When a website posts a news story, do they own the rights to the content? I know the way their worded it is automatically copyrighted, but do they own the rights to that particular story? Could another site report the same news derived from the original site’s, rewording it into an original work?
Also, is they can, do they have to credit the original source? What if the source they’re crediting credited another source? Who would they credit?
is=if
If you copy the article word for word, then it is a violation of copyright. If the second person writes an article and writes, “According to Joe’s Newspaper, blah blah blah”, then there is no trouble.
Thanks, BobT…
I ask because GameSpot.com claims "GameSpot content, including news, preview, and review articles, as well as media such as movies, is all copyrighted content and may not be used or reproduced on other sites/publications without express consent. "
So if you’re right, as long as one doesn’t plagiaries when reproducing their news stories, they’ll be fine?
GameSpot is not saying that they own the copyrights to the news articles they publish. They most likely don’t and have an agreement from say, AP or Newswire to carry the information. The article is still copyrighted.
The fact that something happened (the “story”) is not copyrightable. It’s the way the story was reported that may or may not be copyrightable. Steer clear of lifting sentences and paragraphs or if the story was written in a particular way (cleer intro, combining history w/ current events). When in doubt, credit the source.
The law may have changed since, but a couple decades ago, I heard a lawyer on a radio show explain that all those announcements at the end of baseball, football, basketball, hockey telecasts that the game may not be rebroadcast without the express written consent, etc., etc. were meaningless and had no effect, the only exception being canned interviews (having been edited). Also an exception for wrestling (it was presumably scripted at least in outline). The explanation was that news was exempt from copyright laws. Now, the games are broadcast live, while news broadcast, are normally edited in various ways. So my interpretation would be that a breaking story, such as 9/11 was on 9/11, would not be protected and you could freely rebroadcast it, but the usual scripted, edited news is probably protected. I am not, obviously, a lawyer. And the copyright law may have chenged in the meantime.
News is only exempt from copyright law to the extent that FACTS are exempt from copyright law. You can steal stories and story ideas all you want, but if the if you steal somebody’s writing, you will have a problem. With newspapers, you’ll see the copyright symbol on in-depth features that they’ve put a lot of effort into. These stories generally have a more distinctive style than “straight” news, so the newspaper is more interested in protecting them. No, you don’t need a copyright symbol to have copyright, but it doesn’t hurt.
Hari, assuming you understood him correctly, that lawyer was wrong then and he would be wrong now. aaslatten has the right of it – facts are not copyrightable, but presentation is. Any rebroadcast of a news story (or a baseball game) without permission would violate copyright because the particular words used are a creative work of authorship protected by copyright. However, you’d be perfectly within your rights to listen to a news or game broadcast, and then tell your pal exactly what happened – as long as you put it in your own words.
The issue of news stories is a little more complex, however, because of International News Service v. Associated Press. In this case, the Supreme Court held that there is a property interest in a news story, presumably separate from and in addition to the copyright in the language thereof. The exact contours of this interest are ill-defined, but the gist is that it’s probably illegal for a news organization to merely parrot the facts from an article created by the journalistic efforts of a competitor. In practice, this typically results in news agencies who break stories being credited by other papers when the story is more widely reported. So the answer to the OP is probably yes, the site does have some rights to the content beyond mere copyright in the presentation of the story, but that all a different news source needs to do is either 1) verify the facts on its own and then print them, or 2) credit the original source. However, this is a very grey area and one not well defined by the courts, so if this is a real situation and not a merely hypothetical question motivated by idle curiosity, you need to consult an attorney expert in the field – I certainly am not competent to give legal advice on the subject.
–Cliffy
Cliffy, it was asked out of pure curiosity.
If you really want to know the legal aspects, I suggest going to the source:
There’s no hard-and-fast rule about how much of someone else’s work you can use. A rewrite could be considered a derivative work and a copyright violation. Some people may tell you if you change XX% of something it’s yours, but that’s not true.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html
I would suggest not posting someone else’s work on your Web site without the author/owner’s permission. At worst you’re violating the law, at best you’re taking somebody else’s work. If it’s an original piece, post a brief summary and a link to the original, or do your own research or interviews on the subject. If it comes from a third party (a press release, for example) contact them directly and ask for permission to post the information.
(I see on preview skateboarder87 was merely curious, so just read “you” in a general sense.)
I just want to second Cliffy’s citation of News Service v. A.P. ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=248&invol=215 ).
The case was decided on grounds of unfair competition and not copyright. Basically, the court said that the absence of a property right does not preclude an action in unfair competition.
This is what I’m curious about. Am I permitted to post, say, an entire Detroit News article on a message board if I also include the link to the actual newspaper article? What about AP stories?
No, and no.
If the newspaper wanted to cause a stink about it, who would they have to go after? The person who posted the article or the MB? Some message board are unmoderated.
Both. The fact that it’s unmoderated might make a difference (and have the board dropped from the suit), but it’d be a case of “kill them all and let God sort it out.”
I once worked for a firm that did that for political news.
We took all the stories we could get, condensed them, and then ran them with attribution. Made a ton of money at it.
While I think news services would object to wholesale theft of stories none of the one’s we lifted from objected if we reported the gist of their story (with brief quotes) and gave attribution.
I’m not trying to be a Junior Mod, but the Chicago Reader, which sponsors and hosts the SDMB takes a VERY dim view of posting whole articles from any source, and it is a warnable offense.
Copyrighted material is copyrighted material. It makes no difference where it comes from, and the AP can be just as ferocious as anyone else in protecting their work. The stories that a news organization (and I’m using “organization” in a complete sense) produces are their product, and the AP wants subscribing newspapers to pay for that product. Posting articles willy-nilly on the Internet weakens their copyright, and they don’t like that very much.
Robin