The description of the meaning of a word cannot be expressed in any other way.
So if you were to use a dictionary definition in branding or a book or movie, you gotta get permission.
what if you get the definition from an online source?
shareAnyone who went to college knows that something being from an online source doesn't affect copyright permissions in the slightest. Simply because photos are in jpeg format does not mean they're no longer copyrighted and you are free to do whatever you want with them. Simply because something is in a free to access website does not mean it isn't copyrighted.
sharewhat if i had a blog and posted the definition on said blog?
shareIf you wrote your own definition and posted it on your blog then that definition is copyrighted by you, if you use someone else's definition without their permission then you're guilty of copyright infringement.
Now whether that entity gets after you for violating their copyright is up to that entity. Most likely would be that you get a cease and desist letter and should you ignore the request then the entity may pursue a trial. Just because none of this happens doesn't mean you aren't guilty, it only means that the copyright holder didn't pursue action.
The nonsense people believe these days about "Fair use" is absurd, really... most of it is derived from the idea their youtube video didn't get taken down therefore it is fair use. There is so much copyright infringement online that no entity can guard all their intellectual property effectively, and most won't pick small battles due to optics issues.
There is no "non-commercial use" clause to copyright law... it's all up to the copyright holder whether or not to pursue. Now the holder might supply a "non-commercial use" clause, but it isn't in the law itself.
Yes, what is your point? That you're not smart enough to understand the words you just copy + pasted?
The "definition" isn't copyrighted, but the specific text that the dictionary uses to describe the definition is copyrighted.
Horse shit!
🤨