Is it legal for IEEE to sell Creative Commons content? Aaron Swartz was working on a book before he committed suicide in 2013. The draft was later published under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-SA) license. It can be downloaded for free from tons of sites on the Internet. IEEE is charging $30 for a copy of it. Check it out: http://goo.gl/1EwdLn (click that big yellow Full Text button to see the price). Aaron was vehemently against sites like IEEE, Elsevier, and JSTOR. Putting aside for a moment the audacity of IEEE's choice to make money off his work, can a company choose to sell something that's licensed under CC or some other permissive license? And if so, where does that money go? And IEEE, at least for IEEE membership, is a nonprofit. Is this legal? I checked it out and there are other examples where they are charging for content that the authors released for free: Engineering a Safer World:Systems Thinking Applied to Safety written by Nancy Leveson They split that book into 25 individual chapters, each one costing $15, for a grand total of $375. And it's an extra $15 if you want the book cover/table of contents! http://goo.gl/QVmRvU) Open Access by Peter Suber. See Suber's blog post from May 2014, "Don't buy the IEEE edition of my book." https://goo.gl/kO3lkB That's the same as the other book, split into chapters and sold for $15 each. There is no way an individual would fall for this. But libraries and universities may not be checking. I have seen tons of posts about publishers taking advantage of institutions. Is this another example to slip one past the librarian?
A document can be distributed under more than one license. Just because it has been made available under a CC license for free, doesn't mean that IEEE can't negotiate a different license with different terms that allow them to sell the content. (This is similar to the way that a software library can be available for free under a license that permits non-commercial use, but also be made available for a fee for commercial use.) If you want to know whether IEEE is legally selling Aaron Swartz's manuscript, you can contact Morgan &amp; Claypool, the publisher that owns the copyright, and ask them whether this use by IEEE has been authorized by them. For the other documents you mention, contact MIT Press. Etc.
If I lock you in a room without access to anything and tell you &quot;Write a novel&quot; and you write a novel with characters, you have copyright in the work. But it's not absolute: If you use your own characters, you own all the copyright in the work, but not in the idea, as ideas are not copyrightable, see Feist v Rural. If you use someone else's characters extensively (as in more than a short hommage/cameo), you very likely make a derivate. You own a copyright in your part, as in the expression of the story or pictures you created, but you do not gain property interest in the existing characters' expression. Since the copyright to the characters lies with the owner of their IP, you need their OK to release (and also to even make) your work - as with the owner of a copyright is the sole right to decide on distribution and creation of derivates under 17 USC § 106 (2). Also remember that making an unlicensed derivate work risks having nothing you can sue for in case the original copyright owner lifts your ideas and scenes-a-faire parts and adapts them for their own derivate, see Anderson v Stallone The strange case of fanfiction chains... Now, there is a strange situation when a work is based on a work which is based on a work... Then, publishers and editors start with red ink and the result is, that what people know as Twilight now has nothing to do with the fanfiction it started as (It wasn't Vampires in the original draft), and 50 Shades of Grey ended up striking any and all supernatural from it, despite it having been a Twilight fanfiction originally. By making own characters and own expression of the world, there could be no copyright infringement. US law vs Egypt law? Both Egypt and the US have signed the Berne convention, meaning that copyright is very very similar in the broad strokes that the right to allow or disallow derivates is with the copyright holder. Also, since Ben10's copyright owners are to the best of my knowledge in the US (Cartoon Network Studios &amp; Men of Action Studios), they will sue in a US federal court.
Content posted to the web is usually openly accessible to all (unless protected by a password, paywall, or similar restriction). But that does not mean it is freely copyable by all. Such content is protected by copyright in just the same way as if it had been published in a book of essays by various contributors. Unless the copyright holders (who are likely to be the original authors, but might not be) give permission, or an exception to copyright applies, copying such content would be clear and obvious copyright infringement, and any copyright holder could sue for damages. Permission could be given by publishing the content under a permissive license, such as a CC-BY-SA license, or any of many other available permissive licenses. Or a would-be reuser could find the copyright holders and ask for permission. If the holder cannot be found or identified, or does not respond, then no permission has been granted. In the US the main exception to copyright is fair use. See this answer and other threads with the fair-use tag here for more on fair use. Since the question seems to contemplate using the whole of the posted content, since it might well damage any potential market for that content, and since the use does not seem to be &quot;transformative&quot;, nor used for criticism or comment, a finding of fair use for this situation seems unlikely. But Fair use findings are very much fact-driven, and the exact facts do matter. Thus I cannot be at all sure whether a court would find this toi be fair use or not. In other countries there are a variety of exceptions to copyright, and I have not come close to reviewing them all. But none of the ones I know of seem to apply to the situation described in the question. Many are narrower than the US concept of fair use. I fear that without permission, copying this content would be infringement. However, it would not be infringement to create a site that includes a link to the existing content, and a summary or description of that content, along with new content, including comments on the old, with brief quotes to indicate what is being commented on.
The (journal) publisher's interest is presumably to comply with conditions imposed by the copyright owner: CUP might demand of Elsevier that their reviewers delete electronic copies of books after the review is finished. In keeping and using the work (and perhaps freely distributing that copy), you have violated CUP's copyright (assume that CUP holds the copyright). Therefore you can be sued. Elsevier can also be sued. What is not clear is how many people can sue you (and whether you can sue anyone). It would depend on whether you were informed of the deletion requirement before you agreed to review the work. If you were led to believe either that you would get a paper copy of the work, or at least would be able to retain and use the electronic copy for your own use, the journal publisher does not have the option of rewriting the terms of that agreement after the fact. If you reasonably relied on them granting you permission to keep the work, they can't sue you. You might even be able to sue them, insofar as getting a free copy of an expensive book in exchange of writing a review is a standard academic business deal. On the other hand, if they told you in advance that you'd have to delete the review copy, then that is the end of the discussion. If you didn't read the agreement, that too is the end of the discussion. It is not clear what recourse the rights holder might have against you. You have no contractual relationship with the book publisher, and the journal publisher is not the agent of the book publisher so the book publisher is not bound by the errors of the journal publisher. Because you are expected to know that all IP requires permission of the rights holder to copy and since you know that the journal publisher is not the copyright holder, you are on thin ice in assuming that the copyright holder has granted you permission to copy the work. Indeed, even agreeing to review a work in electronic form is a dubious proposition, without suitable legal assurances that the rights holder has granted permission to make the required copies. If a journal buys a physical copy of a book, it can lend or give it to you to write a review, and no permission is required wrong the book publisher. To review an electronic copy, permission from the book publisher is required. You might try defending yourself against an infringement suit under the fair use doctrine, since the underlying purpose of "fair use" is precisely to allow book reviews. If the journal publisher was negligent in not informing you of the copyright conditions imposed on them (which they are supposed to impose on you), your infringement may be innocent, and you might only have a small liability. You could sue the journal in case the book publisher sues you – the journal publisher has a duty of care to you. Technically speaking, you're in trouble once you download the illegal copy, and technically speaking, you infringe copyright every time you read the work. Digital content is, or should be, distributed under some license (a contract between you and the rights holder), otherwise it is illegal to receive or use the work. Hence various public licenses grant permission to copy, subject to various limitations: the use may not be commercial; the work may not be redistributed; the work may not be altered; the work may not be redistributed in exchange for money, or some something of value... The teeth that digital licensing has is that if you copy and use a work contrary to the terms of the license, you do not have permission (the rights holder has granted conditional permission). Copyright law gives the rights holder the exclusive right to authorize making any copies, and in order to use a computer file, a number of copies are made (by various programs). The basic protection is that "the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work". Copies are statutorily defined as "material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed." One or more "derivative works" (with no added creative content) are created in getting from a pdf file to a computer screen. In §117, Congress created an exception to general copyright protection, whereby one can make "another copy or adaptation" of a computer program provided Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. This exception only covers computer programs, and not data files, and as the Copyright Office says You are not permitted under section 117 to make a backup copy of other material on a computer's hard drive, such as other copyrighted works that have been downloaded (e.g., music, films). It is also important to check the terms of sale or license agreement of the original copy of software in case any special conditions have been put in place by the copyright owner that might affect your ability or right under section 117 to make a backup copy. There is no other provision in the Copyright Act that specifically authorizes the making of backup copies of works other than computer programs even if those works are distributed as digital copies. I say that "technically", it is infringement if you open and process a digital file that you do not have permission to copy (via a license), because that is what the law says, and no court case has deemed that Congress intended something entirely different. It is notoriously difficult to establish legislative intent. Since Congress did articulate narrow exceptions in similar cases (computer programs, also secondary transmissions of performances and display of works, and did not include any exception for copies made by computer programs in the course of "using" a protected work, but could have, we can conclude that Congress did not intend to create such an exception. One might point to other facts to argue that Congress did intend that. At present, I believe that the Supreme Court would uphold the letter of the law, but there is really only one way to find out. That is, at any rate, the basis for the copyright holder pursuing an action against you (or, you and the journal). Even without any prior notification of a requirement to delete, they can still tell you that you must delete the work. They probably could not successfully force you to delete the work in a court of law, but there are many other things that they can do that boil down to the fact that you must delete that copy of the work. Blackballing, for example.
There are a number of existing legal sites that do this, for free or for pay. The main concern for a website operator pertains to the DMCA "safe harbor" provisions, which protect against vicarious liability for infringement. A "report piracy" option is not sufficient; see this answer to a related question.
There is a subtle difference between NSF policy and enforceable obligation. The primary stick that goes with the carrot is being excluded from future funding. Current policy does not generally force material in the public domain, but it is a possibility in "exceptional circumstances". There no doubt is a paper record somewhere in D.C. indicating whether such a codicil was added to any of these grants. NSF generally does not have contracts with individuals, they have contracts with institutions who have relations (typically employer-employee) with individuals, so even if there were a policy requiring works to be put in the public domain, NSF would have to go after the institution, who would have to go after the author. Since that would conflict with longstanding NSF policy on copyright, it is unlikely that they would want to pursue such an approach. The statement that McGraw-Hill Book Company announces that the material, which is copyrighted, will be available for use by authors and publishers on a royalty-free basis on or after April 30, 1970 is not itself a license, it is a suggestion that a license will com into existence. A present-tense declaration "this work is dedicated to the public domain effective April 30, 1970" can be interpreted as a license effective of a date certain. Similarly, "will be available to all publishers for use in English after December 31, 1970, and in translations after December 31, 1975" does not say that it is in the public domain effective of some date. One might say that the copyright statement is simply not well written and the author really intended the books to be in the public domain as of those dates. But without compelling evidence that the book was actually released into the public domain, a court is very unlikely to abrogate a person's property rights.
Yes. This is infringement. This infringement might be excused by a &quot;fair use&quot; defense but it probably isn't. At a very small scale tailor to a very specific educational program, for example, for just members of a thirty person English class that they are currently taking, it might qualify as educational fair use. But I get the impression that the contemplated translation project is far more ambitious than that. The underlying content of the events reported in the news are not protected by copyright, but the language used to report those events and any translations of that language, is protected. The only reliable way to solve it is to get permission to do so from the holder of the copyright of the source of the new reports you are translating.
Apparently not The full text of the license is not included on the page you link to, or on any linked page that I checked. But the FAQ says: free educational licenses can be used strictly for non-commercial educational purposes (including academic research). Exactly how this company defines &quot;non-commercial educational purposes&quot; is not stated. If work is done on a student project, and after a non-student license is purchased that project is commercialized, would the license have been violated, and if so, would the company be likely to sue? The fist question cannot be answered without the full text of the license, and the second would require reading the minds of the company officials. But it seems reasonably clear that this is not what the company has in mind. Another user has pointed out a link to the actual license terms which I failed to note. Section 3.1 of the license says, in relevant part: ... JetBrains grants You a non-exclusive and non-transferable right to use each Product covered by the Toolbox Subscription for non-commercial, educational purposes only (including conducting academic research or providing educational services) ... This would seem to confirm what the FAQ quoted above says. It is hard to see how any development intended as an eventual commercial product would be covered under such a license term. It would appear that a regular non-student license would be needed for such use.