Copyright Notice: everything I have given you is free for your personal use. Nothing may be sold for profit; in some cases, it cannot be sold for reimbursement either.

Documents that I have edited and modernized, which were in the public domain, such as the John Owen works, remain in the public domain. My work product is not restricted. In other words, I have placed no copyright restriction on them. Although you may not modify them, or sell them, or use them for fund-raising, or claim them as your own, feel free to copy them for others, or to translate them into another language (so long as you don't violate someone else's copyright in that language).

Copyright notices and/or sources are contained in each document. If you don't see one, you should conclude that it is copyrighted. However, I would appreciate it if you would notify me of the document's title so I can fix that. Thanks!

Copyright has become a legal minefield in recent years. The old rule that copyright continues for only 70 years after the death of the author, is now renewable by that author's estate (corporate as well as personal). This is a means of protecting and perpetuatiing the income from that author's labors, three generations or more later. It has made "public domain" a veritable fiction.

The Fair Use Doctrine has likewise become a legal quagmire. It allows subjective interpretations of what is or is not an infringement of copyright. Analyzing and critiquing, even outlining a work, if too detailed, can be a violation, subjecting the critic to legal action. It's easy to violate such a vague standard.

I HAVE THEREFORE REMOVED most if not all of my critiques and synopses of books and articles written after 1900. My concern is that I might transgress these new laws, well-intentioned as they are. But I think they  have, in effect, become censorship laws, and put de facto limitations on free speech.

NOTE: Here is an A.I.-generated summary of the Fair Use Doctrine (click).