and how they write about them. It would be interesting to see how far he has been able to go on stuff like this, and what theories he has used. Even if it contributes nothing to the legal understanding, it's still an interesting story. The necessary disclaimers - while I am a lawyer, I am not your lawyer. These are general observations, which may be wrong to start with, and which certainly are not intended to be advice to you or anyone else on how to act.
Right now, too hot. August is not the time to be here; in fact, the town all but closes down as a huge chunk of the populace leaves town for the beaches or the mountains to get away from the heat. With so many people gone in August, every day feels like a Sunday on the streets. It is a great town and well worth visiting, though.
Wow- and to think I didn't originally view Rays response when I first wrote this thread. Great post! Thanks! Any other feedback would be appreciated -Chris