[Usagoal]

In an attempt to help other members on this site with diagrams, pictures and schematics, the question of posting copyrighted material came to mind. So I need to ask some stupid questions before I get myself into trouble. My FSM is copyrighted - I see the copyright logo next to the General Motors Corporation tag on the first page of each book. Is there a way to get around posted wiring diagrams and such without breaking rule #6 in the forum rules? I've read a few topics online about how it would be ok if it is for educational reasons or making remarks (commentary). I simply don't know and can't trust anything on the internet. I'm assuming an administrator can help answer this? Thanks.

 

[Rhotpursuit]

In an attempt to help other members on this site with diagrams, pictures and schematics, the question of posting copyrighted material came to mind. So I need to ask some stupid questions before I get myself into trouble. My FSM is copyrighted - I see the copyright logo next to the General Motors Corporation tag on the first page of each book. Is there a way to get around posted wiring diagrams and such without breaking rule #6 in the forum rules? I've read a few topics online about how it would be ok if it is for educational reasons or making remarks (commentary). I simply don't know and can't trust anything on the internet. I'm assuming an administrator can help answer this? Thanks.

@admin. What are your thoughts?

 

[Hamilton Felix]

You are not using that copyrighted material for profit. You are sharing a small portion of the manual, not the entire thing. I’m pretty sure that’s “Fair Use.”

And until you receive a threatening letter from GM’s lawyers, why worry?

 

[Usagoal]

Thanks for the reply. I'm not too worried about the GM lawyer gang. It's more about following forum rules and trying to share information I have at hand that others may not. Again, it was just something I thought about and figured asking a few questions wouldn't hurt.

 

[Rhotpursuit]

Unless Matlock or Perry Mason is in the house, let's see what @admin says.

 

[Hamilton Felix]

Good point. Without trying to dig out all of this forum’s fine print, I’ve seen few forums where posting a diagram or posting “the manual says…” in response to a query would be an issue. We are all just trying to help each other keep some older GM products running.

Speaking of “old,” I’m thinking about licensing my 1992 S-10 Blazer as a Collector Vehicle. If it’s 30 years old you can do that. Saves money on license, no more buying annual tabs, but you are supposed to use it for collector activities and “occasional pleasure driving.” Don’t get caught carrying a load in. Collector Vehicle pickup.

I tend to just share what I’ve learned, be it from something like Haynes or from a factory manual.

 

[needawheel]

it is a 20+ yr old truck, you are good.
technically you only run afoul if you are blatantly replicating a book and selling it for profit as your own creation on a scale so large that it is worth paying a lawyer to smack you for it.

 

[Rhotpursuit]

The bottom line is, matter how you try to sidestep the issue, if Admin says no…it’s no. I’m pretty sure the 1st amendment doesn’t apply.

 

[PeteD]

You are not using that copyrighted material for profit. You are sharing a small portion of the manual, not the entire thing. I’m pretty sure that’s “Fair Use.”

And until you receive a threatening letter from GM’s lawyers, why worry?

You Won't. They don't make parts for them anymore or even admit they made them. They're concerned with the future , not ancient history.

 

[Chevykid]

Educational use (not commercial) is fair use. We were taught this in school and it's why they never had a good reason for hating on using wikipedia as a source, it's educational and not plagarized as it's being used as educational, no profit. There's entire science studies based on regurgitating 90 percent of info just to give an opinion at the end of the patterns you saw...people worry way too much about copyright

Did you know, they've never gotten any money from the two people that were charged with torrenting music/movies, even with a guilty plea or conviction? Even after decades!

 

[aitch]

Are you aware that Wikipedia is an open source site, and anyone can create, delete, and contribute and/ or edit material there? So while there may, or may not be plagiarized content there (a somewhat subordinate topic), it's also possible/ likely that incorrect and/ or non factual material may be added. There really isn't any sort of regulation in it to validate the material posted there. While initially it was likely well intentioned, the opportunity (and confirmation) for corrupt data is prevalent. That's why it is generally not deemed a reliable or credible source.
The simple presence of something on the internet does not alone grant it the status of being true or even factual, and the same applies to the incessant repetition of a statement.

 

[Chevykid]

Are you aware that Wikipedia is an open source site, and anyone can create, delete, and contribute and/ or edit material there? So while there may, or may not be plagiarized content there (a somewhat subordinate topic), it's also possible/ likely that incorrect and/ or non factual material may be added.

That's why I love that website. The wild west, where everyone has a gun. No censorship or opinions can last on there, just the facts!

 

[aitch]

That's why I love that website. The wild west, where everyone has a gun. No censorship or opinions can last on there, just the facts!

Your unquestioning enthusiasm for Wiki-world as a paragon for a repository of unassailable information is self evident, noted, and appropriately filed. Now seems like an appropriate moment to return to the actual topic of the thread.