I’m manager on a mainstream community. I’ve got a small situation I don’t know the answer to, so where do I turn to? The SDMB of course.
There are tons of webpages out there that talk about copyright but I can’t find the answer to these questions:
Is is a violation of copyright to use misrepresent the source material by removing key words?
Anyone know?
I’m also wondering what really falls under fair use - is there an actual number of characters/words/paragraphs?
Finally, can a copyright holder legitimately object to copyrighted materials being used (quoted) to support conclusions that they don’t agree to and that the materials don’t really lead to when read in full?
I’m not sure what you mean. From what I understand, someone is taking something from your website, altering it, and then attributing it to you. For instance:
“I am not a crook.”
becomes
“I am . . . a crook.”
That’s not really a copyright issue, though my example could be grounds for libel.
But I’d need more specifics.
As far as fair use is concerned, there is no set amount. The law let’s the judge decide, depending on the extent of the copying, the usage, and other factors. Most likely, though, a paragraph or two is going to be considered fair use.
Finally, the copyright holder can object, but I’m not sure there’s any legal action he can take (unless the change makes the statement libellous). In any case, it probably wouldn’t be a copyright issue but something else.
Actually it is a message posted on our site that is quoting someone else’s article. The URL to the full article is also included in the post.
The quoted part has been altered by the removal of key words and used to point to a conclusion the author doesn’t actually support in the full article. They are objecting and requesting the message be removed, and I’m trying to figure out if this does or doesn’t fall under copyright violation.
I don’t have a good answer for you regarding copyright law, but I might have a source for further information. There was recently a widely-debated case where columnist Molly Ivins selectively quoted George Bush to misrepresent what he had said regarding the war on terror. Basically he said something to the effect that his administration had arrested or killed several hundred terrorist leaders and these people were no longer a threat, and Molly Ivins paraphrased to make is seem like Bush was claiming terrorism was no longer a threat and then ridiculed him for that position. There was much debate about whether this was legal or ethical. Much of what I heard/read in the media and here on SDMB was opinion rather than objective legal fact, but you might be able to find some authoritative legal opinion in amongst the hand waving.
Copyright violation or not, if the quote misrepresents the material it was quoted from and if explicit board policy is to remove objectionable posts, I’d remove the post.
In practical terms, what you describe certainly sounds unethical (I can’t speak to whether it’s legal, or enforcably legal). If you’re an administrator or leader in your community, why not just put back in the key words and/or remove it?
Well sure I can remove anything - we are a private site. I prefer though to have an actual rule I can point to as being broken, instead of just quoting our “we reserve the right to remove anything…” section.
This is helpful folks. Thanks muchly to everyone who’s answered.