Why Was This Post Removed?

I just had post removed for “violation of community standards”, presumably because I included a photo of an illustration from a book I own, for which I cited the author. Just a couple of weeks ago, an administrator explicitly said this was considered fair use. People have shared images copied from various sources on this forum for the entirety of the 25 years I’ve been a participant. What changed?

1 Like

Sorry, it turns out “fair use” is not a legal term we can use to justify posting copyrighted material, hence we must be stricter on this.

I would suggest posting either a clip from the parts manual (over 70 years old and outside the usual period copyright is granted for, in my understanding) or taking a photo of the parts you require dimensions for.


Why not here? And it would be good to learn what countries laws apply here and it would be good to be informed when a post is removed for some reason or another.
Could you put up a short post in User Guides and How-Tos explaining what is definitely not allowed?

Let me make it clearer:

Fair use is not a legal term, but a defence when someone reacts to what they consider an infringement (source1, source2 and source3).

There is already a part of our rules stating that it is not allowed to repost others property.

Far from clear what can be used and what not. Well, not my problem.

1 Like

I don’t believe that is true. The US Copyright Office and the American courts absolutely recognize Fair Use of copyrighted works under an array of circumstances.

From the U.S. Copyright Office wesite. Copyright.GOV

“Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances.”

Section 107 calls for consideration of the following four factors in evaluating a question of fair use:

  1. Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes:

  2. Nature of the copyrighted work:

  3. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Under this factor, courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. If the use includes a large portion of the copyrighted work, fair use is less likely to be found; if the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material, fair use is more likely. That said, some courts have found use of an entire work to be fair under certain circumstances.**

How does US copyright actually apply if Jag-Lovers Ltd is registered in the UK? I‘m curious.

British fair use is…

[…] important regarding copyright law in the UK, and under the fair use doctrine, certain uses of copyrighted material are permitted without the owner’s consent, including those related to criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. The fair use doctrine may be expanded to permit additional uses of copyrighted material without authorization as digital technology makes it simpler to create and share content.

Copyright Law In The UK - 9 Positive & Negative Impacts


Why do you believe USA Copyright laws are applicable, to a book that was published in UK, and was co orthored by myself - an Australian, and Viart - a Frenchman. I would suggest this applies only to the XK EXPLORED series of books. Other titles will have various National origins and Copyright applicable, thus given the International membership of this forum, surely the moderators need to aware of a reasonable international perspective, and not a simplistic US centric debate…

As the Australian co author of XK140 Explored, and major intellectual property contributor to XK120 Explored, the two books regularly plagiarised on this forum, XK150 Explored less so, I have to admit I for one am less than happy seeing my efforts regularly quoted/copied without at least fair acknowledgement. Regardless, long time members of this list will be well aware that I have regularly sent copies of a pages or two, to genuine interested XK enthusiasts directly/ privately - but not to any commercial interests unless they stump up to a degree… And don’t I love it when certain people bemone the cost of buying an original book, when they have an expectation of ongoing free pages or free advice.

XK140 EXPLORED is out of print, full stop. But second hand copies are regularly available. XK120 EXPLORED is also out of print, but I do have a handful of new copies available for sale, but note postage cost to non Australian addresses is a killer, but minimal to Australian buyers or free (of course) pickup.

Roger Payne


Does UK copyright on a UK publication apply worldwide?
I guess. The early version of Mickey Mouse is now out of copyright and can be used all over the world now, and couldn’t be used anywhere else before, right? Even though copyright expores differently- after 50, 70, 100 years depending on the country… is it a greyzone?

Roger, do I understand you correctly that you are okay with people using a (small) amount of your work in the way that Mike did? I absolutely understand that you are upset when people take a lot of it and don’t even give credit at times. Usually it is not seen as a big deal if there is credit given and no harm caused, and if Mike promotes a book as being useful I‘d certainly be more likely to look for a copy.

I quote the US Code Of Federal Regulations because that’s where I am. And I spent hundreds of hours researching the CFR on engineering projects. I know how the system works. In the old days, that was time spent in a law library, now you can do it with a few mouse clicks.

I’ve done research for projects where I quoted the work of others from ASME or SAE technical papers, always with citation as to source, never the first hint of impropriety.

Virtually all of the industrialized western nations are members of the World Trade Oganization. To be a WTO member, they must agree to a certain standard understanding of protected intellectual property rights. The United States cannot be substantially more or less restrictive than other WTO members.

I would note that there are substantive tests for Fair Use drawing a distinction between usage for some commercial purpose, as opposed to educational purposes. Copying an intellectual property and using it for some commercial purpose is clearly illegal. Also, clearly, a school system cannot make bootleg copies of a text to avoid paying the original author. None of that is happening here.

I would also argue that the purpose of the Jag Lovers cooperative is prima facie educational. There is no product being sold, no memberships being sold, no commercial advertising, no monthly fee for a blue check mark. Every participant came here for a singular purpose, to learn about a marque. No one is supporting their Gulfstream or yacht from the monetization of J-L.

I would point out that I have spent hundreds of dollars on Jaguar books that first piqued my interest because someone posted a photo of some interest, including the Viart publication in the last month. To ban any mention of these specialized works certainly harms the author. I can’t recall anyone posting an entire page of a publication, much less a book in its entirety. This is not Napster or Bitorrent.



Please stop. This is exactly why our rules are the way they are. The Jag-lovers admins are a team of volunteers, none of whom are lawyers. We don’t have the time, the training, nor the inclination to try to interpret and apply copyright laws.

Our rules on this matter are posted here, and they state:

Post Only Your Own Stuff

You may not post anything digital that belongs to someone else without permission. You may not post descriptions of, links to, or methods for stealing someone’s intellectual property (software, video, audio, images), or for breaking any other law.

That’s it. If you want to share copyrighted material with someone, and mount your own fair use defense in case someone sues you, that’s up to you. But you need to do it somewhere else and leave us out of it.



Ah there it is. I would still like to know which law applies: the law of the country I‘m in, the law of the country the company resides, the law of the county the author has published from, there are differences. It has to be the country of publication. Correct?

Terms of Service - Jag-lovers Forums, section 20.

1 Like


Except for claims for injunctive or equitable relief or claims regarding intellectual property rights (which may be brought in any competent court without the posting of a bond), any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be finally settled in accordance with the Comprehensive Arbitration Rules of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service, Inc. (“JAMS”) by three arbitrators appointed in accordance with such Rules. The arbitration shall take place in San Francisco, California, in the English language and the arbitral decision may be enforced in any court.

Those exceptions are still in California, just not according to the JAMS in SF? Any other ‚extent of applicable law‘?
And it is not going to be US copyright, but copyright law from the country of publication?

I’m curious if we are allowed to refer back to jag-lovers, jag-lovers.com, etc, in other sources as there are likely copyrighted?

Is it fair use to use the full name in its entirety?

Gunnar, on one hand I believe I understand what you are saying, it seems somewhat clear. But then again, I am confused. If I go to the Pub, there seem to be very many links to other sources, news outlets, books, etc., many of which I am sure are copyrighted and the poster did not receive permission. The sources are cited, but from what I read of the rules you quoted, citing does not give permission. None of those posts have been taken down. Would you clarify when links are allowed?

I think the problem is whatever Gunnar (even if he was a lawyer) says can be used against him. He shouldn’t answer, he might make the forums entirely unuseable, he might cause liability issues. The best way to proceed is to assume that the rules are set up in a perfectly legal way. And there’s no reason to doubt that, we have no reason to believe otherwise and are certainly trying not to hurt anyone’s copyright. There’s clearly no ill intent and within the boundaries made clear we are not doing anything wrong.

It would be virtually impossible to sue J-L in the US for something posted by one of us as a third party. The Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 CFR, Section 230, recently affirmed by the US Supreme Court, gives interactive internet service providers like JL broad immunity to exactly this sort of thing.

Yes, I agree, he should maintain his right to silence, take the 5th or whatever is allowed in his jurisdiction, and will most likely make bail without having to spend the night in the police holding cells, assuming he is of good character, behaves while in custody, and has no outstanding warrants :rofl:

I think some are forgetting that even when one is in the right, the cost of proving one’s innocence can be prohibitively expensive and time consuming. Could be Gunnar and Nick just want to avoid that particular hassle.