Hello. I have interesting case and question to experts in copyright law.
Sorry for long message. But I need to give all the details to give a clear picture.
Summary:
Large US-based world-wide non-profit professional organisation, creates and sells professional standard.
I took their standard, created single-page summary from it, and published it freely on the Internet.
They are asking me to pay a lot of money for license or remove it from the internet.
I consulted with local lawyer - he analyzed all the details (I give them below) and concluded that it is a Fair Use case. But considering that the company is large and I am not making any money here I will spend more a lot of time and money if I will be protecting my position.
However if I am right I don't want to step back and I am ready to fight. I see it from other point of view - I am not making money here but it is an interesting case and I am earning experience here.
But I want to doublecheck my position with US/World-wide copyright experts here on this web site. So I really appreciate your help.
This is what I learnt from Fair Use concept and how it is applied to my case:
Factor #1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
a) Use = non-profit: I am not making any money;
b) Purpose = educational: the purpose of my product is to help people understand the original Standard;
c) Transformativeness = yes:
- I organized the content in specific structure: single-page bird's-eye view (it is really hard to overview and understand the original standard without such single-page overview and original standard is lacking such overview);
- I added new content: color coding (for different areas of the standard), and relationships between processes which were not reflected there but are assumed by practitioners (I am one of such practitioners and these relations are made on my own opinion - and I might be wrong somewhere, btw;).
Factor #2: the nature of the copyrighted work;
a) Original is published: it is sold on organization's web site, on Amazon, etc.
b) Original is fact-based: it is a collection of well-known best practices - it is not creative or fiction content.
Factor #3: the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
a) Very small amount is used: original consists of 500+ pages and my product is just one page - it is like a table of content - names of all the processes, and names of all process inputs, outputs and tools.
b) Substantiality - Heart of the work. This is the main issue!
- The Standard has a Glossary. Somebody can tell it is the heart. And I didn't use the Glossary at all.
- The Standard has Appendix which is ISO-certified subset of the Standard. Somebody can tell it is the heart. And I didn't use the Appendix.
- The Standard has few introduction chapters with key profession definitions. Somebody can tell it is the heart. And I didn't use these initial chapters.
- I took the processes reflected in other parts. But I tend to agree I took the heart of work. Because my intention was to take the hardest to memorize key part of the Standard - all processes and their inputs, outputs, tools and put them in a clear and easy to memorize way (all together on a single page, color coding) and add extra useful information (relations between processes). Unfortunately original Standard failed to do all of this. That's why I wanted to create this work.
And actually there is no way to make education material without referring the heart of original work.
c) Amount and content I used was not more than it was necessary to accomplish the goal. Listing all the processes, their inputs, outputs, tools I couldn't skip any one of them - so I used all of their names (without all the descriptions which take hundreds of pages).
Factor #4: the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
a) No effect at all or even positive effect:
- Nobody can use my product without having original Standard (it is like trying to use book's content without having the book itself).
- Moreover I hope (and my intentions was to, because I am big fan of it) made positive effects on original Standard's sales - because if you have a content of a great book it is kind of advertisement to buy the whole book if you don't have it yet.
- The work has a clear reference to the original Standard and I encouraged people to become members of the organization, become professionals and use the Standard.
The Organisation insists that "Heart of work" supersedes any qualifiers for noncommercial use and any other of my arguments.
Any opinions? Any suggestions? I really appreciate your help! Happy to answer any questions.
Sorry for long message. But I need to give all the details to give a clear picture.
Summary:
Large US-based world-wide non-profit professional organisation, creates and sells professional standard.
I took their standard, created single-page summary from it, and published it freely on the Internet.
They are asking me to pay a lot of money for license or remove it from the internet.
I consulted with local lawyer - he analyzed all the details (I give them below) and concluded that it is a Fair Use case. But considering that the company is large and I am not making any money here I will spend more a lot of time and money if I will be protecting my position.
However if I am right I don't want to step back and I am ready to fight. I see it from other point of view - I am not making money here but it is an interesting case and I am earning experience here.
But I want to doublecheck my position with US/World-wide copyright experts here on this web site. So I really appreciate your help.
This is what I learnt from Fair Use concept and how it is applied to my case:
Factor #1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
a) Use = non-profit: I am not making any money;
b) Purpose = educational: the purpose of my product is to help people understand the original Standard;
c) Transformativeness = yes:
- I organized the content in specific structure: single-page bird's-eye view (it is really hard to overview and understand the original standard without such single-page overview and original standard is lacking such overview);
- I added new content: color coding (for different areas of the standard), and relationships between processes which were not reflected there but are assumed by practitioners (I am one of such practitioners and these relations are made on my own opinion - and I might be wrong somewhere, btw;).
Factor #2: the nature of the copyrighted work;
a) Original is published: it is sold on organization's web site, on Amazon, etc.
b) Original is fact-based: it is a collection of well-known best practices - it is not creative or fiction content.
Factor #3: the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
a) Very small amount is used: original consists of 500+ pages and my product is just one page - it is like a table of content - names of all the processes, and names of all process inputs, outputs and tools.
b) Substantiality - Heart of the work. This is the main issue!
- The Standard has a Glossary. Somebody can tell it is the heart. And I didn't use the Glossary at all.
- The Standard has Appendix which is ISO-certified subset of the Standard. Somebody can tell it is the heart. And I didn't use the Appendix.
- The Standard has few introduction chapters with key profession definitions. Somebody can tell it is the heart. And I didn't use these initial chapters.
- I took the processes reflected in other parts. But I tend to agree I took the heart of work. Because my intention was to take the hardest to memorize key part of the Standard - all processes and their inputs, outputs, tools and put them in a clear and easy to memorize way (all together on a single page, color coding) and add extra useful information (relations between processes). Unfortunately original Standard failed to do all of this. That's why I wanted to create this work.
And actually there is no way to make education material without referring the heart of original work.
c) Amount and content I used was not more than it was necessary to accomplish the goal. Listing all the processes, their inputs, outputs, tools I couldn't skip any one of them - so I used all of their names (without all the descriptions which take hundreds of pages).
Factor #4: the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
a) No effect at all or even positive effect:
- Nobody can use my product without having original Standard (it is like trying to use book's content without having the book itself).
- Moreover I hope (and my intentions was to, because I am big fan of it) made positive effects on original Standard's sales - because if you have a content of a great book it is kind of advertisement to buy the whole book if you don't have it yet.
- The work has a clear reference to the original Standard and I encouraged people to become members of the organization, become professionals and use the Standard.
The Organisation insists that "Heart of work" supersedes any qualifiers for noncommercial use and any other of my arguments.
Any opinions? Any suggestions? I really appreciate your help! Happy to answer any questions.
