FYI on copyright laws

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 8:06 am

I realize most people aren't conversent with copyright laws (I'm a published author; I've done research on such things), so the following is an FYI, not specifically directed at any one person.

Re-posting of an entire article from another site is an infringement of the author's copyright. There is no "fair use" defense for posting an entire article, and citing where the article came from does not alleviate the violation.

Furthermore, posting an entire article deprives the author of royalties. The sites where these articles are published track the hits on the article, and pay the author royalties based upon those hits. When an article is republished in another forum such as this one, the author does not get credit for those reads. Posting a link to the article will solve the problem - the article is read at its published location, and the author is paid as he or she is entitled to be paid.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:48 am

Unless you have explicit permission from the copyright holder. You might, after all, be the copyright holder yourself.

Or the copyright holder may have licensed the article under one of the various open source contracts which allows unlimited reproduction in whole.

Or the copyright holder may have explicitly placed the article into the public domain deliberately so that nobody thereafter, including himself, can claim author-copyright restrictions on the text - I've done that sometimes to remove vestigial copyright issues over ebooks. It's an approach taken in some Samizdat communities to avoid State prosecution.

Even in any of these cases it's still shockingly bad form to drop screenloads of text into a bulletin board post if you didn't write it yourself.

I did it once with a 2000 word article from a magazine that wasn't freely available on the Internet, having been called a liar over its content. I was stuck for an alternative move at that point. Subsequently deleting the text is a useless gesture since it's google-cached by now.

If it's text you have the explicit right to post but it's that long, attach it as a document file to the thread and quote sparingly from it. That's what I've been doing with the lecture on Zionism, having first asked the author for permission. It gets over the problem of one person having a paper copy and nobody else having access to it.

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:05 am

Spot - thank you for the clarification. Of course my post doesn't apply to anyone who has permission to post the material.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:14 am

I think the majority of us post links to articles, when using them for an illustration in our posts. That way, if you look at the naterial, you are going to their site.

Yes, even our little old posts here I think would technically be called copyrighted too, under our screen names.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:16 am

SnoozeControl wrote: So do you think TruthBringer's 700 post thread is in bad form?:yh_giggleTo whom do you speak, my agile-minded little weasel? Are we stood upwind poking the midden with our wooden paddle again? Usernames should be more color-coded, with scarlet reserved for troublemakers while pure gold signifies the saintly and benificent. I know which you'd get lumbered with.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:45 am

Erinna1112 wrote: I realize most people aren't conversent with copyright laws (I'm a published author; I've done research on such things), so the following is an FYI, not specifically directed at any one person.

Re-posting of an entire article from another site is an infringement of the author's copyright. There is no "fair use" defense for posting an entire article, and citing where the article came from does not alleviate the violation.

false. there are many, many mitigating circumstances. Often fair use does come into play. you can't state the above emphatically.

Furthermore, posting an entire article deprives the author of royalties. The sites where these articles are published track the hits on the article, and pay the author royalties based upon those hits. When an article is republished in another forum such as this one, the author does not get credit for those reads. Posting a link to the article will solve the problem - the article is read at its published location, and the author is paid as he or she is entitled to be paid.

also false, when stated as an emphatic. a great many articles are written with no profit motive involved at all. a great many sites republish articles which originally appeared in their print versions, and do not track readership on the net.

copyright is far too complex a subject to cover in a brief 'how to' such as the above. it's too easy to alienate people from posting copyrighted information for which they may fairly claim fair use. if a user here were somehow materially profiting by reposting copyrighted material without prior permission, then it would be a violation. however, it's not possible for a user to do so, not that i'm aware of.

if copyright is violated, then the original author has the right to pursue the original poster on that claim. i'd recommend users familiarize themselves with forumgarden's terms of service, which covers the matter of copyright, specifically section 25.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:48 am

Oh, that is an interesting addition, thank you anastrophe!:)

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:57 am

SnoozeControl wrote: It's terribly sad when a person gets old and can't remember something he had just written. Let me refresh your memory:

"Even in any of these cases it's still shockingly bad form to drop screenloads of text into a bulletin board post if you didn't write it yourself"

Yes Spot, I was talking to you. :rolleyes:My apologies - I didn't realize that any of TruthBringer's posts had included any material at all which fell into any of the cases I'd outlined. It's not impossible that they did, but I have read them all and I noted no examples.

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:18 am

anastrophe wrote: if a user here were somehow materially profiting by reposting copyrighted material without prior permission, then it would be a violation.
To coin a phrase...false. It is not necessary for the person who re-publishes the article to gain materially from such republication for the republication to be a copyright violation.

In the main, what I am objecting to here is the practice of going to a website - usually a news site - copying the text and posting it here. That is, almost always (there are a few mitigating circumstances, not many) a violation of the copyright of the publisher.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:25 am

Erinna1112 wrote: To coin a phrase...false. It is not necessary for the person who re-publishes the article to gain materially from such republication for the republication to be a copyright violation.

In the main, what I am objecting to here is the practice of going to a website - usually a news site - copying the text and posting it here. That is, almost always (there are a few mitigating circumstances, not many) a violation of the copyright of the publisher.There's a curious provision in US law relating specifically to news articles - due to the timeliness quality of news, copyright law changed (during a recentish round of changes, I'm talking about the last fifty years) to allow reproduction of news articles and news photos without explicit permission. The law also made provision for calculating royalty payments regarding such use, and (I think) placed an obligation on the user to inform the copyright holder in a reasonable timeframe after the event and to subsequently settle up.

I'd have to look to get the fine detail, but that (to the best of my knowledge) is a possibly accurate sketch as far as it goes.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:43 pm

Erinna1112 wrote: To coin a phrase...false. It is not necessary for the person who re-publishes the article to gain materially from such republication for the republication to be a copyright violation.

In the main, what I am objecting to here is the practice of going to a website - usually a news site - copying the text and posting it here. That is, almost always (there are a few mitigating circumstances, not many) a violation of the copyright of the publisher.

this is why i say that it is far too complex for these little statements of truth or falsity. i didn't say that material gain was the only means by which it would be a violation; however, if material gain did obtain, then indeed it would irrefutably be a violation.

let's stick with the terms of service. if you are not a copyright attorney, it's best to stop right there. i'm not a copyright attorney, you aren't either so far as i know. feel free to contact one if you need clarification of the law. otherwise, this is a fruitless thread, as incorrect information has already been claimed as accurate. that's not useful.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:59 pm

let me amend that to suggest that common sense should be the rule of order.

in general, it's best to not reproduce an entire article, from asses to elbows, without providing a link to the original source, and/or without attribution. providing attribution does not explicitly resolve the issue of use, but it's a good idea nonetheless.

in general, reproducing a portion* of an article here on FG will fall under fair use, as most material is posted here for commentary, parody, criticism, etc..

*portion being the operative, and incredibly ambiguous, aspect. copyright law does not state specifics. from the US government copyright office:

There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances.

thus, common sense must be relied upon. in general, people reproduce material here benignly. the author of the material is free to pursue a violation if they believe one obtains.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 3:35 pm

anastrophe wrote: this is why i say that it is far too complex for these little statements of truth or falsity. i didn't say that material gain was the only means by which it would be a violation; however, if material gain did obtain, then indeed it would irrefutably be a violation.

let's stick with the terms of service. if you are not a copyright attorney, it's best to stop right there. i'm not a copyright attorney, you aren't either so far as i know. feel free to contact one if you need clarification of the law. otherwise, this is a fruitless thread, as incorrect information has already been claimed as accurate. that's not useful.

Now theres a word you dont get to use every day.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 3:44 pm

spot wrote: To whom do you speak, my agile-minded little weasel? Are we stood upwind poking the midden with our wooden paddle again? Usernames should be more color-coded, with scarlet reserved for troublemakers while pure gold signifies the saintly and benificent. I know which you'd get lumbered with.What colour am i Spot? :yh_angel

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:50 pm

anastrophe wrote: i'm not a copyright attorney
And yet you still feel qualified to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

you aren't either so far as i know.
But you don't know. And I don't have to be to know what I'm talking about. I am a published author - are you? I'm acquainted with the law sufficiently to say that in general practice, with some exceptions, what I am objecting to is illegal.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 5:03 pm

I've certainly learned more about copyright over the years than anyone would want to. I was programming team leader when MCPS installed its first royalty collection and distribution system, I've designed and coded bureau suites for mechanical copyright, performing rights and publishing copyright, I've seen more deal structures than any one industry would want to adopt, I've written guides on legal copying, I've advised on reprographic restrictions from facsimile sources, I am frankly sick of how much I've been obliged to absorb about copyright issues since I first turned my attention to the subject. And no, anastrophe, I'm not a copyright attorney either.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 5:30 pm

Erinna1112 wrote: And yet you still feel qualified to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
that's correct, because you've posted clearly incorrect information.

But you don't know. And I don't have to be to know what I'm talking about. I am a published author - are you? I'm acquainted with the law sufficiently to say that in general practice, with some exceptions, what I am objecting to is illegal.

the only opinion that matters is the copyright holder's attorney's. period. being published makes one no more or less capable of having an accurate opinion on the matter, so that particular logical fallacy (the call to authority) is unpersuasive.

i stand by my very first post here. you made emphatic statements that are simply wrong. using the most banal of your statements: "Furthermore, posting an entire article deprives the author of royalties.". false. patently and obviously. you cannot say this emphatically, because a great many articles are not paid on a royalty basis. news articles for one thing - reporters earn a salary, not royalties. a great many articles are written in the public interest, with no expectation of remuneration - huge numbers of such articles exist.

rather than continue this tedious discussion, if anyone has any questions about copyright, i would recommend that - rather than taking the word of various babbling bobbleheads on the internet (i include myself in that class) - go here, and learn the facts directly, rather than as regurgitated by laypeople.

http://www.copyright.gov/

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 5:31 pm

SnoozeControl wrote: Well, let me ask this... who would be responsible if the author of an article tracked it back to here, the poster or the owner of the forum?

http://www.forumgarden.com/terms.html

section 25. clearly spelled out.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 8:56 pm

SnoozeControl wrote: Well, let me ask this... who would be responsible if the author of an article tracked it back to here, the poster or the owner of the forum?The owner of the domain (who is not necessarily the owner of the hardware, who has legal protection against such actions). The owner of the domain, in turn, has an agreement with his user, the poster, and can (if he needs to recoup damages) sue his user for breach of agreement. In practice, a cease and desist motion brought by the copyright owner against the domain owner would result in the material being taken down. How the domain owner deals with that in terms of his relationship with his user is his own business. The domain owner might, if he were foolish, pass the order on to the user to have it implemented. The copyright owner could, if he wished, file the cease and desist against the original poster, but that would be very strange.