Is this ethical/legal as a muse?

[FrozenCanuck]

Guys & Gals,

I **think** this is totally legitimate but wanted to get your perspectives. I have an audio course that I am listening to for the 2nd time. It is about 12 hours of content. The material is good, but the sound quality is crap and the organization / summarization could be way better.

I was thinking about Coles Notes today and how they summarize books/topics/etc. I know the subject and I would be easily able to create a 1-2 hour audio course that summarizes the key learning points in this longer (crappier) audio course.

The course does VERY well on one of the big affiliate sites. Very well.

To be clear, the topic is not unique to the creator of the course. It is all very common knowledge and he just happens to be a known expert in the field, which explains why he can get away with crappy audio quality and still sell the course at a high price. So there would be no theft of material or anything like that. I'm skilled in this area and I could summarize with my own style.

How do you guys feel about a product called "A summary of ABC program", where I'd actually use the name of the product I'm summarizing in the title, to give full credit.

Obviously you could do this for any product of your choice too.

[sidsavara]

Don't know the legality of that specifically, but the concept of summarizing what are in other products and selling it as your own content I think would be a winner.

What might be more effective is providing affiliates with a sample letter comparing the two - perhaps even comparing outlines of the chapters/topics discussed. This way affiliates could promote your product while comparing it to the other.

Basically, if THEY do it in their marketing I think it's ok - but if you put it in the title, I'm not sure how legal that is.

[kamakiri]

Perfectly legal and fine. It falls under the realm of fair use. Also, you only need to change the content 20% and you are outside of copyright protection as well.

[clanshrapnel]

Contact the original owner of the work?

I don't think it would fly in most cases (I mean that's what royalties are for), but you never know.

Better you ask and find out now than to spend money/time, only to get sued later.

[webgal]

Sounds suspect to me. Mentioning the other product would be suicide. If he's a bigwig, he might come after you.

[AntonTheKhan]

Im surprised at your ignorance of basic copyright law, at least in the US.
There is no such legal protection as Fair Use. Fair Use is an excuse used by individuals or institutions to use copyrighted material without permission.

You can only claim a work as your own if it is in the public domain and is changed by 20%. A work in the public domain means that the copyright has expired and has not been renewed by the original owner, or the owner has been long dead.

So NO, it IS PERFECTLY NOT OK to do what the original poster is trying to do unless he/she is trying to get sued.


Perfectly legal and fine. It falls under the realm of fair use. Also, you only need to change the content 20% and you are outside of copyright protection as well.

[kamakiri]

google search of "fair use" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fair+use&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=)

First Result:Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)
Line 1: "Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law) that allows limited use of copyrighted material"

Second Result:U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)

Anton, please, there is a thing called google. Use it before hitting the keyboard. I believe the definition of ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance)- (Ignorance from the word ignore the condition of knowing something but refusing to take notice of it), applies more directly to your situation in this case.

That aside, clan has the best advice here. Contact the author and ask. They just might say yes.

[AntonTheKhan]

Sorry, didn't know you are a representative of the judicial system and you get to decide what is 'fair use' and what is not. In the case that the OP describes he cannot use 'fair use' criteria to protect himself from a lawsuit.

google search of "fair use" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fair+use&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=)

First Result:Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)
Line 1: "Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law) that allows limited use of copyrighted material"

Second Result:U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)

Anton, please, there is a thing called google. Use it before hitting the keyboard. I believe the definition of ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance)- (Ignorance from the word ignore the condition of knowing something but refusing to take notice of it), applies more directly to your situation in this case.

That aside, clan has the best advice here. Contact the author and ask. They just might say yes.

[FrozenCanuck]

Guys, quit you bickering and let's get back on track.

There is a lot of presedence for what I'm talking about doing. To recap, I'm talknig about taking an existing program and creating my own summary version of it.

Let's see where this has been done before. See the following two examples.

1) Coles Notes
2) www.summary.com (executive summaries of business books)

Now, say we were talking about Tim's book (4HWW). I would say that he has a LOT of material that is totally original and summarizing it may still be infringing on his copyright.

But in the case of the program I'm talking about it is simply a successful online program teaching concepts that have been in the public domain for a LONG TIME. The teacher is just a respected guy in the industry and so he can charge a lot.

I could take his same syllabus, and summarize the concepts with my own words, and my own examples.

Yes, the alternative is as sidsavara suggested. I could simply create a competitive program and use the same course outline, and make it short and to the point, 2 hrs instead of 12. Then I could sell it for far less, and I could get all existing affiliates to promote it ALONGSIDE the other program. I believe that could be successful. But I just wonder if I could market it as a coles notes version of the other guy's course. Like I said, key point here is that the material he teaches is NOT invented by him in any way shape or form. It is well known within the industry.

[FrozenCanuck]

Here is a resource I found:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/using-work-others

My sense is that, from reading this, it is perfectly legitimate to take somebody else's material and create a summary version of it so long as the summary version doesn't just cut/paste a bunch of stuff from the original. There is no reference to any rule such as 'change it 20% and you're OK", but they reference whether the work you do is "transformative".

I think that taking a syllabus of an audio course and explaining the key lessons in my own voice with my OWN explanations is very transformative and would pass any legal test. Sounds like I would even be allowed, legally, to cut/paste small portions of the original audio course in order to comment on it. Just like in the news.

[froldt]

Now, say we were talking about Tim's book (4HWW). I would say that he has a LOT of material that is totally original and summarizing it may still be infringing on his copyright.

But in the case of the program I'm talking about it is simply a successful online program teaching concepts that have been in the public domain for a LONG TIME. The teacher is just a respected guy in the industry and so he can charge a lot.

I could take his same syllabus, and summarize the concepts with my own words, and my own examples.

Sounds to me like you are trying to create a competitive/alternative product (same info, better formatting/use of time) and use his name as a selling point so that you can charge more.
If this is the case, I might suggest contacting the author and try to set up a joint deal. You "re-format" his advice and he sells it as the newer version. So that it is a newer version, add some new stuff if you can. Split the profits. You might not be getting as much money, but if he already has the name and the distribution channels set up, you'll be getting half of more money for less work.

[webgal]

People do this all the time. And it is a thick gray area. Trust me on that one. I've worked in an industry of TMs and circle c's my entire life and it is about as clear as freaking mud. You can't say X-Box in an ad. You're not supposed to reference brand names but use a generic. I can't use blackberry, I'd have to say PDA. Could I say crackberry? Sure, that's a slang name and not a brand. I can't say Liz Taylor unless I'm referencing another person other than the movie star and I have her permission.

I do know that if someone comes up with the cut of a diamond or a ring design, you can knock it off but not call it what the original was. But then again, how many asscher cuts and radiant cuts are out there and they are not either original asshcer cuts or original radiant cuts? A TON. Because there are so many copiers, the words/brands have become mainstream. A cutter will copy a radiant cut, he just can't call it an "original radiant cut" because it was not inspected at the original radiant cut factory by certified OR cutters to meet exact specifications.

Look at Coach purses. It's now illegal to make or sell knockoffs. It wasn't before or they didn't crack down on it. But it is now. This changes ALL THE TIME. It flips and flops. Twenty percent change will not cut it. You have to perform major surgery on the idea to make it your own to cover yourself if you're going to do some type of pseudo knock off. I've seen companies and individuals go after copiers. It's hell and I just spoke to a friend of mine yesterday who had inadvertently gotten mired in one of these lawsuits about 5 years ago to the tune of $100,000. And it was so little because his best friend was a lawyer and gave him a $900,000 break.

So TREAD LIGHTLY. It is not the sort of thing you go full steam ahead on because you could hit bankruptcy before you ever get started.

[Grayman]

Spend a couple hundred bucks and talk to a copyright lawyer? I certainly wouldn't take legal advice from this motley crew. ;)

[arobryn]

Find out how Cliff Notes does it.

Makes sense that you'd like to have the big name on the cover - if there's already lots of literature out there that's going to make yours stand out.

About the law suit, though - my opinion (not that I'm risking anything with it) is that you're safe. IF you catch someone's eye they'll likely send you a legal notice telling you to stop 'or else'. At which time you can decide what to do.

BMW did that with it's MINI Cooper cars. There are tons of little businesses selling tons of things for the new MINI Cooper. Many of them used "MINI" in their name. A couple years after it's release when these little businesses were established and making a tidy little income BMW sent a legal note to all saying "MINI" was trade marked and if they didn't stop using it they'd be sued. The big name scared them (as it would me) so they all changed their names, but continued their Google Adwords and if you do a search on "MINI T-shirts" you'll get all those little businesses. Hasn't hurt them a bit.

And I think the truth is it would cost the big guy too much to go after a little guy for no major return so they're hope you stop after a little threat.

But they can't stop you using Adwords.

As far as ethics... I don't know. If people buy it then you're filling a need (if you trick them into buying it that's different). Your aim is to hold true to the original author's book, just summarize. Sounds like a good service to me.