[veronica]

I don't think so.

I, on the other hand, know copyright law very well. So does my attorney, who specializes in copyright law, intellectual property law, entertainment law, and Internet law; he’s not some burnt-out hippie representing another burnt-out hippie. Here’s some free legal advice for you from my attorney, David M. Adler, Esq. & Associates: “Copyright only extends to creative works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. Speech, in and of itself, is simply not copyrightable.”

[tallhappy]

Yes. The paragraph you cited is nonsense.

[hometoroost]

Subject to certain restrictions (not including the author's permission) there is the Section 107 allowance of "fair use" which could put the documentary use of Churchill's comments in the clear - if it's a nonprofit venture or news reporting.:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

[kitkat]

***“Copyright only extends to creative works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. Speech, in and of itself, is simply not copyrightable.” ***

I am NOT a copyright attorney, but my understanding is that the "any tagible medium of expression," includes giving a speech.

"speech, in and of itself," means freedom of speech, not the right to plagarize.

Copyright generally is based on HOW MUCH of what is written, recorded, given in a speech, etc. is used without the permission of the author. The bottom line is whether you use so much of another person's material that you deny him the right to make money from it.

I think perhaps our thread poster misunderstood his attorney's advice, but I WISH HIM THE GREATEST GOOD LUCK in his duel with Churchill.

If any copyright attorney would care to comment, I would be delighted to discover that I am wrong.