jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (17 posts)

copyright and quotes for 'educational' use..

  1. DzyMsLizzy profile image97
    DzyMsLizzyposted 2 years ago

    I am writing a new hub, with an educational intent, and I would like to include, in its entirety, a very brief poem by Dorothy Parker.

    The latest copyright date  by her is 1956.  (She died in 1967.)
    The current copyright is Penguin Books, 2006.

    Can this poem be used in my article under the educational rule, or should I write to Penguin Books for permission?

    1. lisavollrath profile image95
      lisavollrathposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      It's still under copyright, and including a poem in a commercial article, even with educational intent, does not fall under Fair Use. (Remember, you are getting paid as a writer, not as a teacher.) You should write to Penguin for permission.

      1. DzyMsLizzy profile image97
        DzyMsLizzyposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Ok--I kind of figured as much, so I've already sent for the permission.  However, I thought the 'commercial' use meant actually using the segment/page/quote or what have you, as a stand-alone way to make money.
        The fact that it's to be buried in an article with no commercial intent (I'm not trying to sell anything--it's a purely educational article), and the ads (so often unrelated to the content!) are what pay me, it seemed as if it should skate by.
        Sigh...things are so damned complicated all the time.  Hopefully, they will grant permission, and I can use the actual poem instead of just linking to it.  I don't like links that take the reader off my pages!

        1. bravewarrior profile image93
          bravewarriorposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          The fact that you're posting the poem in its entirety falls under the plagiarism rules unless permission is obtained. You'll have to site the source and give attribution to the proper entity, along with a statement that you have permission to post it. Regardless of what other text is in the post, it (the poem) is being used for commercial purposes since you get paid for each page view.

        2. lisavollrath profile image95
          lisavollrathposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Going forward, assume that everything you write on HubPages is for commercial intent. If you get paid, by whatever means, it's commercial.

        3. Marisa Wright profile image98
          Marisa Wrightposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I think it's pretty clear.  If you are writing an article for commercial purposes, anything you use within the article must be legal to use for commercial purposes.   That includes poems and photos.

      2. LillyGrillzit profile image80
        LillyGrillzitposted 2 years agoin reply to this


    2. relache profile image91
      relacheposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Even with permission you are going to have a lot of issues with this Hub due to the content duplication. Personally, I feel this is not a good content fit for this site.

      1. DzyMsLizzy profile image97
        DzyMsLizzyposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        GAH!  What a royal PITA!!  I guess I'll just end up putting only a link, then, even if I do get permission.... but that is so unsatisfactory....

        1. SheilaMilne profile image96
          SheilaMilneposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          If it's short enough, maybe you could add it as an image.

          1. SmartAndFun profile image96
            SmartAndFunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            +1, as long as you are granted permission from the copyright holder.

          2. DzyMsLizzy profile image97
            DzyMsLizzyposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Ah--that might work; good idea--that gets past the 'duplicate content' filter!
            (And yes, it is very short!)
            I await the permission, so that hub is on hold.

  2. DzyMsLizzy profile image97
    DzyMsLizzyposted 2 years ago


    Well, I have heard back from Penguin Group, and it is not looking good.  Instead of giving me either outright permission, or a straight denial, they have sent a letter requesting additional information.

    The very nature of the questions leads me to believe it will end up a denial, anyway, as they have asked question neither I nor anyone else would be able to answer!  Here  is their list of "requested information":

    --Indicate the total number of anticipated users  (WTH??!!  No one here has a crystal ball!)

    --Is this a for profit or non profit site?  (Yeah..I guess it is 'for profit.')

    --Do you wish to allow the end-user to print or otherwise reproduce multiple copies of this material?  (Really??  It's online!  I have no control over that!)

    --Is site subscriber-access, password-protected?  (DUH--no)

    --What is the date (mm/dd/yyyy) of your initial release:  (Hell if I know--that depends on YOUR reply!)

    So, I guess that's that!  If it looked more promising, I'd go forward, but this looks more like they are looking for reasons to deny, or charge me a fee I couldn't afford anyway, so eff it--I'll just put a link. 
    I'm not going to play games and jump through 10K hoops just to get turned down. I've sent a politely worded e-mail to that effect. 
    I have better things to do with what little energy I have right now.

  3. stephenteacher profile image75
    stephenteacherposted 2 years ago

    The U.S. has clear ways of using copyrighted material. If you follow those rules, you are fine...outside of HUB. If HUB determines it's too much duplicate material, they may close it down, even if you follow the rules. I don't agree with most duplicate content hysteria, as google and the web are chock full of duplicate material. Every big site from yahoo to amazon, New York TImes, etc. uses duplicate, copied material...no big deal.

    I choose to stick with hub, so I choose to follow their rules, guidelines, and decisions. Make no mistake about that.

    I think most people would be amazed at how much and how you can readily use copyrighted material. Commentary, news, satire, etc. all following the many, diverse rules on copyrighted material.

    Off topic, but more than half the world could care less about US laws.

    1. DzyMsLizzy profile image97
      DzyMsLizzyposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      That is so very true, and I agree about the "duplicate content hysteria."  As you  say, the WWW is chock full of it.  Even on Google, so, IMO, HP has a hard time defending their position as being based on what Google wants/likes.

      It is also true that many other countries routinely copy all manner of written content without regard to copyright laws; they are unaffected and cannot be prosecuted by our laws, so they simply don't care.

      As for my predicament, as you can see from my update, they wanted answers to questions for which there are no reasonable answers!  It's a dodge around a direct 'no.'
      That's okay:  the material is already out there at various sites online, and I'll simply link to it!  A virtual nose-thumbing, if you will.  And, realistically, once you publish something publicly online, you really do lose control over it, so all of this uproar is a lot of tilting at windmills.

  4. psycheskinner profile image84
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    The internet is indeed "full of" duplicate content.  And Google penalizes it by heavily reducing the ranking of all but one copy (their best guess as to which is the original) when they detect it.

    Thus letting people posy duplicate content without any limitations would negatively effect Hubpages by loading it with a lot of low value material.

    1. DzyMsLizzy profile image97
      DzyMsLizzyposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I'm in no way suggesting that posting duplicate content is a good idea; I'm merely pointing out that people all over the world do it anyway, and that once you post something online, you have really lost any control over what happens next.  People are going to do what they are going to do, and other countries do not care about and are not bound by our laws.