|
I'm located in California, and in the process of starting my own
company. Initially, I will just be doing business in the USA.
When it comes to drawing up various documents such as:
- contracts
- non-disclosure agreements
- terms & conditions
- privacy policies
(1) Would it be OK to directly cut-and-paste, word for word, sentences
and/or paragraphs from other company's documents, which are available
online?
Or are there copyright issues involved, requiring me to change the
wording i.e. use different words and/or the order of words?
And does this have any similarities with the 1980's Trivial Pursuit
court case, where the company were found not guilty of plagiarism,
because they had obtained their questions from multiple sources, not
just one place, and thus it was classed as research?
I do not know if later on, Trivial Pursuit also faced legal action in
countries outside of the USA. I know copyright law differs in various
countries, and any information I am seeking is just related to US law
at the moment.
(2) Would I in fact be able to copy the above-mentioned documents from
a single source, in their entirety?
Any advice regarding these two questions, links to articles etc. would
be most appreciated.
Thanks in advance, Simon.
|
| |
| |
"SimonC" <google_groups@excite.com> wrote in misc.legal.moderated:
I'm located in California, and in the process of starting my own
company. Initially, I will just be doing business in the USA.
When it comes to drawing up various documents such as:
- contracts
- non-disclosure agreements
- terms & conditions
- privacy policies
(1) Would it be OK to directly cut-and-paste, word for word, sentences
and/or paragraphs from other company's documents, which are available
online?
(2) Would I in fact be able to copy the above-mentioned documents from
a single source, in their entirety?
Any advice regarding these two questions, links to articles etc. would
be most appreciated.
Here's some advice, from a fellow non-lawyer, and meaning no
disrespect:
If you don't know enough to answer these questions yourself, you
don't know enough to draw up those documents yourself.
Seriously -- you're buying yourself a peck of trouble. Even assuming
you do a perfect cut-and-paste job, some easily overlooked
difference between the original situation and yours could cost you
big bucks. For instance, which state's laws a contract is drawn
under can make a difference to how the terms are interpreted.
There's a reason for the old saw "Penny wise and pound foolish."
If sources are on line, look carefully at the terms of use (which
may be on another page of the same site). They should tell you under
what circumstances you may copy portions. Otherwise, you can read
them for ideas and then put them in your own words. (The same is
true with print sources.) That avoids copyright issues -- but
copyright is the least significant problem in your plan.
Strong recommendation: Nolo Press offers business resources and
books at <http://www.nolo.com/>. Why not have a look? Their advice
is highly respected.
What you _might_ do is draw up documents in this way and have a
local lawyer look at them. It wouldn't cost any more than having a
lawyer draw them up for you(*), and if you've done a decent job it
could cost less. If you're starting a business you should establish
a relationship with a lawyer anyway. You want to be ready when you
have a dispute with a customer -- and I guarantee you will.
(*) "Draw them up" probably means take them from a form book or a
disk in the lawyer's office, modified according to your special
circumstances.
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
google_groups@excite.com (SimonC) wrote:
I'm located in California, and in the process of starting my own
company. Initially, I will just be doing business in the USA.
When it comes to drawing up various documents such as:
- contracts
- non-disclosure agreements
- terms & conditions
- privacy policies
(1) Would it be OK to directly cut-and-paste, word for word,
sentences and/or paragraphs from other company's documents,
which are available online?
Lawyers do it all the time.
But don't do it unless you really understand what it says and what
it's all about. It could come back to bit you otherwise.
Check to see if there is an industry group in the line of business
you are getting into. They may already have forms for you that you
can use, and are appropriate for your business.
And does this have any similarities with the 1980's Trivial
Pursuit court case, where the company were found not guilty of
plagiarism, because they had obtained their questions from
multiple sources, not just one place, and thus it was classed as
research?
That case had nothing to do with the fact there were multiple
sources. It had to do with the fact that you cannot copyright
facts, no matter how much work went into compiling them.
Stu
|
| |
| |
In article <j2ao70dh52rugonqrn0enaui78gg4al2cf@4ax.com>,
Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
google_groups@excite.com (SimonC) wrote:
And does this have any similarities with the 1980's Trivial
Pursuit court case, where the company were found not guilty of
plagiarism, because they had obtained their questions from
multiple sources, not just one place, and thus it was classed as
research?
That case had nothing to do with the fact there were multiple
sources. It had to do with the fact that you cannot copyright
facts, no matter how much work went into compiling them.
As I understand it, one of the issues there was that some of those
"facts" were clearly invented, and appeared (prior to the game) in
only one book.
Seth
|
| |
| |
sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
And does this have any similarities with the 1980's Trivial
Pursuit court case, where the company were found not guilty of
plagiarism, because they had obtained their questions from
multiple sources, not just one place, and thus it was classed as
research?
As I understand it, one of the issues there was that some of those
"facts" were clearly invented, and appeared (prior to the game) in
only one book.
They weren't clearly invented to someone reading the book. They
were put in there so the author could tell if anyone stole his work.
Since the true facts could not be protected, I'd guess that if the
game used the made-up facts the court would figure that it was
relatively so insignificant that no recovery would be allowed even
for those.
Or maybe false facts can't be protected, either, if it's not clear
that they're incorrect.
Stu
|
| |
| |
|
