Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: Indeed. And yet ...

Posted by John Atkinson on March 19, 2017 at 05:20:08:
>Again, I remind you, of fair use:
>#Uses That Are Generally Fair Uses#
#Criticism and comment -- for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a
>review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment#

Please note that under US copyright law, Fair Use is not a right but a
defense in a potential suit over infringement. Whether that defense would
be successful depends on how much of the original copyrighted work has
been quoted. If someone quotes 30 words of a 3000-word article, a Fair Use
defense would certainly succeed. If someone quotes all 3000 words, a Fair
Use defense would certainly fail. The question of where the dividing line
lies tends to be decided on a case-by-case basis, but generally favoring
the copyright owner, as far as I am aware.

In your case, while you didn't republish the entire work, you did quote
a relatively large proportion of the work, without either permission,
attribution, or a link to the original.

>The only thing I forgot to do was provide a link. Which I then did at
>your request.

And the attribution, which you also "forgot." It would have cost you
nothing either to ask for permission (which I would have given) or to
add attribution and link, yet you did neither.

>No, you were looking to get the thread deep sixed with name calling. You
>have done this numerous times before.

Really? Could you provide links to the "numerous" examples, please, Dick.