I'm having trouble agreeing it's better to do a large amount of cutting, copying & pasting of others' information and putting it in here.

Would it not be better (& overall more courteous) not to copy & paste information published by others, but instead to provide specific links to the real information on the site, along with an indication of what information you're providing links to?

NOTE: I have cut these posts off of the ISO 9000 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's) (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=21620) thread because they are far afield of Sidney's post and as such deserve to be in their own thread.

Marc

I'm having trouble agreeing it's better to do a large amount of cutting, copying & pasting of others' information and putting it in here.

Would it not be better (& overall more courteous) not to copy & paste information published by others, but instead to provide specific links to the real information on the site, along with an indication of what information you're providing links to?
FYI:
One of the few things folks with high speed internet connections often ignore is the fact many others are saddled with slow dial up connections and small amounts of RAM, making it inconvenient and difficult to flip back and forth to new links.

A second situation which is often neglected is that a number of sites may have restricted access or are rigged to disallow "direct drilling" to the cited page, forcing non-registered visitors to register (free or fee makes no difference - still inconvenient.)

The third situation (the one which causes the most consternation to administrators and moderators of sites like the Cove) is the frequent revision of websites, causing the links to be dead and generate 404 errors ("page not found"), resulting in a flurry of emails, pms, and posts excoriating the original poster and moderators for allowing a dead link to inconvenience a visitor. As time progresses (the Cove is more than ten years old, after all), the likelihood of a link being dead increases exponentially.

A second situation which is often neglected is that a number of sites may have restricted access or are rigged to disallow "direct drilling" to the cited page, forcing non-registered visitors to register (free or fee makes no difference - still inconvenient.)


:topic: For this issue, there's a solution that takes away some of the inconvenience. It's called Bugmenot, (http://www.bugmenot.com/) and it provides shared, preexisting logins for popular free sites that require them. There's information on how to use it at the linked site, and for Firefox users, there's an extension that allows you to use the function within the browser, rather than going to the Bugmenot site.

Edit: There's also a facility at the Bugmenot site for providing a free temporary e-mail address (http://email.bugmenot.com/), in case the site that makes you register also requires e-mail confirmation and you don't want to use your real e-mail. Bugmenot will store any messages sent to the address for 24 hours, which is long enough to receive and reply to the confirmation request.

FYI:
One of the few things folks with high speed internet connections often ignore is the fact many others are saddled with slow dial up connections and small amounts of RAM, making it inconvenient and difficult to flip back and forth to new links.

Would that in Australia we DID have high speed net connections. What is called broadband here would be a laughing stock in the rest of the world. And yes, that makes things a pain at times, and yes, it means waiting for data to load. Well, if that's the situation, then that IS the situation.

Sorry all, but I have to disagree on this one. I do appreciate very much the desire to inform & to help, & I also can understand the desire to post what is clearly useful material in order to achieve that end. But copyright is still copyright.

I remain professionally uncomfortable with the wholesale cutting & pasting of what is really quite huge amounts of text from someone else's website and posting it in this one. OK, it's been referenced. But the fact remains that it is just grabbing OP's *copyright* material & posting it this site.

Or was permission to do so actually sought & given, as per ISO's very specific request: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/xsite/copyright.html

Would that in Australia we DID have high speed net connections. What is called broadband here would be a laughing stock in the rest of the world. And yes, that makes things a pain at times, and yes, it means waiting for data to load. Well, if that's the situation, then that IS the situation.

Sorry all, but I have to disagree on this one. I do appreciate very much the desire to inform & to help, & I also can understand the desire to post what is clearly useful material in order to achieve that end. But copyright is still copyright.

I remain professionally uncomfortable with the wholesale cutting & pasting of what is really quite huge amounts of text from someone else's website and posting it in this one. OK, it's been referenced. But the fact remains that it is just grabbing OP's *copyright* material & posting it this site.

Or was permission to do so actually sought & given, as per ISO's very specific request: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/xsite/copyright.htmlSome folks are aware I spend a LOT of time adjudicating "fair use" issues of copyrighted material here on the Cove and elsewhere.

In brief, a copyright holder normally only prevails in a court of law when challenging "fair use" by anyone when the copyright holder can demonstrate he/she/it is deprived of income because the ""fair use" claimant deprives the copyright holder of income by making the material content available.

In the instance where Sidney has extensively copied the material which is offered for free on the ISO website, ISO does not have a cause of action for money damages and the case would be dismissed on petition of the fair use claimant.

Here is an educational site which says much the same thing
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

Note especially this statement:
The only guidance is provided by a set of fair use factors outlined in the copyright law. These factors are weighed in each case to determine whether a use qualifies as a fair use. For example, one important factor is whether your use will deprive the copyright owner of income. Unfortunately, weighing the fair use factors is often quite subjective. For this reason, the fair use road map is often tricky to navigate.

Some folks are aware I spend a LOT of time adjudicating "fair use" issues of copyrighted material here on the Cove and elsewhere.

And some folks aren't. :tg:
Wes, I have a very high opinion of the help you provide and your stance on many topics. But while I looked at the reference you provide, I don't see that it supports this use. (And my question wasn't about whether this use would 'prevail in a court of law' or not. I'm talking about whether it's use is right, not whether lawyers would win the case.)

ISO is very specific on its Copyright (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/xsite/copyright.html) topic that the material in ISO online is subject to the same law of copyright as their Standards & other publication. And states its position thus:

Any use of the material, including reproduction in whole or in part to another Internet site, requires permission in writing from ISO.

The Stanford link (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html)provided says fair use is only one of the factors to be taken into account - not the only factor. It also says this about 'fair use':

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work.

The use of the copied material pasted into the sticky thread isn't copied in to comment upon, or to illustrate a point of view or a position. It's apparently pasted in because having it there is seen as having a useful resource. IMO that isn't fair use, nor in line with the prohibition ISO makes. And presumably ignored their request to seek written permission first. Why?

I have a website for my own company. I make that information available for free. But I write everything that is on there. I'm quite aware that many people can & probably do take the information and use it to add to their store of knowledge. That's fine with me - plenty of people have helped me, and I'm happy to share it around. As a consultant, I get asked the same questions over and over too - just as people do in these Forums. Having some of that info on my website helps to save me from answering the same questions people ask, over and over (doesn't always stop them asking! :D.) But I didn't just go and find a whole lot of useful info somewhere else and and publish it on my own site.

And I also know that if I came across a site on the internet that had simply pinched a whole chunk of material from my website without so much as a 'this OK by you?' and then posted it in theirs , I'd be distinctly underwhelmed, peeved, and take it as a breach of copyright, quite regardless of whether it constituted a loss of income or not.

I don't see merit in the argument that ISO would lose the case if it went to court. That's not the whole issue, surely? Whether one should or has an ethical right to do this copying in this particular case is the issue at hand. And this particular one feels really wrong to me.

But in this one, your opinion differs widely from mine, & I respect that. Perhaps one of those 'must agree to disagree' situations.

I don't see merit in the argument that ISO would lose the case if it went to court. That's not the whole issue, surely? Whether one should or has an ethical right to do this copying in this particular case is the issue at hand. And this particular one feels really wrong to me.


I'm seeing substantial merit in both points of view here, and I think Jane's reference to the clear ISO statement regarding copying is significant, regardless of its legal standing. At the same time, I'm not sure how ISO is being harmed by the copying in question, and surely there's a "greater good" consideration when it comes to such things. Nonetheless, I think we would be well served by having ISO's opinion on the matter, and honoring it as a matter of courtesy, if nothing else.

Hello Fellow Covers,

Thank you Sidney, Randy, Wes, Jane and Jim for the excellent and very meaningful and respectful discussion about the use of (ISO site and/or other) information. A breath of fresh air compared to some other (heated) discussions we have on The Cove lately. I look forward to this type of discussion on The Cove.

Thanks Again!

Stijloor.

I'm seeing substantial merit in both points of view here, and I think Jane's reference to the clear ISO statement regarding copying is significant, regardless of its legal standing. At the same time, I'm not sure how ISO is being harmed by the copying in question, and surely there's a "greater good" consideration when it comes to such things. Nonetheless, I think we would be well served by having ISO's opinion on the matter, and honoring it as a matter of courtesy, if nothing else.

Dear Jim,
I am in full agreement with you that Jane's stand is right from ethical stand point,legality not withstanding.At times,right has to be sacrificed for a greater cause,perticularly if the intrest of the owner is not harmed.
As for approaching the ISO for opinion will be like awaking a sleeping giant.
Their stand will predictably be against copying.Will everyone stop copying,
once so ruled?I have serious doubts.
Umang:agree1:

One of the important concepts of FAIR USE is the user does NOT have to ask permission from the copyright holder.

Once permission is granted, the matter is removed from fair use consideration. If permission is asked and denied, the petitioner may have injured a major part of its potential defense - that of "honest belief it is engaging in fair use."

It may be impossible for me or most folks to condense the ins and outs of fair use in any reasonable form, short of conducting an entire course (some law schools have done this in the past) on the topic.

In lieu of that, most organizations (schools, media, textbook publishers, etc.) which employ fair use copying of copyrighted material issue guidelines to employees on what to avoid in such copying to prevent triggering a successful lawsuit from copyright holder.

No educational institution worth its salt would allow itself to be bullied by a threat of a lawsuit which the suer could not win. For profit media and textbook publishers might apply different yardsticks, choosing to factor in the possibility of adverse publicity as part of their guidelines.

Here in the Cove, we deny posting of any copyrighted material which is offered for sale by the copyright holder. Most other material may be allowed if it has a strong educational or reference use for Quality issues for our Cove readers. We have previously discussed issues which concern mere links to other material.

Like some of our Covers who have publicly or privately commented on the direction of this thread I am pleased to clear the air and give as clear a factual account of the issues as I can.

As for approaching the ISO for opinion will be like awaking a sleeping giant.
Their stand will predictably be against copying.Will everyone stop copying,
once so ruled?I have serious doubts.
Umang:agree1:

I think that if ISO wouldn't consider a polite request, they would have just said "No copying," without the "without written permission" part. I have no dog in this hunt, and I don't think that the posting as it stands hurts anyone, and might be helpful to many, so I don't see any point in taking it down. I think we need to avoid playing lawyer here, though. This really isn't a legal issue until someone complains, and I'm not sure it's even an ethical issue. The whole subject of ethics is too full of subjectivity to be useful in a case like this. I think it boils down to whether or not we feel it's courteous to ask for permission when someone has clearly stated that they want to be asked.

I think that if ISO wouldn't consider a polite request, they would have just said "No copying," without the "without written permission" part. I have no dog in this hunt, and I don't think that the posting as it stands hurts anyone, and might be helpful to many, so I don't see any point in taking it down. I think we need to avoid playing lawyer here, though. This really isn't a legal issue until someone complains, and I'm not sure it's even an ethical issue. The whole subject of ethics is too full of subjectivity to be useful in a case like this. I think it boils down to whether or not we feel it's courteous to ask for permission when someone has clearly stated that they want to be asked.

Thanks jim.Since it is not "No copying" I stand corrected.:agree1:

Interesting.

So, to summarise the facts:

1. The material in question was not written or created in the Cove.
2. The material is owned by ISO, who wrote, or caused to be written, the information.
3. The owner, ISO, has been very explicit in the use of their material, and set very explicit restrictions (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/xsite/copyright.html) on the use of material from its website including (bold added):

All rights reserved. The material on ISO Online is subject to the same conditions of copyright as ISO publications... use is subject to the user's acceptance of ISO's conditions of copyright for ISO publications, as set out below. Any use of the material, including reproduction in whole or in part to another Internet site, requires permission in writing from ISO....

Requests should be addressed to the ISO Central Secretariat


4. You are aware of this Copyright statement. You have not complied with it, nor apparently intend to do so.
5. You have a wide range of reasons for not doing this, from the difficulty of maintaining links, to the use of said material is 'fair use'.

Sorry, but I disagree on all your arguments.

I think it's not just courtesy (that's part of it). I do think there's a matter of principle involved. I'm disappointed that the Cove condones this, allows it to be done, and allows this kind of example to be set.

Possibly if the head office of ISO was in the USA, and thus you were both subject to the same law, I might take a different point of view. But using a USA law to justify your use of their material? No.

Perhaps it's because it's 'just electronic info', and it's so easy to take that people sometimes treat it with less respect for ownership than physical product?

You claim fair use. I've looked at the Stanford site (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html)you reference, which has this to say about fair use (italics mine):

Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: commentary and criticism; or parody.

1. Comment and Criticism

If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work--for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:


quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.
The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. Additional examples of commentary or criticism are provided in the examples of fair use cases in Section C.

2. Parody

A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to "conjure up" the original.

The only example I see that might come close is the 'copying of a few paragraphs by a teacher'... but this copying goes beyond that to a LOT of paragraphs, which is the main thing I object to.

You're comfortable with it being done, and bring up an enormous range of arguments which seem to boil down to 'they'd lose a legal case'. I'm not, and wouldn't do it. I simply don't see there's any difference between this grabbing & pasting large chunks of material into one's own website and doing the same in a book or a magazine, whether or not you give that book/magazine away. And arguments along the line of 'well, if did the right thing it wouldn't stop other folks copying/stealing' are immaterial, and the top of a very slippery slope.

Clearly, you perceive a benefit to the Cove in having the material permananently available. You use the material because of the perceived benefit in the Cover posting large chunks of the information in this website. (Otherwise, presumably it wouldn't be done).

But you aren't commenting or critiquing on the material - you're just using it for its benefits, aren't you? Because it saves you writing your own? Because it makes it easy to point newbies at? Because it's good stuff to have around? I can see all these points, and they're all laudable. But then, the road to hell is paved with them good intentions. :)

I think it would be polite (at least) to accede to their very clearly stated request - and ask them for permission.

WHy not do that? After all, they might come back to you and say 'no problems, use away, we think you're doing a wonderful job educating people out there about the Standards and we're quite happy for you to do this'. Or they might not.

To argue that you don't need to do that because they might say no and thus it might prejudice any legal case simply leaves me speechless. (though only temporarily probably :-)

The Moderators have reviewed the posts in question and at this time I do not see an issue. The ISO folks are well aware of this site and have been for years. They have, in the past, asked me to remove certain content. When they ask me to remove content (the last time was back around 1999, if I remember correctly), I do it (as I will for anyone complaining of copyright violations).

As to Sidney's 'Cut and Pastes', I admit it's a toss up which, if the ISO folks asked me to remove I would/will without hesitation. I seriously doubt, however, they will get excited about their FAQ being reproduced elsewhere including here. In addition, the links in the copied material are to the appropriate ISO web site pages so the original is cited throughout the 'Cut and Paste' posts.

If the ISO folks were making a profit off of the FAQ this would be an entirely different issue.

In part I am replying in this thread to sort of cool things out a bit. Some people are more emotional about copyright than others.

For the sake of argument along this subject line nearly every provider of training, whether large or small and using Jane's reasoning, is violating copyright. Everyone of them will cut-and-paste from a standard into their training material.

Continuing . . . I am a frequent "cut-and-paster" here in the cove. Many of the standards I reference were purchased by DSEQ, Inc., for our use as we deemed applicable and necessary for providing training, information, and assistance to our clients and/or others we have a relationship with. The "Fair Use" doctrine allows us to use, but not abuse, as long as we give credit and not offer for sale the document itself.

Part of my graduate degree studies required a course in international business law, a large portion of which dealt with copyright and patent law and protection. Additionally, as a qualified paralegal in business law, copyright and patent rights were a fairly good portion of the training I took as well. With regards to the copyright, as long as credit is provided and the "material" itself is not offered for sale, brief use of it may be incorporated into other published material...no harm, no foul.

Just so you all know: since Jane is soooooooooooooooo uncomfortable with the whole situation, I contacted ISO about my posts and copying of the information on to the Cove. I sent them a message last Sunday, June 24th and have not received any reply yet.

If it so happens that ISO tells me that we can't do what I have been doing, I will stop the practice right away and make Jane happy, while hundreds of other Covers won't be too pleased.

If ISO really wanted people not to be able to copy information from their website, there are easy ways to set up webpages in a way that copying material is automatically prohibited.

Sidney is so right! Everything from sales brochures to training material has cut-and-paste from the ISO site. They put the information out for a reason.....to get the information out!

Hello Fellow Covers,

Thank you Sidney, Randy, Wes, Jane and Jim for the excellent and very meaningful and respectful discussion about the use of (ISO site and/or other) information. A breath of fresh air compared to some other (heated) discussions we have on The Cove lately. I look forward to this type of discussion on The Cove.

Thanks Again!

Stijloor.

Hello Covers,

I was initially encouraged and very pleased with the way the dialogue in this thread was going. Now, I am not so sure anymore......
Please people, nobody gains from going after each other. We as quality professionals should set an example of what good dialogue should be. This forum is about learning from each other and helping others who also want to learn. Regrettably, I noticed that in some threads, participants are more interested in scoring intellectual (or semi-intellectual) touch-downs than engaging in meaningful and positive dialogue. Let's show the Covers that we can do better!

Stijloor.

For the sake of argument along this subject line nearly every provider of training, whether large or small and using Jane's reasoning, is violating copyright. Everyone of them will cut-and-paste from a standard into their training material.

You make a good point, Randy. Thanks for pointing it out, and enabling me to clarify. (That's the thing about debates, BTW, they're so useful in forcing one to be clear. One extended debate with someone on this forum - not you, dear Randy! - helped me reach a viewpoint of clarity on something I was really pleased to reach.)

OK, let's go back to the 'fair use' principle. Indeed, I have quoted words from Standards myself in this forum & out of it, both very briefly and in order to comment, illustrate and/or make a point or an argument.

But I am not, and have not, argued the point about those uses.

I am contending that the particular use in this particular instance is not in that category. It is wholesale cutting & pasting & the using of many (not 'a few') paragraphs. There is no comment upon them, nor discussion - beyond:
I mastered the ancient art of "cut&paste"

I have great respect for the excellent work done in the Cove and the willingness of so many people across the globe to be so generous with their time and experience to help others. I am neither asking nor demanding things done to make me 'happy' - indeed to imply or state this is either misinterpreting or miscontruing what I have said. Nor am I attacking or criticising any person. I am focussing on an issue - and there is a difference between the two (ie, criticising an issue, not a person).

I am raising a principle and querying this particularuse of quoting. That very specific use in that specific instance, and not a widespread attack on any quoting whatsoever.

I think there's a very important principle involved, and I'm a bit dismayed that it seems to be lost among the storm of justification & disagreement and slightly spurious justifications.

Finally, I am fully aware that this is not a 'popular' viewpoint, in fact an uncomfortable one in some ways. While I would prefer not to find myself opposing some people whose opinions I otherwise respect, my own ethics, both personal and professional, don't include only doing things that are popular. For me, to stay silent is to condone, and when I believe something is really wrong, I say so. That's all. Feel free to disagree - people have - or agree - again, others have. That's what a forum is for, surely, to discuss?

But surely also one can do this with professionalism and courtesy? One can disagree with a viewpoint without resorting to denigrating the other person? Because not all of the responders are.

I see no reason for resorting to sarcasm or personal attacks when points of view differ. Let's stay on the issue itself, yes? And courteous?

By all means, continue the conversation, but I want to say a few things.
Wow! way to load the sarcasm on. Although you disagree with her stance I think you should respect her passion for doing the "right" thing.
I don't think that this comment was necessary. I see no significant sarcasm, but in any event joining in the fray is just as bad as being the first to be 'sarcastic'. It just keeps the tit-for-tat going. Sidney contacted the ISO folks, and, as I said, they do monitor the site from time to time. They have contacted me about content in the past, and although that was quite a while ago, I'm sure they will not hesitate to let me know if there is an issue.

In the future, I ask anyone with a copyright complaint to contact me (or a moderator) and let me handle it, rather than to bring it up in the forum thread leading to what will almost always be a contentious discussion. The only time that is permissible is when someone posts a copyrighted document in its entirety such as a standard, and even then it should be a moderator or me making any comments within the discussion thread. The moderators and I discuss potential copyright issues quite often. Sometimes the material is deleted, sometimes it's not, as every case is different. Regulars know we do try to keep things 'legal' here as is evidenced in many discussion threads where people ask for someone to post or send them copyrighted material and we respond that posting such material is not allowed.

If a person reports a suspected copyright violation to me, is passionate about a copyright issue and is not happy with my action (such as if I do not remove the content), the person can contact the copyright holder and advise them that their content has been copied here. I have no problem with that. But from that point on its in the hands of the holder of the copyright to contact me about the issue and its up to us to resolve the issue.

I understand Jane's concern, but Jane should have communicated her concern over copyright violation to me, either by using the "Report this Post" button http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/buttons/report.gif or by PM, or by email, and let me handle it, rather than derail the thread by changing the discussion to the thread content with respect to copyright.

Everyone should understand it is ultimately my 'problem' as to what people post in the forums. And as I wrote above, if the ISO folks are unhappy they will contact me. If they ask that the content be removed, I will do so usually within a few hours of receiving the complaint, just as I would do for any valid copyright complaint.

Also see Copyright Copyrighted Documents / Materials and Related Issues (http://elsmar.com/Forums/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_posting_copyright_materials).

One point of contention has always been "What are the limits of fair use?" This particular point has been argued probably since the beginning and not truly resolved...kinda like "What is pornography?" What it is to one may very well be different to another.

Would our original thoughts that we place here in this medium be protected by copyrite? (Spelled it correct didn't I Wes?) Or better yet, could our original thoughts that we place here in this medium be protected by copyrite?

Interesting idea to ponder.

Technically, anyone who has lent a book, magazine, standard or other 'document' they bought to someone else to read is 'guilty' of depriving the copyright holder of their 'due profit' if one wants to address the issue in a broader sense.

Randy: From the TOS (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8831):

5. CONTENT RIGHTS

a. You also agree that you understand that any posts you make, including any attachments to discussion thread posts, are made into 'The Public Domain'. Neither I, nor you, can make any claim of 'Copyright' ownership of any post or attachments herein - even your own. Posting or attaching a file to a post implies your consent to distribution from this site without restriction. These forums are open to everyone on the internet and are meant to be a resource for exchanging ideas and information - not a source of legal problems.

b. However, you may not copy any post(s) and/or download post attachments and distribute, or use, or sell them for profit. Doing so requires the express written consent of the person who posted the post and/or file attached to the post.

I had contacted Marc & the moderators previously on copyright issues through the 'complaints' button provided and received postive response. One of the last was when someone posted an 'open' version of standard meant for universities. Scott Catron responded and informed me that the post was removed after deliberations.

I thank those who participated initially - Jane, Wes and Jim. None of them are wrong. Their difference is just in the extend one is willing to 'stretched' in the interpretation of the term copyright and each had stated their views and articulate their arguments well. The key here is we must agree to disagree.

Now that Marc had made his stand clear and also make known that he is not 'sleeping' on this issue, we should stop arguing any more. Otherwise it would look as if one is trying to impose their views on him - which I am sure, nobody had that intention.

If you have any issues in future, please use the 'complains' button mentioned by Marc. I can vouched that it works.

One point of contention has always been "What are the limits of fair use?" This particular point has been argued probably since the beginning and not truly resolved...kinda like "What is pornography?" What it is to one may very well be different to another.

Would our original thoughts that we place here in this medium be protected by copyrite? (Spelled it correct didn't I Wes?) Or better yet, could our original thoughts that we place here in this medium be protected by copyrite?

Interesting idea to ponder.Close enough for government work!:lmao:

I want to mention that ISO online states:

6.3 Can I reproduce material from this site?
We're glad you find it useful! Much of the material may be reproduced with appropriate permission and acknowledgement. See the ISO copyright guide for information about copyright.So, by providing the source link, I comply with the "acknowledgement" aspect. I am waiting to hear back from ISO on my enquiry to see what kind of permission, if any, they will grant.

ISO, just like most progressive organizations, benefit from increased traffic in their website. The Cove has directly and indirectly provided useful hits to ISO online. If they decide that "cutting and pasting" is not allowed, they would lose web traffic, as well. So, they have a vested interest to make a balanced decision. I would hope that they have the necessary resources to review the large number of permission requests they should receive, if they truly enforce their copyright guide, or they change it to a more realistic one.

Copyright policies set by unchallenged legal advisers tend to be extremely restrictive just for the sake of being as conservative as possible. But hard to manage, in the real world. The fact that I have not received a response yet makes me question if the slow permission review process is making ISO customers and stakeholders unhappy. :cool:. After all, they are certified to ISO 9001.

The fact that I have not received a response yet makes me question if the slow permission review process is making ISO customers and stakeholders unhappy. :cool:. After all, they are certified to ISO 9001.

I had occasion to ask ISO permission to reproduce one of their forms. It took a while but they did respond. Their permission gave me the impression they were enthusiastic about their material being used for educational purposes. My experience with them prompts me to agree with Sidney that permission will be forthcoming. I must add that I like that Sidney has requested permission. Access to certain parts of publications/documents will certainly be a welcome resource to the Cove.

Dave

Here is a link to the ISO brochure on Copyrights.

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/ISOstore/pdf/Copyright_information_brochure.pdf

Stijloor.

Here is a link to the ISO brochure on Copyrights.

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/ISOstore/pdf/Copyright_information_brochure.pdf

Stijloor.This entire tract at the link provided by Stijloor is strictly concerned with documents (Standards) sold by ISO.

This entire tract at the link provided by Stijloor is strictly concerned with documents (Standards) sold by ISO.

Hello Wes,

Thank you for your note; but that was my intent.

Stijloor.

After waiting for over a week with no reply, I contacted an ISO representative that I communicate with, from time to time. He replied back to me with the following:

Dear Mr. Vianna,

You're welcome to post such material from the ISO Web site on condition that you request permission for the specific material first and clearly indicate ISO's Web site as the source, with a link to the Web site. Looking at the material you had posted, it wasn't always clear to me which material came from ISO and which material was developed by you.

Thank you for the exposure you're giving to our material and thanks for contacting me on this.So, basically, he confirmed the copyright policies we already knew. Since I did not ask for permission from ISO to post the ISO 9000 and 14000 FAQ's, I believe that Marc should delete my posts with the ISO FAQ's, and if anyone is willing to, go through the proper channels in the right sequence.

After waiting for over a week with no reply, I contacted an ISO representative that I communicate with, from time to time. He replied back to me with the following:

[LEFT]So, basically, he confirmed the copyright policies we already knew. Since I did not ask for permission from ISO to post the ISO 9000 and 14000 FAQ's, I believe that Marc should delete my posts with the ISO FAQ's, and if anyone is willing to, go through the proper channels in the right sequence.
How about name, rank, and serial number of the "source?" Without that, it is only "anecdotal" info - certainly contrary to my understanding of requirements for documentation compliant with ISO Standards.

As the original poster, YOU always have the right to request deletion of material. Personally, I would hope you would wait until you got a response through the "official" channel you started with. Patience in this case is definitely a desired virtue.

Since I did not ask for permission from ISO to post the ISO 9000 and 14000 FAQ's, I believe that Marc should delete my posts with the ISO FAQ's, and if anyone is willing to, go through the proper channels in the right sequence.

Good idea, Sidney, I agree.

The sequence is clearly defined by ISO and confirmed by your contact: ie, ask first, post second (presuming permission is given). Not the other way around.

That the source was referenced was never at issue. Not seeking permission was.

How about name, rank, and serial number of the "source?" Without that, it is only "anecdotal" info - certainly contrary to my understanding of requirements for documentation compliant with ISO Standards.

As the original poster, YOU always have the right to request deletion of material. Personally, I would hope you would wait until you got a response through the "official" channel you started with. Patience in this case is definitely a desired virtue.

Thank you Wes.:yes:

After waiting for over a week with no reply, I contacted an ISO representative that I communicate with, from time to time. He replied back to me with the following:

Dear Mr. Vianna,

You're welcome to post such material from the ISO Web site on condition that you request permission for the specific material first and clearly indicate ISO's Web site as the source, with a link to the Web site. Looking at the material you had posted, it wasn't always clear to me which material came from ISO and which material was developed by you.

Thank you for the exposure you're giving to our material and thanks for contacting me on this.So, basically, he confirmed the copyright policies we already knew. Since I did not ask for permission from ISO to post the ISO 9000 and 14000 FAQ's, I believe that Marc should delete my posts with the ISO FAQ's, and if anyone is willing to, go through the proper channels in the right sequence.
I'll amend the posts to indicate none of it is Sidney's 'material', and wait for a 'Take Down' request from the ISO folks before I delete them. In their reply they thank Sidney for "...the exposure..." so my bet is they are not at all unhappy that the 'material' is posted and will not ask. If they were unhappy I believe they would have said so in their reply and, I'm also betting, they would have notified me by now with an official 'Take Down' request.

I'll amend the posts to indicate none of it is Sidney's 'material', and wait for a 'Take Down' request from the ISO folks before I delete them. In their reply they thank Sidney for "...the exposure..." so my bet is they are not at all unhappy that the 'material' is posted and will not ask. If they were unhappy I believe they would have said so in their reply and, I'm also betting, they would have notified me by now with an official 'Take Down' request.

Hi buddy

The stand taken by you is 'Down-to-Earth'and LAUDABLE :applause::lol::applause:
Thnx for taking the right stand
Umang :thanks:

The ISO (and ISO Online) websites just underwent a significant re-design. It is likely that some of the hyperlinked information in our posts will no longer be available.

If you find any broken links in posts, please use the Report This Post button to let me know so I can revise the post and take the link out.

If you find any broken links in posts, please use the Report This Post button to let me know so I can revise the post and take the link out.or replace it with an equivalent one (same material updated on a different page)

or replace it with an equivalent one (same material updated on a different page)
Well, yes - If you're a moderator who can edit any post and will take the time to do that, it will be appreciated. Registered visitors will have to use the Report This Post 'button' at the top of the post.

This is, by the way, appreciated any time anyone finds an invalid (dead or 404) link in any post in any discussion thread. Dead links don't help anyone and it has been theorized that dead links tend to lower search engine rankings.