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

 

[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

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