[free-sklyarov] AAP Position Paper on Scanning

[David Haworth]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 11:37:38AM +0400, Vladimir Katalov wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> http://www.publishers.org/home/abouta/copy/scanning.htm
> 
> > The AAP recognizes that there are acceptable uses of scanning
> > technology. We are concerned, however, that many of the activities
> > for which scanning is now being used are not among them, but are
> > instead infringements. The very attributes of simplicity, rapidity,
> > fidelity, and breadth of distribution and display that attract users
> > to scanning are hallmarks of its potential to devastate the creative
> > works that are the subject of the scanning. They are also indicators
> > that scanning of copyrighted works, if undertaken without
> > permission, is usually illegal.

Is there no end to the breathtaking arrogance of these people?

Just because scanning is easy doesn't mean it's illegal. Publishing
complete bullshit like the AAP often does is easy - but I don't see
the AAP presenting themselves for arrest at their nearest FBI office.

To be fair, the rest of the article does make some valid points, but
completely omits the myriad legal uses of scanning, and so comes to
a completely biased conclusion. And since, no doubt, this article
is the first shot in an attempt to regulate the sale of scanners,
it must not go unchallenged.

And the following paragraph is a complete distortion of the truth:

> Manipulation
> A digital version can be easily manipulated in a computer:
> content can be deleted, distorted or modified; identifying
> materials, information, and copyright ownership indicia can be
> separated from the page or removed. Manipulation can occur with
> both page images and digitized text. Distribution of the
> manipulated version compromises the reliability of the
> underlying work, does a disservice to the reader, and damages
> creators and copyright owners.

After a digital version has been so manipulated, it is no longer
the original work, and so whether is is still subject to the copyright
of the original author is debatable and will depend on several
factors, including:
 -  Is the modified work masquerading as the original work? If so,
    then I think most people would see this as a violation of copyright.
 -  Has the author of the new work correctly cited the parts of the
    original work that he has used? If not, it's plagiarism. If so,
    it might be considered fair use under many circumstances, depending
    on the nature of the new work (eg criticism) and the amount of
    cited material. If the new work is clearly a parody of the original,
    even the requirement for citation might be relaxed.

-- 
David Haworth
Baiersdorf, Germany
david.haworth at altavista.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20010927/9c0a0129/attachment.pgp