copyrighted material
June 7th, 2010 at 2:38:12 PM
permalink
The parent company of the Last Vegas Review Journal and Las Vegas sun has brought 74 blog owners up on copyright infringement charges.
Although I put up a copyright notice anytime I cite an article, it may be better not to reproduce whole articles, but to reference them in your own words. You can still link to the site where the original article can be read. Respect their intellectual property.
Although I put up a copyright notice anytime I cite an article, it may be better not to reproduce whole articles, but to reference them in your own words. You can still link to the site where the original article can be read. Respect their intellectual property.
June 7th, 2010 at 3:31:01 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinIt may be better not to reproduce whole articles, but to reference them in your own words. You can still link to the site where the original article can be read. Respect their intellectual property.
good practice for just about anyone; it's just sleazeball to make it look like your own research etc
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
June 7th, 2010 at 3:34:51 PM
permalink
You can quote from an article, as long as the quotes are short and you attribute the source (writer, publication, etc).
You can also post entire articles if you have permission from the copyright holder.
You can also post entire articles if you have permission from the copyright holder.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
June 7th, 2010 at 4:29:41 PM
permalink
Quote: NareedYou can quote from an article, as long as the quotes are short and you attribute the source (writer, publication, etc).
You can also post entire articles if you have permission from the copyright holder.
wheres the line between whats considered just a quote and whats considered an article?
June 7th, 2010 at 4:43:01 PM
permalink
Quote: rudeboyoiwheres the line between whats considered just a quote and whats considered an article?
The same line as less than a full paragraph and several pages.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
June 7th, 2010 at 4:51:19 PM
permalink
When it comes to what's considered fair use, there is no hard and fast line. You are free to directly quote portions of articles with credit, and you're free to summarize as much as you'd like (in your own words).
I would err on the side of caution and avoid pasting anything on this board more than a couple of paragraphs, or about 60 words. It's nice to acknowledge that you don't hold the copyright, but afixing that little symbol won't protect you unless you've received advance permission from the newspaper to publish its intellectual property elsewhere.
I would encourage everyone to use links and drive a little traffic to the newspaper responsible for the reporting.
I would err on the side of caution and avoid pasting anything on this board more than a couple of paragraphs, or about 60 words. It's nice to acknowledge that you don't hold the copyright, but afixing that little symbol won't protect you unless you've received advance permission from the newspaper to publish its intellectual property elsewhere.
I would encourage everyone to use links and drive a little traffic to the newspaper responsible for the reporting.
June 7th, 2010 at 7:29:30 PM
permalink
I don't know how they are resolving these cases, but it seems as if they would treat the postings by guests on a forum differently then posts by the owner of the blog. But the lawsuits are for $75K apiece and some of them are for bloggers who talk about kitten care and other innocuous stuff. The wizard will probably shut down the site if he gets a lawsuit or thinks he might get one.
So err on the side of caution. Put a headline, and cite the source and author, a quick summary of the pint and add a link.
I am going through my old posts and deleting whole articles to help clean it up a little.
So err on the side of caution. Put a headline, and cite the source and author, a quick summary of the pint and add a link.
I am going through my old posts and deleting whole articles to help clean it up a little.
June 7th, 2010 at 9:35:46 PM
permalink
This issue bothers me. Personally, I don't think it's stealing someone's material unless you don't give acknowledgement to who wrote the document or who performed the research, or in some way get proper credit where credit is due. Writers on this form (such as pacomartin and others) always include acknowledgement of what they are posting, and I think that is sufficient. I feel like, in reading his posts, that he cites exactly what someone else says, and he makes it easy to see what is someone else's words and what are his own. This I feel is the spirit of copyright regulations.
I understand that there are plenty of people who don't cite original authors and steal material, and yes I feel that they should be punished in some way. But I think that the posters here on this forum haven't been doing that.
I understand that there are plenty of people who don't cite original authors and steal material, and yes I feel that they should be punished in some way. But I think that the posters here on this forum haven't been doing that.
June 7th, 2010 at 9:50:41 PM
permalink
I think you're confusing the standard for plagiarism with the standard for fair use. Indeed, nobody could accuse Paco or likely any other regular poster here of plagiarism because their quotations are well cited.
Still, the reporting is a newspaper's core "product," and the R-J is wise to protect it. The newspaper has paid the salaries of the reporter and his editors and set up the newsroom infrastructure that supports their work. Copying and pasting an entire article might not seem like stealing, but in a way it is. If you link to the article instead, you're rewarding their honest work and removing any gray area regarding copyrights.
Still, the reporting is a newspaper's core "product," and the R-J is wise to protect it. The newspaper has paid the salaries of the reporter and his editors and set up the newsroom infrastructure that supports their work. Copying and pasting an entire article might not seem like stealing, but in a way it is. If you link to the article instead, you're rewarding their honest work and removing any gray area regarding copyrights.
June 8th, 2010 at 9:54:35 AM
permalink
The one issue is when newspaper articles expire and are not available online any more. Instead you have to go to the library. How far back does the RJ and the Sun keep their articles on their site?
June 8th, 2010 at 11:20:17 AM
permalink
Quote: nyuhoosierThe newspaper has paid the salaries of the reporter and his editors and set up the newsroom infrastructure that supports their work. Copying and pasting an entire article might not seem like stealing, but in a way it is. If you link to the article instead, you're rewarding their honest work and removing any gray area regarding copyrights.
I understand what you're saying, and I don't necessarily disagree. The newspaper world has become big business, which is partly why the reporting isn't always fair and unbiased. But the same principle applies to magazines or online-zines, or any other number of information producing sources.
I understand that the newspaper, or whoever, has some desire to recoup the cost, through advertising, of producing the article. I guess I just feel like it's a step too far to call it "copyright infringement". When the article is properly cited, nobody has infringed on a copyright. However, I know that there probably isn't any other kind of lawsuit that can be brought up, but maybe something a bit more in line is required.
June 8th, 2010 at 11:36:40 AM
permalink
Quote: konceptumI guess I just feel like it's a step too far to call it "copyright infringement". When the article is properly cited, nobody has infringed on a copyright. However, I know that there probably isn't any other kind of lawsuit that can be brought up, but maybe something a bit more in line is required.
The copyright holder owns the material in question. You can't just post it elsewhere without his permission. Therefore doing so is copyright infringement.
Suppose you took your neighbor's car for a spin and then returned it. That still constitutes car theft, because you took the car without the owner's permission.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
June 8th, 2010 at 11:50:53 AM
permalink
Quote: konceptum... When the article is properly cited, nobody has infringed on a copyright. ...
Well, I'm certainly not an intellectual property attorney, but I don't think citing the source of something means that you haven't infringed the copyright. An extreme example would be this: Pick up a copy of the current best-selling novel. Make a bunch of copies and start selling them at 85% of the usual price of the book. Be sure to add on your title page a citation for the original author and publisher -- give them full credit for the work.
Think that would work out OK for you?
June 8th, 2010 at 4:47:46 PM
permalink
Quote: DocWell, I'm certainly not an intellectual property attorney, but I don't think citing the source of something means that you haven't infringed the copyright. An extreme example would be this: Pick up a copy of the current best-selling novel. Make a bunch of copies and start selling them at 85% of the usual price of the book. Be sure to add on your title page a citation for the original author and publisher -- give them full credit for the work.
Think that would work out OK for you?
Since when is common sense applicable in things legally related, like intellectual property, etc.?
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back !
Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
June 8th, 2010 at 4:59:23 PM
permalink
Quote: DocAn extreme example would be this: Pick up a copy of the current best-selling novel. Make a bunch of copies and start selling them at 85% of the usual price of the book. Be sure to add on your title page a citation for the original author and publisher -- give them full credit for the work.
Isn't this what Amazon does with the Kindle? Or what Google is trying to do with electronicizing (?) every document in the world?
Seriously though, you're right. And I understand. I am thinking of two entities involved in the publication of the material in question: the entity who wrote it/did the research, and the entity who publishes the material. Obviously, the entity who publishes the material needs to recoup the cost of publishing the material, and having some other person just blatantly publish the same material infringes on their copyright.
I feel that the entity who wrote and/or did the research has a different vested interest. While they may be paid royalties in certain circumstances, in others, they may have just been paid a flat fee (newspaper/magazine columnist). However, even so, they would not like to see their materials being credited to someone else.
For a number of years, I tried stand-up comedy. From that point of view, I can tell you that there is nothing worse than hearing someone else tell a joke you wrote. Sometimes, people don't realize the amount of effort that went into writing a joke, perfecting the timing, getting the wording just right, etc, etc. Then to have someone else just come along and steal it, and tell it themselves, well, it's theft, as you and other stated.
So, again, I do understand. I just feel that the two different entities have two different reasons for being upset if the material is shown on another website. I guess I feel that the person having wrote the article has LESS of a reason to be upset, if his name appears on the work. However, the publisher is still losing out on advertising revenue coming from the ads placed on his website.
I guess I just think that a happy medium could be reached. Such as quoting the article, in full, with proper credit, and a link to the original website of the article. I know that will never happen, but I'm always looking for happy mediums. :)
June 8th, 2010 at 5:13:46 PM
permalink
Quote: konceptumIsn't this what Amazon does with the Kindle? Or what Google is trying to do with electronicizing (?) every document in the world?
No, I'm quite confident that Amazon's eBooks for the Kindle (or Barnes and Noble's eBooks for nook and all the other similar products) involve paying the copyright owner for use of their works. Except in the case of those works where the copyright has expired. These eBooks are published and royalties paid in a manner fairly similar to the paper and ink versions.
Now Google is another story. I have not studied the issue, but I think there may be some valid claims against them. The idea that "once a document exists, everyone should have access to it" just doesn't fly very far in my opinion, particularly if the author is not being compensated properly. That's just exploitation/theft of someone else's work.
June 8th, 2010 at 5:41:52 PM
permalink
The websites being sued are Major Wager , Citizens for responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Matt Farnham a local real estate agent.
I don't know if the websites have changed in anyway as a result of the lawsuits, but mostly they look like series of links.
Farnham said that until he was contacted by the Sun on Friday, he was unaware there was a concern with his posting Review-Journal stories. Farnham said he had felt that posting such stories, while crediting the source, was appropriate and that he didn't intend to plagiarize any information.
I don't know if the websites have changed in anyway as a result of the lawsuits, but mostly they look like series of links.
Farnham said that until he was contacted by the Sun on Friday, he was unaware there was a concern with his posting Review-Journal stories. Farnham said he had felt that posting such stories, while crediting the source, was appropriate and that he didn't intend to plagiarize any information.
June 9th, 2010 at 6:43:08 PM
permalink
June 11th, 2010 at 1:12:25 PM
permalink
The lawsuits now number 26 (for $75K apiece). See the article in the Las Vegas Sun .Copyright Las Vegas Sun, 2010, All Rights Reserved. So the lawsuits now total $2 million.
Quote: Steve GreenRighthaven has partnered with the Review-Journal to sue and seek damages from parties allegedly infringing on copyrights. Righthaven acquires copyrights for specific R-J stories and sues websites that have posted those stories.
June 12th, 2010 at 4:43:24 AM
permalink
These issues are going to pick up steam, because Murdoch and a few others are trying to put the genie back in the bottle. In the early days, when eyeballs were considered the metric, newspapers and other content providers (except notably the Wall Street Journal) put their stuff online for free with the expectation that advertising revenue would pay their way. Now that it's painfully obvious that that didn't pan out, not only are they getting more aggressive in protecting their content; there's a slight move to try to erect pay walls. It remains to be seen how that plays out.
I believe Murdoch or someone sued Google saying you can't quote the lead from our story on your News pages, even if you're linking to us and you don;t have any advertising on that page. Don't remember if that got settled yet.
I think there was a case in Europe when linking itself was held to be a violation.
There's a ton of fuzziness in fair use; you can read different decisions on it where the cases were similar but the judgments were different. It's best to be conservative because you may be able to make a good case on paper that you're right, but you can't afford to pay to make it in court.
I believe Murdoch or someone sued Google saying you can't quote the lead from our story on your News pages, even if you're linking to us and you don;t have any advertising on that page. Don't remember if that got settled yet.
I think there was a case in Europe when linking itself was held to be a violation.
There's a ton of fuzziness in fair use; you can read different decisions on it where the cases were similar but the judgments were different. It's best to be conservative because you may be able to make a good case on paper that you're right, but you can't afford to pay to make it in court.
June 19th, 2010 at 3:21:01 AM
permalink
Let me just state that I think Pacomartin has always used his material in a legitimate manner. In my opinion, as long as you fully state where it originally came from you're fine. If you get a letter from the original writer, then you should stop. I think it's kind of ridiculous to use the full force of the law against someone who stated the entire source. For just a laugh, here is the epitome of illegitimate use:
Rip off: http://izismile.com/2010/06/16/celebrities_and_their_physical_defects_17_pics.html
Real thing: http://screenteamshow.com/blog/?s=deformities&submit=Search
The rip-off didn't even try to fake it, leaving the original web site's wetmark. In all fairness, it was a comment on digg that led me to this realization.
Rip off: http://izismile.com/2010/06/16/celebrities_and_their_physical_defects_17_pics.html
Real thing: http://screenteamshow.com/blog/?s=deformities&submit=Search
The rip-off didn't even try to fake it, leaving the original web site's wetmark. In all fairness, it was a comment on digg that led me to this realization.
Its - Possessive; It's - "It is" / "It has"; There - Location; Their - Possessive; They're - "They are"
March 5th, 2011 at 1:18:39 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinThe parent company of the Last Vegas Review Journal and Las Vegas sun has brought 74 blog owners up on copyright infringement charges.
Although I put up a copyright notice anytime I cite an article, it may be better not to reproduce whole articles, but to reference them in your own words. You can still link to the site where the original article can be read. Respect their intellectual property.
Read this
March 11th, 2011 at 9:09:04 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinThe parent company of the Last Vegas Review Journal and Las Vegas sun has brought 74 blog owners up on copyright infringement charges.
Although I put up a copyright notice anytime I cite an article, it may be better not to reproduce whole articles, but to reference them in your own words. You can still link to the site where the original article can be read. Respect their intellectual property.
I get a big question on the copyright infringement stuff. Is it legal to "link" a map or a photo directly within my post? Copying and pasting the entire article onto a post IS illegal. I understand that. Maps or photos can NOT be directly copied onto a post. They must be "linked" by using the "Img-Commands"; thus, I can not be charged and penalized for "linking" them illegally, right guys?
For example, I can link a monorail map and Marilyn's photo within my post by typing: img=
and add on these links:
http://www.lasvegas-how-to.com/image-files/img_las_vegas_monorail_map.gif and
http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/xx298/amber3024/Marilyn%20Monroe%20Icons/mm.gif
I will get the map and photo linked directly within this post like these:
I look forward to reading your replies.
I'm OK with Corps which pick and choose clienteles. Both insurance companies and casinos have the right to pick and choose customers. They may keep profitable ones and kicked out the rest. But, I'm not OK with a casino supervisor who says counting cards... is like stealing food from a buffet (a foodlifting offense), or video-taping a movie in a cinema (a piracy offense).
September 8th, 2011 at 6:57:01 AM
permalink
Here is a current article http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/09/righthaven-on-life-support
September 8th, 2011 at 7:48:49 AM
permalink
I read somewhere . I think in a NOLO book, that patents can not be copyrighted. Is that true?
September 8th, 2011 at 8:08:20 AM
permalink
I don't get it.
Why doesn't Righthaven treat the situation like any "normal" case, and file suit in the name of their clients, in this case the newspaper / media companies?
They can still get paid fifty percent via a contingent fee agreement with their clients.
Why go through the seemingly unnecessary step of trying to assign the claim to Righthaven, so the suit can be brought in their name only?
I can only suspect that the newspaper companies (clients) do not wish to risk the potential legal liability of successful counterclaims or claims for sanctions, and / or they don't want the negative publicity filing suit in their own names might cause.
Curious.
Why doesn't Righthaven treat the situation like any "normal" case, and file suit in the name of their clients, in this case the newspaper / media companies?
They can still get paid fifty percent via a contingent fee agreement with their clients.
Why go through the seemingly unnecessary step of trying to assign the claim to Righthaven, so the suit can be brought in their name only?
I can only suspect that the newspaper companies (clients) do not wish to risk the potential legal liability of successful counterclaims or claims for sanctions, and / or they don't want the negative publicity filing suit in their own names might cause.
Curious.
"What, me worry?"
September 9th, 2011 at 3:28:36 PM
permalink
November 4th, 2011 at 6:09:27 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinThe lawsuits now number 26 (for $75K apiece). See the article in the Las Vegas Sun .Copyright Las Vegas Sun, 2010, All Rights Reserved. So the lawsuits now total $2 million.
Righthaven isn't faring too well these days:
U.S. Marshals ordered to seize Righthaven assets
Adam Hochberg Nov. 3, 2011 11:25 am
Las Vegas Sun | Law.com
A federal court has ordered U.S. Marshals to seize $63,720 in assets from Righthaven – the embattled Law Vegas company that files copyright infringement lawsuits. Righthaven tried to make money by acquiring the copyrights to newspaper articles – mostly from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, then suing websites that reprinted them. . . . But many of the suits backfired. In several cases, judges ruled that Righthaven didn’t control the copyrights. Other courts concluded that the websites had fair use to reprint the stories. Righthaven has been ordered to reimburse defendants more than $200,000 in legal fees. . . . Righthaven may appeal Tuesday’s seizure order, which came after Kentucky website owner Wayne Hoehn prevailed in a lawsuit Righthaven filed against him.lvrj
