I don't believe it's a copyright problem. If it was, I'm sure we would have been notified by admin by now. I believe it falls under fair use.
The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, ex: a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use. Yet see Sony Corp v Universal City Studios for a case in which substantial copying—entire programs for private viewing—was upheld as fair use, at least when the copying is done for the purposes of time-shifting.
Likewise, see Kelly v Arriba Soft Corp, where the Ninth Circuit held that copying an entire photo to use as a thumbnail in online search results did not weigh against fair use, "if the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use". Conversely, in Harper & Row, Publishers Inc v Nation Enters,[13] the use of fewer than 400 words from President Ford's memoir by a political opinion magazine was interpreted as infringement because those few words represented "the heart of the book" and were, as such, substantial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_lawAlso: Come to the Buddhism Group:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1249
Aloha.
P.S. Don't post more than 4 paragraphs from any written source.
= new reply since forum marked as read
