Legalities of copying and pasting from other sources on the internet - pls discuss

[Memnoch]

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 ). 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 ]

[Chewbacca]

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 ]

[Memnoch]

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

[Timber Loftis]

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 ]

[Memnoch]

What's your opinion, TL?

[Memnoch]

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]

[Larry_OHF]

Originally posted by Memnoch: 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 ).

That was my understanding as well.

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).

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.

[pritchke]

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.

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

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[Memnoch]

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.