Copyright information for posting from other sites

[whcarm]

Just thought I would pass this informaiton on, to make it a little more clear what is legal to do and what is not.

copyright law does protect fixed literal expressions of ideas or information. However, it does not protect facts in and of themselves. So, relaying factual information is not against copyright law. You just cannot copy and paste the information.

There is nothing wrong with people on this site reading something like ESPN Insider and then coming on here and broadly summarizing the information in the own words.

By the way, although I am a lawyer, I am not a copyright law specialist and this is not meant to be legal advice. Although I generaly knew the above information, I checked with one of my legal colleagues who does specialize in copyright law to make sure.

[DallasCowpoke111]

Denny Crane!

[conner01]

only a lawyer would put a disclaimer at the end of a post.lol

[jps_tex]

So, that puts other Message Board sites, which we won't name in a bit of a predicament. Even though they are strictly concocted thoughts most of the time (which can be copyrighted), they say their stuff is fact so we can paraphrase or give a summary of it, correct?

:bang2:

[Big Country]

cut and paste is such a wonderful thing though!!! ... just look at what the record button started!

DAMN YOU TECHNOLOGY!!

:laugh1:

[sbuscha]

Just thought I would pass this informaiton on, to make it a little more clear what is legal to do and what is not.

copyright law does protect fixed literal expressions of ideas or information. However, it does not protect facts in and of themselves. So, relaying factual information is not against copyright law. You just cannot copy and paste the information.

There is nothing wrong with people on this site reading something like ESPN Insider and then coming on here and broadly summarizing the information in the own words.

By the way, although I am a lawyer, I am not a copyright law specialist and this is not meant to be legal advice. Although I generaly knew the above information, I checked with one of my legal colleagues who does specialize in copyright law to make sure.


You MUST give reference to the original poster of the article. A cut and paste is fine with reference.

[The30YardSlant]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192681,00.html

Study: Man Survives Nail-Gun Shooting of 12 Nails to the Head
Friday, April 21, 2006

PORTLAND, Ore. — An Oregon man who went to a hospital complaining of a headache was found to have 12 nails embedded in his skull from a suicide attempt with a nail gun, doctors say.

Surgeons removed the nails with needle-nosed pliers and a drill, and the man survived with no serious lasting effects, according to a report on the medical oddity in the current issue of the Journal of Neurosurgery.

The unidentified 33-year-old man was suicidal and high on methamphetamine last year when he fired the nails — up to 2 inches in length — into his head one by one.

The nails were not visible when doctors first examined the man in the emergency room of an unidentified Oregon hospital a day later. Doctors were surprised when X-rays revealed six nails clustered between his right eye and ear, two below his right ear and four on the left side of his head.

The study did not say how long the nails were, and a hospital spokeswoman refused to release that information. A photo published in the study suggests the nails range from 1 1/2 to 2 inches long.

No one before is known to have survived after intentionally firing so many foreign objects into the head, according to the report, written by Dr. G. Alexander West, the neurosurgeon who oversaw the treatment of the patient.




So sue me :rolleyes:

[whcarm]

So, that puts other Message Board sites, which we won't name in a bit of a predicament. Even though they are strictly concocted thoughts most of the time (which can be copyrighted), they say their stuff is fact so we can paraphrase or give a summary of it, correct?

:bang2:

You can summarize the information, that is fine. You can't copyright facts or information. You can only copyright how it is presented. Once you have paid for something and read it you have the knowledge of it. No one can stop you from passing on that information that you have learned.

However, if you take that information and then try to pass it off as your own information then you could be accused of plagirism, but not violating copyright laws.

[david_jackson]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192681,00.html



So sue me :rolleyes:

It's officially confimed Your a smart*** <tic>

[TwoDeep3]

You MUST give reference to the original poster of the article. A cut and paste is fine with reference.


I think you better check your facts here.

Intellectual property, whether written on a page or on an internet site still has the same parameters as far as ownership.

To print something, as in copy and paste, and then cite the author does not remove your liability should said author decide to seek relief via legal channels.

If you do not have express permission, you may quote the facts in the article, as stated above. But you may not copy and paste the words.

I suggest revisiting the piracy issues wityh people copying music and the pursuit by the RIAA in guarding the rights of the artists for your answers in this matter.

[whcarm]

TwoDeep is right. However, most people cut and past regular stories from other sites that you don't have to pay to get and they usually cite where the story came from. While this may still be illegal, it would be pretty rare for a place like foxnews or espn to go after someone copying and pasting their free articles. Mostly because there would be no real monetary damages.

[conner01]

i run a web site (not football related) but the wall street journal wrote me a nasty letter for referring to a story they had ran, and posting a link to it. i removed it from my site. not sure if just posting a link to a news story that was free on their web site was illegal or not but being as they have more lawyers than i do it was'nt worth the headache to fight with them.

[TwoDeep3]

However, Major League Baseball is starting up a lawsuit against a dcompany who uses stats as the basis for their fantasy baseball site.

The league is beginning to squawk about the use of the names of the players in a "for profit" manner. Thus evoking copyright.

If this flies in a court of law, it will drastically change the way information is distributed in regard to statistics and such.

Big Brother may not be the government, but commerce using the government as the hammer.

Interesting bed fellows.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I am going to give my two cents on this issue, It also needs to be stated that I am NOT an lawer and do not profess to have special knowledge of the specific law on this topic.

If someone sees a story on a public/free espn site and copies and pastes an article on a message board then we encourage they always provide a link and give credit to the source (site and also writer)

So if there is a story or blurb about a draft pick on espn we would hope you would provide the link to the story on espn and also credit say Mort for the story.

If it is a PAY site (for example ESPN Insider) then we ask that people do not copy and paste the whole article.

We ask that a person give credit to the source and at most summarize the story, possibly a few quotes but do not copy and post the whole article.

Now here is another situation that is a tad odd.

If there is a site that has information on a pay basis that puts up an article. But you have to pay or subscribe to that site to read the whole article.
Yet they also have a message board that has FREE membership.
Someone on that message board, which is a part of the site that has the paid info, posts that info on THAT message board for all to see in the FREE section.

Then someone copies and pastes in on another site, then we have some confusion if it is copied and pasted. We ask that someone still gives a link and source but if it is in the FREE section of that board, with no pay requirements...then it is an odd situation because someone on that board posted pay information in a free area and therefore it is no longer on a pay only basis.

Something like this happened recently.

[peplaw06]

However, Major League Baseball is starting up a lawsuit against a dcompany who uses stats as the basis for their fantasy baseball site.

The league is beginning to squawk about the use of the names of the players in a "for profit" manner. Thus evoking copyright.

If this flies in a court of law, it will drastically change the way information is distributed in regard to statistics and such.

Big Brother may not be the government, but commerce using the government as the hammer.

Interesting bed fellows.

No one here makes a profit for cutting and pasting articles. Plus, what are you gonna do? Waste money filing suit just because I cut and paste an article. Sure, you can write a threatening letter, but unless you're ready to pay to back it up, I can defy your request in the letter.

Part of the beauty of the internet IMO.

[DBoys]

Just thought I would pass this informaiton on, to make it a little more clear what is legal to do and what is not.

copyright law does protect fixed literal expressions of ideas or information. However, it does not protect facts in and of themselves. So, relaying factual information is not against copyright law. You just cannot copy and paste the information.

There is nothing wrong with people on this site reading something like ESPN Insider and then coming on here and broadly summarizing the information in the own words.

By the way, although I am a lawyer, I am not a copyright law specialist and this is not meant to be legal advice. Although I generaly knew the above information, I checked with one of my legal colleagues who does specialize in copyright law to make sure.

You can say whatever you want but you won't be able to police this on the internet. Your jumping states, countries, and jurisdiction.

If I paste a free article written in Philly on a site that is in Arizona and I live in Texas who's law am I bound by???

I suggest you go research how many people have been sued because of copywrite on message boards :) To pursue legal actions is a waste of time and money.

:laugh2:

[BrAinPaiNt]

You can say whatever you want but you won't be able to police this on the internet. Your jumping states, countries, and jurisdiction. You can preach all you want but I will take an article that I pay for and give credit to the source and fight you in court any day of the week.

If I paste a free article written in Philly on a site that is in Arizona and I live in Texas who's law am I bound by???

Your barking up the wrong tree. I suggest you go research how many people have been sued because of copywrite on message boards hhahahahhaahha 0 because it is a waste of time and money.

:laugh2:

A couple of points here.

Chances are you are right, it will never be stopped as a whole on the internet as it would take millions of eyes to catch millions of articles.

On top of that would you go after the person that pasted the article as they are the one breaking the copy right law, or do you try and go after the site it is posted on as they will miss things from time to time.

However one thing is clear, law or no law, chances of stopping it or not.

There should be something of a net etiquette that says you give credit to a source and a link to a source and if it is a pay article you only give a summary of such info.

Now IMO if information was pay information, and it was posted in a public and free forum on the same site that says it is pay information. Then it is copied to another site then they may have a problem figuring out what or who is to blame in that circumstance.

[Grizz]

Whether an original piece of work is posted on a free site or pay-for site has nothing to do with copyright violation. Almost any piece of original work is basically copyrighted under a law passed in 1989 if it is posted in a fixed medium (such as the Internet). For the copyright owner to actully sue they must register with the copyright office. But they do not have to register to have a copyright on their work, that is granted automatically at the time of creation.

There is a provision for fair use which says you can use excerpts from an article for purposes like commentary, criticism, news reporting, educational and a few other purpose. The key here is not to use it for porfit and that you only a small portion (small being undefined) but such that is doesn't use the key parts making the need to read the original piece unnecessary.

The law is vague in this area but in general you can't post a whole article no matter if it has a copyright notice or not, or whether it's from a free or a pay-for site. You can use excerpts as long as it doesn't take the key portions of the article that would make reading the whole thing moot. You must also credit the original source and on the internet it's common to link back to the original source.

And yes, enforcement is difficult and the laws around fair use are vague so it's a case by case basis. But, theoretically copying an article and pasting it elsewhere is a copyright violation. That said, it's a common occurence on the internet and policing it has been sporadic at best but there have been some cases of corporations suing site owners for continual abuse of copyright law. But in most cases it doesn't seem to be worth the effort of the copyright owners to commit the time, money and resources to do this kind of enforcement.

[DBoys]

A couple of points here.

Chances are you are right, it will never be stopped as a whole on the internet as it would take millions of eyes to catch millions of articles.

On top of that would you go after the person that pasted the article as they are the one breaking the copy right law, or do you try and go after the site it is posted on as they will miss things from time to time.

However one thing is clear, law or no law, chances of stopping it or not.

There should be something of a net etiquette that says you give credit to a source and a link to a source and if it is a pay article you only give a summary of such info.

Now IMO if information was pay information, and it was posted in a public and free forum on the same site that says it is pay information. Then it is copied to another site then they may have a problem figuring out what or who is to blame in that circumstance.

Good post

[DBoys]

Whether an original piece of work is posted on a free site or pay-for site has nothing to do with copyright violation. Almost any piece of original work is basically copyrighted under a law passed in 1989 if it is posted in a fixed medium (such as the Internet). For the copyright owner to actully sue they must register with the copyright office. But they do not have to register to have a copyright on their work, that is granted automatically at the time of creation.

There is a provision for fair use which says you can use excerpts from an article for purposes like commentary, criticism, news reporting, educational and a few other purpose. The key here is not to use it for porfit and that you only a small portion (small being undefined) but such that is doesn't use the key parts making the need to read the original piece unnecessary.

The law is vague in this area but in general you can't post a whole article no matter if it has a copyright notice or not, or whether it's from a free or a pay-for site. You can use excerpts as long as it doesn't take the key portions of the article that would make reading the whole thing moot. You must also credit the original source and on the internet it's common to link back to the original source.

Good post

[StanleySpadowski]

Taking any information verbatim from any other site is technically a copyright infringement.


The difference in pay/non-pay site copyright is legally nil but non-pay information is almost never the subject of adjudication because monetary damages are moot for the most part. There's simply no benefit to going to court over something that was already "free".

"Swiping" intellectual property with regards to a line of thinking is also technically illegal even without copyright protections but proving the unique properties of that thought and how that thought was stolen is virtually impossible and I can't think of a single case of that happening.

As an example, I posted three different "thoughts" here last fall that made PFT the day after I posted them. Could someone from that site have read this board and formed their opinion from something here? Yes. Could I ever prove that they did and I was the first person to ever think and write such thoughts? Not in a million years.

[Jarv]

Ever been to Drudge's website ? He has links to articles with a header explaining what its all about. If that was illeagle he would be shutdown now, with all of the exposer he gets.

With a lawsuit, don't you have to prove damages ?

[DBoys]

With most message boards this might be an issue because the article is breaking news. However anything that has been posted on pay sites or free sites is old news by the time it gets on this board.

Another point is how many ideas are stolen from this message board? You don't see the pay sites giving credit back to the message boards do you? I promise you more is stolen from the message boards than the other way around. Not to mention how much gets taken from other jornalists. 1 story breaks and 50 of them right about the same thing.

As far as I am concerned it is about the Cowboys and it all evens out in the end.

[Crown Royal]

Can anyone cite any caselaw on this subject?

And if not - I'll let you people set it and wait till afterward.:laugh2:

[peplaw06]

Can anyone cite any caselaw on this subject?

And if not - I'll let you people set it and wait till afterward.:laugh2:

Here's a case about copyright infringement and fair use, but it deals with software licenses.
United States v. Slater, 348 F.3d 666

I'll look for more if anyone needs it.

[RealCowboyfan]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192681,00.html



So sue me :rolleyes:

THEY CAN'T SUE YOU BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE....

[ghst187]

are you gonna arrest me for smoking?

[TwoDeep3]

No one here makes a profit for cutting and pasting articles. Plus, what are you gonna do? Waste money filing suit just because I cut and paste an article. Sure, you can write a threatening letter, but unless you're ready to pay to back it up, I can defy your request in the letter.

Part of the beauty of the internet IMO.

Evidently the comments I made seemed to have been confused with my original post.

The issue I am speaking of is simply put, MLB wants to sell the stats to sites who use it for profit running fantasy baseball contests.

As to what can happen if you are pirating information from a pay site, I suggest you review the RIAA vs music pirates to see that consequences can and have been exacted.

Not saying they will.

But surely there is a precedence on this issue in recent history.

[Hostile]

I hope some of this will help someone with any confusion. I stayed out of last night's fiasco for a reason. Please do not view this as my 2 cents worth. It is offered merely to perhaps help some understand the gray areas.


*******


Link (http://www.piercelaw.edu/tfield/copynet.htm)

Copyright on the Internet

Thomas G. Field, Jr. (http://www.piercelaw.edu/tfield/tgf.htm)

Introduction

This discussion addresses U.S. copyright issues of concern to those who post to or own email lists or host web pages. It also deals with situations where someone might want to forward or archive another's email posting or to copy material from another's web page.

Copyright gives authors, artists and others the right to exclude others from using their works. Federal rights arise automatically when a protectable work has been fixed in a tangible medium such as a floppy disk or hard drive. A poem or picture is as much protected on a disk as on a piece of paper or canvas.

Once a work has been fixed, suits may be brought only in federal, not state, courts. Foreign copyright owners need not register first, but U.S. owners must. Notice is not required. Still, promptly registering works provide legal advantages -- as does providing notice. These matters, and basic limits to copyright protection, are explained below.

Limits to Copyright

Copyright is the right to exclude, not to publish.
Copyright does not give its owners the right to sell or distribute, for example, libelous email messages. Also, of course, works that are obscene or invade another's rights of privacy or publicity are not publishable just because they happen to be covered by copyright.

Basic limits to copyright.
Although email messages and web pages may enjoy copyright protection, rights are subject to several fundamental limits. For example, only expression is protected, not facts or ideas. Also, later works that merely happen to be very similar (or even identical) to earlier works do not infringe if they were, in fact, independently created. Sources of general information on those topics are listed below.

Fair use.
Fair use is one of the most important, and least clear cut, limits to copyright. It permits some use of others' works even without approval. But when? Words like "fair" or "reasonable" cannot be precisely defined, but here are a few benchmarks.

Uses that advance public interests such as criticism, education or scholarship are favored -- particularly if little of another's work is copied. Uses that generate income or interfere with a copyright owner's income are not. Fairness also means crediting original artists or authors. (A teacher who copied, without credit, much of another's course materials was found to infringe.)

Commercial uses of another's work are also disfavored. For example, anyone who uses, without explicit permission, others' work to suggest that they endorse some commercial product is asking for trouble! Yet, not all commercial uses are forbidden. Most magazines and newspapers are operated for profit; that they are not automatically precluded from fair use has been made clear by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Licenses implied in fact.
Fair use allows limited uses of another's work without approval, but other uses may be approved by implication. For example, when a message is posted to a public email list, both forwarding and archiving seem to be impliedly allowed. It is reasonable to assume that such liberties are okay if not explicitly forbidden.However, when forwarding, archiving or, say, using part of a prior message to respond to an earlier message, be careful not to change the original meaning. No one impliedly authorizes another to attribute to them an embarrassing (or worse) message they did not write!

One web site confidently asserts that all list owners must approve before email can be forwarded. Yet, absent rules governing particular lists, I am aware of no legal basis for it. Why would the power of approval be implicitly given to list owners? Beyond that,few who post to public lists would object if their messages are forwarded to others apt to be interested.

In the same vein, it seems that few authors would object to having messages archived. That serves the interests of list members who may want to revisit topics addressed earlier. Indeed, most would prefer archives to seeing old topics rehashed -- why one often sees lists of frequently asked questions (FAQs), with answers.

Can people revoke implied permission once granted? Circumstances allowing that seem rare. Courts are, at best, reluctant to allow someone to impose a difficult burden on others. Email authors should be careful. Inadvertent messages could be removed from archives, but list owners -- particularly if they are not paid to maintain the list -- may have other things to do than correct members' mistakes. Worse, it may well be impossible to recall inadvertent postings after distribution.

Express Licenses -- Put it on the table!
To address some issues, one web author posts this amusing notice:WARNING: I reserve the right to use any email you send to me as either a testimonial of how great this page is, or as an (rare) example of the stupid things people send to me via email. If you do not want your email to be used in such a manner, mark it confidential....That seems reasonable; many email copyright problems could be avoided if list owners would broadcast, at least on initial subscription, a similar notice.

A brief sample appears below. List owners who care to use it are given permission, but please do not regard it as legal advice -- much less a fool-proof way to avoid copyright or other problems.Members who post to this list retain their copyright but give a non-exclusive license to others to forward any message they post. They also give the list owner the right to archive or approve the archiving of list messages. **All other uses of messages posted to this list requires permission of their authors.**Special situations.
Email lists are exceedingly diverse. Consider, for example, a prostate cancer listserv with a welcome message that provided in part:Now that you have subscribed, you are encouraged to send a note introducing yourself.... If your concern is about a prostate cancer diagnosis, also include your PSA blood test result, Gleason score, and cancer stage. .... If you have deleted or missed messages these can be found by accessing the archives.... [It lists several archives.]Each subscriber to that list (as well as many others) should long ponder the wisdom of having personal medical information publicly archived. For example, it could end up in the hands of employers or others who might use it for unintended purposes. When information can be misused, it certainly should not be sent to a public list.

Private lists.
"Private" lists are possible. All who sign up might expressedly agree, say, not to forward list messages. Also, list messages could be archived anonymously, if at all, or access could be limited by use of passwords.

Private lists should have few "fair use" problems; permission to use others' posts should be limited mostly by what they agreed to when joining, not by copyright law.

Authors' Rights

Registration.
Although web pages and email messages are protected as soon as created, copyright registration is needed before U.S. owners can bring suit. Also, prompt registration provides remedies that make lawsuits affordable. Statutory damages of $150,000 (or more, and attorney fees) for willful infringement can be obtained if published works are registered within three months, or unpublished works are registered before they are infringed.

Registration costs only $30.00, and simple application forms with basic instructions are available from the Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov/forms/) -- TX still appears to be the best choice. Yet, it would be prohibitively expensive for prolific authors or artists to register individual items other than in the context of existing disputes. Their options much improve when multiple works can be registered as a collection.

** Web pages.
The entire contents of a web site no more require multiple registrations than a book with many chapters and numerous illustrations -- or a CD with text and music, still and animated graphics, and software. Copyright Office Circular 66 (http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ66.pdf) contains a brief discussion. However, the following could mislead those unfamiliar with copyright:Revisions and updates
Many works transmitted online are revised or updated frequently. For individual works, however, there is no blanket registration available to cover revisions published on multiple dates. A revised version for each daily revision may be registered separately.... A separate application and $30 filing fee would be required for each....While new text isn't covered by prior registrations, it is difficult to see why a court would allow someone to get away with copying a page of mostly registered content merely because it contains a few new sentences or other changes!

** Email.
If a list owner wants to register threaded list contents, that should be possible -- particularly if copyright has been assigned by members. The main thing that seems unclear is how much time could be spanned by a single registration. Given that "prompt" registration means within three months of "publication", that period makes sense.

The situation for email authors is much more ambiguous. First, group registration of several periodical contributions by a single author is possible, but combining email posts would require liberal interpretation of the term "periodical." Alternatively, email authors might register their "unpublished" collections, but that presents a different problem: Are messages to "public" lists "published" for all purposes, or might they be regarded as "unpublished" for registration purposes? Perhaps because no one has tried to register, the Copyright Office has so far posted no information.

Notice.
For several years, copyright notice has not been required in the U.S. Until then, however, that was not true; notice may be needed to rebut lingering notions that works published without notice can be used by others without restriction.

** Web pages.
Again, web pages are simpler. Although a formal notice is not required, it is best to provide a notice such as appears at the bottom of this page.

** Email.
Notice on individual email messages (if blanket notice is not provided, say, in a welcome message) may also be useful. Something as straight-forward as "Please do not forward this message without permission" should be legally adequate as well as honored by most recipients. It is hard to see any advantage to traditional notices.


Links and Frames: Caveats

Links and frames present problems that seem unique to the internet. While typical links to others' sites are unlikely to cause copyright problems under present law, several caveats are warranted.

First, if one directly links to content that would normally be framed elsewhere, its owners are apt to object. There is little law directly on point because the few parties involved in such disputes have settled. Still, if a linking page surrounds other's material with its own ads, cuts out another's ads or makes it appear that the linking site is the source of the linked material, trouble is likely. It is difficult to argue that otherwise implied permission to link could be reasonably expected under such circumstances.

Second, consider situations where linked material infringes another's copyright. Ordinarily, a copyright holder would act only against the directly infringing page; others would be unaware of the dispute. However, where direct infringers are, say, beyond the reach of local courts, and particularly where a site owner actively encourages use of an offending page, there is a solid basis for protest. Unless copyright infringement has been actively encouraged, however, prompt removal of offending links should minimize risk of suit.

Third, while most web owners would complain about copying, some may complain about linking when it burdens their servers or, in the case of images, because it does not credit them. If that information is not posted, it is best to ask the owner. Still, no one should copy, even from sites that urge it without considering whether site owners hold copyright.

Finally, copyright is not the sole legal basis for objection. Anyone who makes derogatory references to others (or their sites, products or services), however it is done, invites trouble.


User's Risks -- The Bottom Line

Those who copy others' text are ever more easily found on the internet with search engines. Titles, markers and the like may also enable owners to locate improper copies of sounds or images.

Copyright law precludes most uses of others' works without explicit or implied permission. Because some uses are okay, people often ask which uses are okay. Such questions often miss the point. The most important risk is not of liability, it is of suit.

Consider graphics for example. Those who use a relatively small amount of another's work -- if not copied in detail -- may face small risk. Still, it is much better to work from scratch. Things represented to be in the public domain may not be. People looking for graphics have an alternative -- commercial clip art sold for such uses. Unlike freeware picked up on the web, it should also have warranties against infringement.

Litigation is expensive. People concerned about, say, the nuances of fair use must not become so entangled in legal details that they forget that anything generating income or interfering with another's potential income dramatically increases the chance of suit.

The most compelling questions are: (1) Is a proposed use of another's work likely to offend, and (2) Are expected benefits worth the bother and possible cost to resolve a dispute?

Why not ask? Only if the owner says "no" does the second question need to be addressed.

[big dog cowboy]

I can't argue with that. :D

[Hostile]

I can't argue with that. :DYour sister in law would try.

[proline]

Sorry if this has already been stated ....

In order to sue (and win anything) you have to show that you have been damaged by the person's actions. If the site that is posting the article has advertising on the web page, then copying and pasting, whether reference is given or not, or whether it is coming from a free source or not, could be said to have caused the host to have lost income because people are not having to view the advertisements. I really think the safest and fairest way to go is to just post the link. I know people get mad when they have to actually click on a link to go read an article, but that is really the only way that is not a copyright infringement, IMO.

[big dog cowboy]

Your sister in law would try.
Damn straight. Then I leave the room. And get the shotgun.

[jterrell]

The articles are NOT copyrighted thus do not have the same standards as music. Why? Because the info is found in multiple places all over the internet and thus nearly impossibe to rule "original". If it is not original it can not be copyrighted.


This is not only legally correct it is why there are not lawsuits all over the net for cutting and pasting articles.

The offense pasters are guilty of is really plagiarism and is not a crime.

Copying a website's design and layout then using all of their information would be a copyright violation. Posting material posted elsewhere is NOT illegal.

What a pay site owner would need to do is make it a bannable offense to post their inside info and then enforce that ban such that only trustworthy members had access to the insider info.

With regards to the specific examples used in this thread lets be real clear in that if ESPN and the Dallas Morning News suffer copy and pasters so will any middling wannabe site of any one particular team.

News reporting is one of the widest leeways with regards to copyright interperetation. A site like this for instance making no money and providing news and information for free would be the hardest target to attack in copyright infringement.

[Rack Bauer]

This is just my opinion, but I don't think it would be possible to sue over something that would exist regardless.


Take the TRR article yesterday. Let's assume it's true that there is trade interest there (for the sake of my point). That act, or information or whatever, exists whether TRR writes an article about it or not. They do NOT own that information. If anything, that information is owned by the Cowboys and Ravens. If anyone were at risk of being sued (work with me here) it's TRR for CHARGING people for information that "Belongs" to the cowboys/ravens.


Of course that's a reach. But so is the idea of TRR suing CBZ for "stealing" (:rolleyes:) that information (which doesn't even belong to TRR. Again, that information exists regardless of what TRR does).


In the case of music lawsuits, it's not even close to being the same. That music (or any particular song) would NOT exist unless the writer/singer of the song wrote it. It is THEIR music (actually it belongs to the record company that buys it). Redistributing that music is illegal cuz that music actually belongs to someone (or a company) and it is copyrighted. You can't sue over information that doesn't belong to you. If Jerry Jones were to come out in a press conference and tell everyone there is trade interest between the Ravens/Cowboys would TRR be able to sue him over it?



The only way it's would even remotely be possible to sue over an article would be if it was copy/pasted, credit not given to the site/person that wrote it, AND if the person that pasted it actually took credit for it. Even then, it would be a minor miracle if the orginal writer of the article were able to sue over it.


That said, I agree with most BP that it's common courtesy to link and give credit to the original writer when it's from a free site, and to just summarize and give credit when it's from a Pay site.