Forum Note: Posting of Copyrighted Material

[David M. Bueker]

Hello all - just a comment on the official policy of posting material from other sources.

In order to protect the copyright of the original sources we would ask that people not post entire articles (unless they are your own or course), even if they might be of great interest to the community. Instead, please post a short excerpt with a link to the full material.

A typically acceptable format for doing this looks like the following:

St Emilion classification reinstated - again
In bizarre twist to a seemingly endless saga, the French government has used emergency powers to resurrect the St Emilion classification...

See the full story on Decanter.com here: St. Emilion Classification

There's also a nice tutorial in our WLDG FAQ section on how to make cool looking links (like the one above) located here: Cool Looking Links

[Robin Garr]

Clearly and elegantly stated, David, thanks. I hope it's clear to all that we're not trying to get rigid or overly structured here. Copyright issues are rarely pursued, but we do open ourselves up most strongly to potential litigation if we post longer articles full-length; unfortunately, giving attribution is not sufficient to excuse it.

But this is by no means intended to discourage us from posting interesting things we find around the Internet. That is strongly encouraged; we just ask you take this one small step to keep us safe.

Recipes, by the way, cannot be copyrighted thanks to a quirk in copyright law, although the narrative around them can. It's still important to give attribution and a link where available though, simply because it's the right thing to do.

There's obviously a big difference to y'all between a link and a copy and paste.
Not that I can see it...

The recent landmark case that Google lost in Europe concerned posting summaries and links...

Best regards,
Alex R.

[Robin Garr]

There's obviously a big difference to y'all between a link and a copy and paste.
Not that I can see it...

The recent landmark case that Google lost in Europe concerned posting summaries and links...

Not to sound pushy or anything, but David's post is intended as a statement of forum policy, not an opportunity to suggest changes in it.

The recent landmark case that Google lost in Europe concerned posting summaries and links...

From what I understand, one of the big swingers in the decision was that cached links offered content of articles that are archived (and that certain news sources now sold as back-issue). It was also ruled that Google could not claim "fair use" exemption in displaying search results.

But the bottom line in the ruling was that copywrite owners would have to contact Google to complain about non-fair use and Google would have 24 hours to comply.

My guess is that Robin would remove content if an owner contacted him with complaint.

Robin,

I wasn't suggesting your policy should be changed.

I just find the distinction hard to understand.

That doesn't mean I won't abide by it!

All the best,
Alex

There's obviously a big difference to y'all between a link and a copy and paste.
Not that I can see it...

Quite simple. The owner of the copyright posts his/her/their copyrighted material on their website, or a website they have an agreement with. In the case of the article linked, Decanter pays Sophie K for the article. They expect that those who read it visit their site, which is how they sell advertising. If one copies and pastes, one steals their property. If one links, the reader visits their site, which is why they paid the writer to start with.

Dale,

Where does this leave things like blogs or non-commercial sites?

Presumably, lifting a quote as long as you cite the source is not a problem.

Best regards,
Alex R.

[David M. Bueker]

Dale,

Where does this leave things like blogs or non-commercial sites?

Presumably, lifting a quote as long as you cite the source is not a problem.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Indeed it is not a problem. That's what "fair use" is all about.

Dale,

Where does this leave things like blogs or non-commercial sites?

Presumably, lifting a quote as long as you cite the source is not a problem.

Best regards,
Alex R.

I think blogs and non-commercial sites are (and should be) treated legally the same as commercial sites. You are free to use a short quote(with attribution), or to link. But lifting of entire works is improper. Just because someone isn't getting paid doesn't mean it is not their property. Of course, enforcing those things is quite hard. There are a couple of sleazy sites that capture usenet threads and republish as "their" forum. Irritating, but too much trouble to deal with.

As David said, in US I can't imagine any short (say under one or two paragraphs) quote in a public forum not being considered fair use (I do recall one time where a person running another forum threatened Robin over a 3 sentence quote, but that was just crazy )

[Robin Garr]

Indeed it is not a problem. That's what "fair use" is all about.

Further, if I'm reading between Alex's lines correctly, a blog or Website is NOT a different kind of intellectual property than a print magazine article. There is no distinction between The Times of London and Ralph's Silly Wino Blog in this regard.

ALL intellectual property is copyright on the instant of its creation - you don't need to fill in a form - and all intellectual property should be republished in full with permission only. "Fair use" is not clearly defined under law, but it is best in all cases to keep it to a snippet at best, a few paragraphs at most. It should also be noted that this is not an American law or a European law but an international convention.

Again, discussion of intellectual property rights was not really the purpose of David's post, which was simply to re-express our forum policy as a reminder to all. It might be best eventually to remove this sub-thread to a separate discussion in Friends & Fun.

Recipes, by the way, cannot be copyrighted thanks to a quirk in copyright law, although the narrative around them can. It's still important to give attribution and a link where available though, simply because it's the right thing to do.

On that subject: in case anyone cares to know about the long history of recipe plagiarism in US cookbooks (and efforts therein to circumvent such copyright as does exist) -- or if you're interested in other aspects of US cooking and cookbook history, positive and negative, but missed this book (the landmark late-20th-century critique of the US food scene), check out the Hesses' Taste of America (reissued in paperback a few years ago). Relevant chapter is titled somethng like "The recipe racket." (Note, many criticisms in the book are unsparing and, for that reason, not to everyone's taste; at the same time, its factual details and quotations are scrupulous -- it's a rich source of references -- demonstrating that some of those criticisms are fully just, even if not kind.)

"Fair use" is not clearly defined under law, but it is best in all cases to keep it to a snippet at best, a few paragraphs at most. It should also be noted that this is not an American law or a European law but an international convention.

I think it is more accurate to say that many countries signed up to the convention, but they implement it through their national laws. There are small differences in interpretation from country to country. Normal rules would determine which country's law would be used in any prosecution. Though whatever the "normal rules" are, you can see how these might get difficult with the web. I wouldn't like to say what would happen if your webserver was located in one country, with a domain name from a 2nd, you uploaded the material from a 3rd country, and are normally resident in a 4th If one of more of these coutnries were non-signatories to the convention, I think you might get away with it.

[Robin Garr]

I think it is more accurate to say

Points well taken, Steve. Nevertheless, we're going to continue with the general policy as outlined by David. It's defensible, it's the right thing to do, and frankly, in the event of a complaint, an issue can be easily remedied.

Dale,

Where does this leave things like blogs or non-commercial sites?

Presumably, lifting a quote as long as you cite the source is not a problem.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Alex,

Here's the simplest way to say it:

Every word someone writes--on a blog, on this site, in a magazine, on any Web site, in a diary, anywhere, whether or not the writer registers copyright--is the property of the writer until he or she assigns the copyright to another entity.

Lifting a quote is allowed as "fair use" as long as the original is cited; lifting the stuff in its entirety is not, even with citing, unless specifically assigned.

"Fair use" is not clearly defined under law, but it is best in all cases to keep it to a snippet at best, a few paragraphs at most. It should also be noted that this is not an American law or a European law but an international convention.

I think it is more accurate to say that many countries signed up to the convention, but they implement it through their national laws. There are small differences in interpretation from country to country. Normal rules would determine which country's law would be used in any prosecution. Though whatever the "normal rules" are, you can see how these might get difficult with the web. I wouldn't like to say what would happen if your webserver was located in one country, with a domain name from a 2nd, you uploaded the material from a 3rd country, and are normally resident in a 4th If one of more of these coutnries were non-signatories to the convention, I think you might get away with it.

Steve,

A little while back I discovered a French Web site was lifting my blog entries in their entirety. I also noticed that the site advertised through Google's Adsense.

Google specifically holds Web sites accountable for content, and if you advertise through them, you must abide by copyright rules. So, I contacted Google. The company got in touch with the French Web site people (who's site was being hosted and controlled in Asia) and they were forced to stop stealing my writing. This event included three continents!

PS: While I waited for Google's response, I began to implant messages in my blog entries "if you are reading my blog content, you are reading stolen material." They printed that, too, because they were "scraping" the blog, just grabbing all content without even looking at it.

I think it is more accurate to say

Points well taken, Steve. Nevertheless, we're going to continue with the general policy as outlined by David. It's defensible, it's the right thing to do, and frankly, in the event of a complaint, an issue can be easily remedied.

Absolutely. It's the right approach legally and morally. I did not intend anything I wrote to suggest otherwise.

[Robin Garr]

Absolutely. It's the right approach legally and morally. I did not intend anything I wrote to suggest otherwise.

Thanks, Steve! I hope you understand that I knew that ... I wasn't really preaching to you specifically so much as to the choir ...