From: Freya (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Jun 28 2009 - 09:57:09 PDT
> But more to the point, (and I have not seen the book), it
> sounds like he used the discussion as evidence within a
> topic of his. This is clearly Fair Use, and a parallel
> (in my view) to quoting from someone else’s book when
> you are writing an essay or a book on that writing.
From what I'm understanding he hasn't just quoted but reproduced works wholesale? I've not yet seen the book myself so can't be sure but that was the impression I got. If thats the case it definitely wouldn't be fair use.
> As the Frameworks discussions are all freely available
> online through Flicker, they can be seen de facto as Open
> Source already.
Depends what you mean by open source. Stuff reproduced on the internet is still covered by copyright whether it appears on the BBC website or whether it appears on Flicker, there are no special provisions applied to flicker as there are with open source or creative commons type stuff.
>And Lucas is under no obligation (not
> even ethical) to make his contextual writing on the topic
> freely available. Unless you think that every book of
> film or art or literature criticism that quotes from other
> sources should also be open source. But one could of
> course write an essay or book quoting from Lucas’s
> writing under the same Fair Use. So his writing (using
> short sections of it in the context of a discussion on the
> topic) is in that way “open source.”
Yes exactly. In an open source model derivative works would also need to be reproduced as open source.
I think this book more falls under the category of bootleg! ;)
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.