On 6/10/03 5:44 PM, "Peter Suber" <peters=
At 04:42 PM 6/10/2003 -0400, you wr=
ote:Sorry I wasn’t more explicit=
. By “literature” I was thinking of creative writings, such as p=
oetry, fiction, drama, the texts of which do not get into the public domain =
for years (and the time has recently been increased further). Publishers con=
sider one poem a “complete” work (as opposed to a book of poems)=
, which means if you want to cite an entire poem, it is not considered fair =
use. I know this could be debated, but scholars tend not to be willing to ta=
ke on the publishers on their own. Even in scholarly articles, we have to pa=
y fees (e.g. $200 for one poem by Sylvia Plath), and the restrictions are he=
avy (no publishing elsewhere or loading on websites).
On 6/10/03 1:26 PM, "Stevan Ha=
rnad" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> So copyright is certainly not the problem.
That may be true for certain disciplines, but I can attest that in the
humanities, where we cite original literature, we find it expensive and
sometimes impossible to make our research internet accessible.
Could you elaborate on this a bit further? &n=
bsp;I can understand why art historians and art critics have problems.  =
;They want to reproduce entire works to illustrate their points. But I=
don't see any comparable problem for scholarship in literature, history, ph=
ilosophy, or religion. Citing original literature, and quoting passage=
s in fair use, do not violate copyright.
I can also see why copyright would thwart tho=
se who want to make anthologies or reprint whole works; but these problems a=
ffect all disciplines equally.