It seems like all of us do this, as do most people from most message boards on the internet - we see an interesting news (or other) article, and copy and paste it for the purposes of discussion. We're even doing it on this forum.

I didn't have a problem with this before, but something that happened on another site I participate in made me want to clarify it (I also wanted to wait until Timber, who I know is a lawyer, was back before I did so :D ). Is what we are doing, by copying and pasting articles, even if we provide a direct link to the originating site, illegal or not?

I'd like to open a discussion about this and hear from everyone.

My understanding of this was as follows below, from my own (admittedly limited) knowledge of copyright and fair use:

1. It is ok to copy a section from an article from a FREE news site (eg Fox Sports, Yahoo!, USA Today, Sydney Morning Herald, etc) if this article is to be commented on in a discussion (eg for a message forum or bulletin board). This is known as the principle of fair use - where an author's work is entitled to be commented on or criticised, they can't suppress this via copyright). A direct link to the originating website must be provided, and the source documented on the bulletin board.

If an article is to be pasted up on the news section of a website (eg on the Ironworks main page) and NOT for discussion purposes then obviously it's not covered under fair use, and so that is NOT allowed.

I thought that the PURPOSE was important in defining fair use. If the article is short (less than 1000 words) then I thought it could generally be cut and pasted in its entirety, as long as links and sources are provided. The same goes for images.

2. It is NOT ok to copy an article (or part of) or image from a FREE site and charge people to view or comment on it.

3. It is NOT ok to copy an article (or part of) or image from a PAID site and publish it on a free site, even for the purposes of discussion.

Let me start by saying that I'm not a lawyer, and what I'm saying should not be taken as legal advice, but rather anecdotal advice based on previous experiences with this issue.

That said, I thought the reason that copying and pasting articles for purposes of discussion and comment is considered "safe" is because the legal principle of "fair use" says that authors' cannot suppress criticism of their work by using copyright. If a work is issued for the public to see it is then entitled to be commented on, whether that comment be criticism or praise. In fact, based upon Fair Use, I thought even articles that say "This cannot be copied without express written permission" CAN be copied - as long as you only copy a snippet or a section that you would like to open for discussion, and provide sourcing and relevant link to the originating article (like my example above).

If you're posting something EXPLICITLY for information purpose and aren't allowing people to comment (eg locking the thread after posting the article) then I thought it would be harder to defend it under the principle of fair use, in the unlikely event you'd get sued. Not to say it's not allowed, but rather that it would be less defensible under fair use. But if you left the thread open and people were provided the opportunity to discuss or comment on the article, then it would tend to fall within fair use.

That's my understanding of the legalities of it.

From a practical point of view, I thought the only time you'd open yourself up to risk of copyright infringement from copying and pasting an article is if you were a ) profiting from it (eg posting something and making people pay to read it) or b ) you posted it on your website (not on a forum, but an actual site eg Ironworks front page) and passed it off as yours; or c ) plagiarised from it and did a ) and b ).

However I've recently heard legal advice which suggests otherwise - that ANY posting of articles and images, no matter where from or how little you copy and paste, leaves the message board open to being sued for copyright breach. I didn't realise the law was this stringent, particularly with respect to images (which we all copy and paste).

So, with my own views out of the way, I'd like to hear from others, particularly those of you with legal backgrounds or who have experience in this sort of thing. Is my understanding correct or incorrect? On what basis are you formulating your opinion - legal, anecdotal, etc. What really is the deal with copyright and cutting and pasting?

Discuss. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-15-2005, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

The forum rules for fair use have greatly varied depending on the forum in my expirience. Some forums I visit seem to allow entire news articles for discussion, while others I frequent state in the TOS no more than 5-20% of an article, some with rules for specific discussion relevant to the quoted portions.

I dunno what the exact law is, but I think any infraction on the scale that a free discussion forum could potentially cause would merit anything more than a request to remove or edit the offending material, like a cease and desist request.

I tend to go with what each forum allows, or I should say use to go with, considering I rarely start news topics anymore.

[ 03-15-2005, 03:14 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

I would like to understand what the law is exactly, if someone has any insights...

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

http://www.antionline.com/printthrea...hreadid=231259

http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellec...y/copypol2.htm

http://www.uic.edu/depts/accc/newsle...copyright.html

Read up. Just the opinions of others. According to some of them, every time I post an NY Times article here, I'm infringing. Oh well, take a walk on the wild side, right? I figure since I'm not charging them a bill to advertise...

[ 03-15-2005, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

What's your opinion, TL?

By the way, I'm not intending to change/enforce our policy here based on this discussion - this is purely to satisfy my own curiosity. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color=skyblue>That was my understanding as well.</font>

<font color=skyblue>Freaking crap!! If we are doing something that could even possibly get Ziroc sued and IW shut down, then it would be my feeling to not even take the chance and live life safely. It would not be me getting into trouble, it would be Ziroc losing money over allowing this forum to operate with posted illegal material. I would not want to do that to him, nor would I want to lose IW for myself. But if this newfound idea is bogus, and cannot be upheld then I see no problem with posting material as long as it is cited or referenced.

Another thing. Since you said here that locking a thread that has cited material would be a bad thing, maybe the next time I see a thread from somebody that does not give credit where its due will need to be edited to remove the uncited work.

We need TLs input on this, certainly, as well as Ziroc's.

I hope we can resolve these issues soon.</font>

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">Well TL is the only one I know who can answer this. But I usually never post full articles to be on the safe side. Just the first paragraph followed by a link to the actual article.

People still need to back up there opinion but we need to be safe from copyright infringement until TL gets back to us on this topic. My suggestion is don't even post a paragraph. Just state your view and post a small sentence describing, and linking to the article. If you need to quote a sentence or paragraph than do so but also quote the source the same as you are writing a paper.</font>

[ 03-15-2005, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Copyright is a complex area of law, and the fair use doctrine's application is the subject of many a debate and conjecture.

Moreover, I don't want my public ramblings here to be seens as dispensing legal advice to the forum or its members, nor would I want to appear to implicate anyone in anything wrong whatsoever. Additionally, I could get myself in trouble by advising multiple folks at one time without getting certain waivers of conflict of interest.

Accordingly, you won't see me saying more than I have -- which is to link information provided by *other* sources.

I will note that I do not intend to change my posting habits unless instructed to do so by forum rules or moderator requests. And, I make that decision knowing that I could have personal liability for copyright infringement, if what I did were in fact infringement. So, at least that's how my liability analysis works out on a personal level for me.

Moderators, and moderators only, may contact me via PM or email with questions. Please skim the above linked information beforehand, though.

Listen, fellas - I didn't post this thread with the intention of changing people's posting habits. As far as I'm concerned my understanding of fair use and how it relates to cutting and pasting is correct. I'm really doing this more to satisfy my own personal curiosity on the subject.

I've PMd you by the way.

Here is another link:
http://whatiscopyright.org/

Well, as far as I'm concerned as long as individuals exercise common sense and only post relevant segments of material (rather than proving they know how to copy and paste entire articles like some spasmodic spam master) I don't see anything wrong with it.

The use of supporting material does help us (particularly in this forum) get a consensus on opinions about different subjects and provide evidence to support our arguements.

Most of the guys on this forum actually source articles as well (generally only posting a small 'taster'), acknowledging the author of an article is simple common courtesy.

All said, leave things the way they are, but discourage out and out copying.

From the link:

Oh, yes it can. And I'll do it just to spite the author. The author fairly described the fair use doctrine, and even gave the example of the National Geographic picture, with a citation, used as a reference for comment -- to wit:

Same thing here in this post of mine. So, have a big raspberry. [img]tongue.gif[/img] And, by the way, shame shame on the author for correctly summarizing the law and then telling you it doesn't apply to him.

[ 03-15-2005, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

LOL - that just makes me want to post the following [img]smile.gif[/img]

Pull: 'CLICK' WHUMP!

From the link:

Quote:

None of this information may be duplicated verbatim on another web site, even for educational purposes. None of it, even if I am credited.

Oh, yes it can. And I'll do it just to spite the author. The author fairly described the fair use doctrine, and even gave the example of the National Geographic picture, with a citation, used as a reference for comment -- to wit:

Quote:

Scanning a photo of the Amazon Forest printed in National Geographic and using it without permission on your personal web site about your family trip to South America will most likely not be considered as fair use. However, if you republished the photo on your site to comment on the photo as it was published in National Geographic, this would most likely be considered fair use.

Same thing here in this post of mine. So, have a big raspberry. [img]tongue.gif[/img] And, by the way, shame shame on the author for correctly summarizing the law and then telling you it doesn't apply to him. </font>[/QUOTE]He does give permission, just under strict conditions, which by copyright laws and as the author he has a right to.
Yes?
That's my understanding of it anyway.

To quote completely (without editing) for clarification of the discussion regarding use of the author's material:



Mods, feel free to edit this post if you feel it violates copyright laws. :D

[ 03-15-2005, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Violet ]

Well, I'd take some of what he says with a grain of salt, as he does point out he's not a specialist in copyright and his info is not US based which, of course the IW server is.

I'd always thought your summary was fairly close to the way it should be, Mems. But then I'm no expert either. ;)

<font color=skyblue>Freaking crap!! If we are doing something that could even possibly get Ziroc sued and IW shut down, then it would be my feeling to not even take the chance and live life safely. It would not be me getting into trouble, it would be Ziroc losing money over allowing this forum to operate with posted illegal material. I would not want to do that to him, nor would I want to lose IW for myself. But if this newfound idea is bogus, and cannot be upheld then I see no problem with posting material as long as it is cited or referenced.

Another thing. Since you said here that locking a thread that has cited material would be a bad thing, maybe the next time I see a thread from somebody that does not give credit where its due will need to be edited to remove the uncited work.

We need TLs input on this, certainly, as well as Ziroc's.

I hope we can resolve these issues soon.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]I think this is an extreme case, Larry. Don't jump to any conclusions at this point. It comes down to managing risk - I'd say the chances of actually getting sued for breach of copyright for articles that are copied for the purposes of discussion and critique is quite low, under the concept of fair use. And if the original author was to take offence, most likely they'd request the offending article be deleted before initiating legal action, which of course costs money. I think they'd have higher priorities than suing some message board. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Erm... in a word, no. It is my understanding that the author does not have the right to limit the fair use doctrine. Otherwise, every site on the internet would post rules regarding fair use.


Mems notes that it comes down to managing risk, which is low for some message board. This has merit. No matter whether or not someone has a viable claim, the question is always "what are the damages?" Well, here it would be hard to cite any damages. Additionally, regarding the whole "management of risk" issue, remember that all risk is comprised of 2 variables -- (1) likelihood of the detrimental event occuring and (2) the magnitude of said event. Both are likely low here on our favorite brown board.

No one, that I've seen, posts or links quotes for monetary gain, and it's most always for informational purposes. That, of course, means any legally valid suit against TL for posting wholecloth NYTimes articles (for example) would lose out in the economic analysis -- i.e., they'd be suing me for WHAT? Regarding the NYTimes in particular, they surely benefit more from my extolling their virtues than they lose in the way of FREE subscriptions to their website.

As I stated, though, I am willing to post in the fashion I do because I feel I am competent to handle any complaints. I feel certain that I can make litigating against me enough of a pain in the arse for it to NOT be worthwhile for any claimant. ;)

In my opinion, as long as the other site doesn't charce for the info you're posting, and as long as you provide a link to the source, then that's free advertisement.

If the info was pais for, like a news site that charge to read it's arcticle, then I see it as illegal, but don't care either because I think information of that kind should be free. It's not like the guy made the news, he's just reported what happened. Is he giving a part of his profit to the person he's reporting about?

What about cutting a post from another forum and pasting it on a different one. No articles just peoples opinions, for discussion?

<font color=skyblue>Okay, thanks. I'll accept that explanation Memnoch and TL.

Man...when you don't want me to shoot anybody...don't give me the ammunition for my gun! [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'm trigger-happy enough as it is. [img]graemlins/2gunfire.gif[/img]

</font>

[ 03-16-2005, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

The short answer is Stay Off the Hustler forums -- you'll go blind!!

I love it when judges award penny damages for spurious claims and then don't give costs.

<font color = lightgreen>This is why I normally post only a link to a particular website or news article rather than trying to quote from it directly. Besides, I have always considered the internet to be akin to a library, from a citation point of view--you may cite articles, books, newspapers, etc. in a scholarly paper without (except in rare cases) having to obtain a license or prior written permission of the author/publisher to do so.

I suspect the worst wrinkles are going to be in those cases where an article from a pay-per-subscription website winds up being posted on a free forum, but even then news programs make such citationa all the time. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] </font>

However one could also easily make the argument that they are also being used to help the website owner solicit money from the Ironworks visitors. I'm sure we've all seem the "Donation Goal for this Month" thing at the top of the screen. A lawyer would have little trouble turning that into an argument that Ziroc was gaining financially from the reproduction of copyrighted work.

I'd say Seraph makes a solid point there.

<font color=plum>Hmmmmmm....interesting points on both sides so far. I usually try to copy the entire article (including the author's name) so that I ensure I give PROPER credit to the source. Maybe that was the wrong approach. Maybe it's best to just provide a link and let those interested go view the article for themselves.

I just know from my own experience that I'm more likely to read the article if it's posted here instead of forcing me to open a new window to look at it. But that's just a personal pet peeve.</font>

Cerek, it's probably the reason that everyone copies and pastes - to make sure people actually READ the article. :D

<font color=plum>Heya <font color=violet>Violet</font>.

I appreciate your posting the rest of the author's page without editing, but to be honost, I didn't see that <font color=tan>Timber's</font> quote was taken out of context. The guy says there is to be absolutely NO copying of his page to another internet site for ANY reason - EVEN educational purposes - and that is the same thing <font color=tan>TL</font> was pointing out.

But since he did specify there was to be no copying of his article, wouldn't that actually make your own post (intended solely for clarification) a violation of his copyright rules?

I don't agree with the guy and I personally see NOTHING wrong with the post you made, but it did occur to me that it technically violates the author's rules. The one thing I DID get from reading the complete page is that this guy is also completely full of himself. The constant reminders that HE must be given FULL credit for the info on that page (as if no other lawyer could or would post similar material) and that - if anybody dared violate his rule and post the info somewhere else - he would find it eventually. How? Does this guy spend each evening browsing thousands of sites looking for a possible breach of his rules???

Ah well. No criticism towards you, darlin. You were acting in good faith, and I don't see anything wrong with what you did. Just didn't see that <font color=tan>Timber</font> had taken anything out of context either. [img]graemlins/dunno.gif[/img] </font>