SOUTH-AFRICA-L Archives

Archiver > SOUTH-AFRICA > 2000-10 > 0970627052


From: "Brercottage" <>
Subject: RE: Capensis & copyright
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:37:32 -0700
In-Reply-To: <001b01c02c78$98956880$3c58ef9b@colin>


Now that all is said and done can we return to the great past time of
genealogy and helping one another with research.

Revd. Fr. Basil G. Royston
385 E. Arbor Avenue
Sunnyvale CA 94085-3673
California USA

Researching: ROYSTON, FIELD, GOBEY, MCNEIL, SCOTT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Pretorius [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 6:56 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Capensis & copyright
>
>
> I would like to make the following comments :
>
> > 1. You ought to have enquired first.
>
> This may be so.
>
> > 2. Assumed non-availability of backcopies in no way entitles you to
> > violate existing copyright.
>
> No violation of copyright occurred or was encouraged. The South African
> Copyright Act No. 98 of 1978 and all amendments including the Intellectual
> Property Laws Amendment Act No. 38 of 1997 , governs the making of
> photocopies OR OTHER REPRODUCTIONS of copyrighted material.
> According to the
> Werksman's website: "The Act gives others the right to use copyrighted
> works in certain circumstances, such as use for research, study, private
> purposes, criticism, review, reporting current events, quotation and the
> like." The requirements for this exemption are that "the use must be
> compatible with fair practice, the extent of the use must be
> justifiable and
> the source, as well as the author, must be acknowledged. "
>
> In other words one is entitled to make a copy or reproduction of a body of
> work such as an article or part thereof , inter alia for private use. As a
> matter of interest, anyone who has scanned in part of a magazine/book for
> private research purposes and keeps the scanned in document for reference
> purposes is also not in violation of the copyright act
>
> As I would have used the copy/scanned article for private purposes (i.e.
> furthering my knowledge of my ancestors as well as (hopefully) gaining an
> insight into the early history of the Cape), there is and can be no
> infringement or violation. . This is not only my opinion but also that of
> the RAU legal resources centre.
>
> > 3. Your excuses are not only feeble, but poor...
>
> This type of comment does not warrant a response.
>
> Colin Pretorius
>
> ______________________________

This thread: