Re: Battle of Britain Then and Now - Update
 

Just a note

You cannot copyright facts, only the way that those facts are expressed

If you could copyright facts then we would all be out of business, the first person to find something out and publish it would own that fact for 70 years after their death and no one else could use that fact without their permission! This is plainly absurd.

What you copyright is the form of words you use to set out the facts. If someone cuts and pastes my paragraph on an aircraft loss they are breaching my copyright. However if they say all the same things in a different way then I cannot complain

There are provisions to stop you picking up an entire book and publishing it under your name just by changing the layout and using alternative words, but the principle holds that you cannot copyright a fact.

Martin

Re: Battle of Britain Then and Now - Update
 

Well said, Martin. That is exactly the point I was making regarding losses. I hope it will sink in now (not with you - you've already got the principle 100%!).

Re: Battle of Britain Then and Now - Update
 

Martin,

I've said this before and I'll say it again: No one I've come across online understands copyright law. And no offense to those who do. Pick up any book and there is a copyright notice. The purpose of right to copy means that whoever put that book together cannot have it copied by anyone else. Anyone wishing to quote a portion needs to get written permission from the copyright holder. This does not apply to brief quotes for use in reviews. I would suggest consulting a copyright attorney when in doubt.

Re: Battle of Britain Then and Now - Update
 

Ah, got it now, Chris!

It's why Andy and I suggested doing the update in four volumes, to spread the cost and make things a lot easier on the pocket for the publisher and the punters.

First volume will be the front-end of the book; second volume RAF losses; third volume Luftwaffe losses; fourth volume the back end of the book together with a new section on the Capel-Le-Ferne monument.

That's how it pans out.

Re: Battle of Britain Then and Now - Update
 

Tell that to a certain Polish publisher...

Re: Battle of Britain Then and Now - Update
 

Please excuse my butting in here, but............I think there is a 10% "Fair Use" clause, at least here in the States, whereby an author can safely "borrow" up to 10% of another author's work without violating international copyright law. I can't remember whether that's verbatim borrowing or paraphrased borrowing or both. In all cases, the "borrowed" passages must be credited in a footnote or source note. There is also a "Material Damage" clause whereby the plaintiff must show material (significant, meaningful) financial damages before the courts would allow a lawsuit to go to trial, i.e., to what extent did the "borrowed" material impinge on the plaintiff's sales and/or royalties.

L. deZ.

Re: Battle of Britain Then and Now - Update
 

Hi,

I don't copyright the facts but I don't want that my research will be published without giving a credit to me. Many information came from private sources. And I'm not a only one.

Best regards

Robert

Re: Battle of Britain Then and Now - Update
 

And published by someone, who gave a minimal or no input at all.

Re: Battle of Britain Then and Now - Update
 

Larry,

You bring up the number one reason some people do not understand copyright law: They want free. It's the cost anyone can afford. I understand 'fair use.' As a researcher of things other than Luftwaffe history for over 40 years, I've used fair use correctly. Some online just reproduce photos from books immediately upon release, put it on their blog and are proud to do it. Others expect free, digitized records immediately, oblivious to the time and money involved. It is something I feel needs to be pointed out. The same with text. Why not download something, lift portions of the text and put it on your blog? I'll add that I did read a terrible blog entry about a World war II American bomber that committed a series of errors. The writer did not shy away from distorting the history by adding in his personal bias. Important details were missing, and it lacked important context. It was an amateur with a low level of skill attempting to write what should have been an article that could appear in a proper historical magazine. Some think 'putting it online' is enough. That learning how to do it right somehow gets in the way. Standards exist for writing books or articles. It's quite wrong to think otherwise.

I spent most of the 1980s reading military journals that most people did not know even existed in libraries. Enthusiasm can translate into good writing with some education.

Re: Battle of Britain Then and Now - Update
 

Tell everyone who you are talking about. Don't make insinuations...