Fabien <fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote in message
news:37EF5163.3E5F0138@skynet.be...
> Ken wrote:
>
> >   I again urge the involved parties to obtain informed information on
> > this subject. Specificaly of interest to your case would be sections
> > 2.8 and 2.9 at the URL listed below where it details a publishers fair
> > and reasonable right to publish material without the copyright holders
> > consent for educational purposes.
>
> The document clearly states "NON-PROFIT educational purposes", which is
> very different from "educational purposes".  For example, it could be
> a teacher using the image to illustrate a lesson, as a slide, or printed
> in something that the students get *at cost*.
>
> The Prenhall book is hardly in the "non-profit" category...

I agree with Fabien here: A book by Prentice Hall is not for "educational
purposes" it is to make profit (for P.H.). That this book is then used in an
educational environment is a different story.

If it had been a lecture-script, probably compiled by a professor or a
student and sold for only the costs of copying and distribution, now that
would be a different story.

BTW: I know that it can be very dangerous for an U.S. citizen to give legal
advice without beeing accredited at the bar, so people, look out and at
least add a "I am not a lawyer or attourney" to your posts in this thread.

Johannes (who isn't a lawyer or attourney, and who doesn't really care,
since he doesn't live in the US... ;-)

Post a reply to this message