Apologies, Alphagene, for quoting the E! Online article about Dr. Laura in its entirety when their copyright notice says you cannot, and thank you for catching that.
However, in this thread, you took out the article and replaced it with a link to it instead, and then reprinted their copyright notice, which specifically says they allow articles to be reprinted in their entirety as long as you provide a link to PlanetOut itself, which I did.
OK, it was a little long, but I didn’t feel right in editing it, as it provided more of the background and the whole story.
So if I was allowed, by copyright laws, to post the whole thing, why did you replace it with a link? I understand why in the Dr. Laura thread, but why this one?
Personally, I’d rather people post articles if they can - it gets laborious, not to mention memory-munching and sometimes system-crashing, to have to keep linking to other articles. It’s easier on me and my system. IMHO.
Just getting a clarification - not a slam, I promise you.
It’s our policy here at the Straight Dope not to reproduce copyrighted material in its entirety.
Most sites are not as generous as Planet Out and restrict the right of reproduction. Rather than sort through the ones that say it’s okay vs. the ones that say no way, it’s easier for us to just not allow it in the first place.
Links are good, relevant excerpts are fine. Concise is always best. This is not only for copyright purposes but also for bandwidth considerations.
Hope this clears everything up for you. No harm, no foul by asking, btw, we’d prefer everybody understand why we do what we do.
I don’t take it as a personal slam, Esprix. I hope you didn’t take my editing as one either.
That being said, PlanetOut doesn’t simply ask that you “provide a link to PlanetOut itself”
Its copyright rules are explained in detail here and I posted them in that thread. To repeat:
“PlanetOut Corporation permits, without charge, the reproduction and distribution of PlanetOut materials for non-commercial educational and personal uses, provided that such materials remain unaltered and are accompanied by a clearly visible copy of this copyright notice and by PlanetOut’s URL (http://www.planetout.com/) and America Online keyword (Keyword: PlanetOut).”
You didn’t alter it and you did provide a link, Esprix, so you’re cool on two counts. However, PO asks that you also mention its AOL Keyword and a copy of the above copyright notice, which you didn’t do.
We have to be anal about posters sticking to copyright regulations, even though, for some, posting full articles is more convenient than just links.
But as Mikey Corleone said “It’s not personal, it’s strictly business.”
OK, fair enough. So why didn’t you just post their copyright notice for me instead of replacing the article with a link? I’ve seen some mods leave, say, the first paragraph, enough to get the gist of it, and then replacing the rest of the article with a link, so that people can either satisfy themselves with a summation, or at least know what they’re linking to. I know that’s what I would have preferred in this case (and in most cases, I’d wager).
Admin/Mod types: It might be worth spelling out the rules on quoting imported material again, if they’re not in the posted rules (haven’t reviewed them lately). And correct me on one point if I’m wrong:
I understand that it’s legal to quote a paragraph or two (200 words or 5% of an article, whichever is less) from a copyrighted article provided that you give reference to your source and its copyright notice, unless the article specifically forbids that, under general copyright law.
Any change in that? And is it acceptable board policy?
Because I don’t want posters getting into the habit of posting full articles and letting the moderators figure out what needs to be done to prevent copyright infringement. Rather than posting part of a copyrighted article, it might just be better to say “Hey, guys the Mormons are reaffirming their anti-gay stance! Here’s a link to the full story. Whaddya think?” Just to be safe.
That’s a good idea, however it should be phrased in such a way that indicates that the poster should be responsible for looking up the copyright laws of the sites they quote from. They vary greatly from site to site and it would be a lot of work for the mods to sift through the copyright regulations of every quoted article.
As for leaving part of the article, as Esprix suggested, I realize that has been done before on this board, but I was afraid that might constitute altering the full article. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know, but better safe than sorry. I have heard of “fair use” and the ranges I have heard have ranged from five to ten percent of the original article. I don’t know how valid and how universal that rule is, though. Even if we at the SDMB recommended a 5% rule, that may not comply with the quoted source’s copyright regulations.
So I would advise that any poster who quotes an outside source be familiar with the copyright regulations of that source. This way you don’t get edited, mods don’t have to constantly dig though legal mumbo jumbo and the Reader doesn’t get sued.
Ah I see. That makes sense. Hm, I’ll see if I can dig specifics about that.
If I find anything all legal-sounding and official, I’ll bring up the possibility of letting the SDMB at large know about these regulations at the next Mods, Inc. business meeting…
Say a member finds an apposite quote on the Internet to respond to a GQ, defend a point in GD, refute a flame in the Pit, or whatever. The site is copyrighted; there is no “you may not copy anything from this without prior written permission” jazz. What that member finds is then governed by “fair use” rules. If he extracts a pertinent point and quotes it, he does not profit financially, and the Reader, as you’ve made clear, does not make any money from the quote.
So I wanted to establish (1) what the law permits, and (2) what if any restrictions on that the Reader and the SDMB administration want to adhere to, so that we do not inadvertently expose the Reader, or ourselves, to a breach-of-copyright question, and so that what we post is done with your blessing.
I wasn’t trying to argue with you and A’gene – I was seeking specifics, and spelling out what I could remember of the “fair use” provisions from memory to help field the answer.
Polycarp, I, for one, hope the SDMB and the Reader don’t spell out exactly what is acceptable and what’s not. Fair use is one of those “you know it when you see it” sort of things. This discussion started with Esprix quoting an entire article. I can see that without all the proper references, this could be a problem.
However, many times I’ve seen dictionary and encyclopedia quotes with only a semi-reference to the source. You seem to be asking for a word count or percentage that I don’t think is in the spirit of the copyright law at all. I would think that I could quote a paragraph from a news article, give some reference to the source and not worry about whether it was 5%, 10%, 200 words or anything else. I shouldn’t have to count the number of words in the article.
Fair use means be fair. The Moderators and Administrators are good at keeping us in line and we should accept their judgement when we step over it.
I think a good rule to work from would be, to tell your source and quote only as much as is needed to make your point.
Am I out of line here? I’ve been outspoken against bandwidth theft and copyright infringement, but to set arbitrary limits on quoted material to express a point doesn’t seem like a very good idea.
It’s funny. Just a few hours ago, I almost quoted part of a WebMD article without checking their regulations. When I did check, they were so vague that I just threw up a link in the thread and and gave a brief summary in my own words of the parts of the article that were relevant to the discussion.
Boy a 1- or 2-line summary is needed for every link.
There must be ten threads I’ve visited today that just say “look here” then start commenting on it.
It’s bad enough the thread title was just a teaser, but to have the post be a teaser too is just rude. Let people know what the topic is before you force them to invest time into it, please!
I agree with Alphagene, the best way IMHO is to not quote directly from the article at all, but condense what the article says and include a link. I think that the format of this message board is such that including an entire article makes a thread too long. Personally, when I see a post that goes past the length of my screen, my eyes start glazing over. It’s more courteous to spare your readers the trouble of having to read the whole thing when it can be boiled down to a few sentences or paragraphs. If the link is included then the interested parties can go get more information if they desire to do so.
Do you think you also need to consider international copyright law? While there are international agreements what constitutes fair use in one country is not necessarily what is fair use in another country.
