Legal status of Xenu story I'm in the process of writing something and have a concern. the Church is known for threatening and/or carrying out legal action against those who publish the Xenu story. however, as I understand it, the legal action involves the materials themselves (as copyrighted works) rather than the story in essence. what would the legal status be of a summary of the Xenu story not containing verbatim excerpts from Church materials? I'm thinking the Wikipedia article[/url:15v352og] as an example. I guess I'm actually asking two questions: 1. Would they have a case in court against material which summarised the events described in OT3 but did not quote the original document directly? 2. Would they attempt to take it to court anyway?
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law. Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission. The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.” Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work. The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission. When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney. FL-102, Revised July 2006 gawker has used this succesfully to keep the tom cruise video up. there stance is that it is news worthy and therefore fair use. there is a video on youtube that has a lawyer on it explaining how fair use works. i cant find it right now.
Re: Legal status of Xenu story A summary is fine. The 'Xenu leaflet' has been handed out at many pickets and never had any objections: http://www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/ Any quote, no matter how short, from the OT levels will earn you a letter from the lawyers. They will ignore 'fair use'. Quotes from non-secret documents will only get letters if they exceed 'fair use'. For a sample letter see http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/stolgy_14.htm
Re: Legal status of Xenu story Ironically it is illegal to posses the doctrine but not to recite it to current members. I'd suggest someone learn the first page (only about three paragraphs) and just recite it at Scientologists. Remember, don't put it on signs!
