Copyright Infringement - Please Read A question Ian

[Pats726]

Ian...This is for you..about this copyright question....
I have a question regarding this...just so I uderstand what one can do and can not...I did post an article a few weeks ago...but I neither cut and pasted the article nor posted a link. The article in question was from a paper The Metro that does not have a direct link to articles as the are in a pdf format with no link to that edition or the page itself. I also could not cut and paste the article from the pdf format and had to transcribe it word by word. IN a case like this where there is no link not a format like that is this an infringement?? What does one have to do then to comment on an article like that...while not breaking that infringement?? I wasn't sure what to do..I didn't wish to only have portions of the article thinking it was unfair...especially with no link to the full article. Please let me know what to do in cases of that when there is NO link?? How much is some of containing text?? Is a link always needed?? Just wish to understand the technicalities...and on that positing..I credited it to paper author and date.. so I really wasn't sure what TO do.

 

[Ian]

Ian...This is for you..about this copyright question....
I have a question regarding this...just so I uderstand what one can do and can not...I did post an article a few weeks ago...but I neither cut and pasted the article nor posted a link. The article in question was from a paper The Metro that does not have a direct link to articles as the are in a pdf format with no link to that edition or the page itself. I also could not cut and paste the article from the pdf format and had to transcribe it word by word. IN a case like this where there is no link not a format like that is this an infringement?? What does one have to do then to comment on an article like that...while not breaking that infringement?? I wasn't sure what to do..I didn't wish to only have portions of the article thinking it was unfair...especially with no link to the full article. Please let me know what to do in cases of that when there is NO link?? How much is some of containing text?? Is a link always needed?? Just wish to understand the technicalities...and on that positing..I credited it to paper author and date.. so I really wasn't sure what TO do.

You can post a couple of sentences from the article and credit the source and provide a link to the article if it's available online. If the article isn't available online, I guess the most you could do would be to simply say where it came from. That's a tough one, but I think the same rule would more or less apply.

Ian

 

[hallfamebrady]

It has always been my understanding that you can reproduce an article as long as no profit is made and the work is credited. I work in the publishing field and this has always been the rule I go by. I assume most of this information is coming from free web sites and enables one to e-mail an article to a friend.

The question is does patsfans.com make a profit from the article. The poster clearly is not making money.

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

It has always been my understanding that you can reproduce an article as long as no profit is made and the work is credited. I work in the publishing field and this has always been the rule I go by. I assume most of this information is coming from free web sites and enables one to e-mail an article to a friend.

The question is does patsfans.com make a profit from the article. The poster clearly is not making money.

I believe that's how our copyright attny explained it as well. However, IMHO
1) It's really much easier to make a 'no verbatim quoting' rule HERE than it is to argue with every party that gets a hair across their bum about a fully quoted article of theirs.
2) Notice the Advertising on the top and bottom of every page. Whether or not this forum actually profits from those ads is irrelevant. It can be argued that those ads appearing above and below their copyrighted story or article is an attempt to profit from their work. Whether they're right or wrong, see #1.

 

[sdaniels7114]

Let's not forget that if the people who do write these articles that get posted verbatim don't get anything out of their efforts; because everyone just copys and pastes them everywhere, there'll be no incentive for them to write in the first place.

 

[Ian]

It has always been my understanding that you can reproduce an article as long as no profit is made and the work is credited. I work in the publishing field and this has always been the rule I go by. I assume most of this information is coming from free web sites and enables one to e-mail an article to a friend.

The question is does patsfans.com make a profit from the article. The poster clearly is not making money.

That's not entirely true. Regardless of profit or monetary gain you can only quote portions of an article in either a post, or an article, regardless of the site that's doing it. You can not reproduce an article in its entirety in any form on another site if it's not yours, whether it's in an article on our site, or a messageboard post.

It's not an issue of whether we're making money or not, that's not the issue. The point is they want the user to visit their site instead of skipping the whole experience by reading it here. If you don't go to their site, you don't view their ads, read more content, etc. If it's a premium article (paid subscription) that's even worse. I guess all I'm asking is that you post a sentence or two and a link to the source. The majority of people here are doing that, and I'm just requesting that the few who aren't that they simply become more aware of it.

Ian

 

[Pujo]

We are making dangerous assumptions here. Fair Use is a complicated issue and simply saying "it's OK if it's not for profit" isn't true. Besides, this site IS being run for profit.

Here is some good info: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

Edit: heh, the irony would have been if I quoted the entire Fair Use site

 

[Ian]

We are making dangerous assumptions here. Fair Use is a complicated issue and simply saying "it's OK if it's not for profit" isn't true. Besides, this site IS being run for profit.

Here is some good info: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

Agreed. I can't get into specifics about my experiences learning the hard way in assuming fair use, all I can say is that I learned my lesson nearly 10-years ago about the subject.

As an example the AP photos used on the front page of the site are used by permission and we pay a monthly fee to access them. Hundreds of sites use them without permission, but they'll be the ones paying the legal fees in the event someone actually calls them on it. While we do earn some revenue I can tell you that this site isn't being run for a profit, as the revenue that we do earn basically covers the cost to operate it. However, the traffic this site is now receiving is creating an unbelievable amount of bandwidth which is starting to create quite a challenge, and I'm going to need to make a server move prior to next season.

Ian

 

[Ian]

I believe that's how our copyright attny explained it as well. However, IMHO
1) It's really much easier to make a 'no verbatim quoting' rule HERE than it is to argue with every party that gets a hair across their bum about a fully quoted article of theirs.
2) Notice the Advertising on the top and bottom of every page. Whether or not this forum actually profits from those ads is irrelevant. It can be argued that those ads appearing above and below their copyrighted story or article is an attempt to profit from their work. Whether they're right or wrong, see #1.

Well stated T-Shirt.

Ian

 

[IcyPatriot]

Personally...I never read posts where there are more than 3 paragraphs...they are boring at best. I like when a poster puts a paragraph or 2...if I like it and it's not a local rag I bookmark it for later.

So, when in doubt, don't even bother. I've run across many PDF and similar...I figure, if I post it, who is going to take the time to read t...so I don't bother.

 

[Ian]

Another example. There was another site who used to post our articles in their entirety in their forum. I requested they stop it for this reason:

When an article of ours is linked to from another site, it creates a trickle down effect. People generally read that article, and then read other articles written by Bob George, Kevin Rousseau, Christopher Price, etc. We work very hard to write content for everyone to read, and it's all done in our spare times, as this site is something that's done in our free time. We all have real jobs

If the articles don't get read by the people who use the site, it kind of defeats the purpose of taking the time and energy to write them in the first place. It's like having this forum with 2 or 3 registered members, it would make it pretty pointless. I appreciate fact that all of you are here, since without all of you, this forum doesn't work.

In other words, I guess the point is that the articles do cause people to come and visit the site. If an article is posted elsewhere in it's entirety, it causes the users to skip visiting us all together. I understand the reasoning, and needless to say by law I have to respect their request.

Ian

I believe that's how our copyright attny explained it as well. However, IMHO
1) It's really much easier to make a 'no verbatim quoting' rule HERE than it is to argue with every party that gets a hair across their bum about a fully quoted article of theirs.
2) Notice the Advertising on the top and bottom of every page. Whether or not this forum actually profits from those ads is irrelevant. It can be argued that those ads appearing above and below their copyrighted story or article is an attempt to profit from their work. Whether they're right or wrong, see #1.

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

When an article of ours is linked to from another site, it creates a trickle down effect. People generally read that article, and then read other articles written by Bob George, Kevin Rousseau, Christopher Price, etc. We work very hard to write content for everyone to read, and it's all done in our spare times, as this site is something that's done in our free time. We all have real jobs

In addition, it makes it impossible to track and gauge the exposure the article gets. It bugs me when people do a full verbatim quote on Christopher Price's stuff, for example, even though it's all part of the same site. I never say anything because it's not my site.

But by taking away the need for a reader to click-through to the original source, whether your posting it here or on another site, you take away the ability to gather accurate traffic statistics on that particular page, i.e. the web server doesn't get to record how many people are actually reading the article. That's important stuff, whether for justifying ad prices to potential advertisers (to support this most excellent site) or just for the personal satisfaction for the author to see how well read his work is. I sure as hell wouldn't do what Christopher, Ian, and Bob, etc do if I didn't think anyone was reading it. (Thanks guys by the way!)

/soapbox

 

[gomezcat]

. However, the traffic this site is now receiving is creating an unbelievable amount of bandwidth which is starting to create quite a challenge, and I'm going to need to make a server move prior to next season.

Ian

Can you give us people with no lives due warning so that I, for example, can get to 2,000 posts officially?

 

[patchick]

...The article in question was from a paper The Metro that does not have a direct link to articles as the are in a pdf format with no link to that edition or the page itself. I also could not cut and paste the article from the pdf format and had to transcribe it word by word. IN a case like this where there is no link not a format like that is this an infringement?? What does one have to do then to comment on an article like that...while not breaking that infringement??

I'm intrigued by this question, because it turns the usual argument on its head. You often read arguments that it should be ok to redistribute an article if it's freely linkable on a website anyway. Here instead is the suggestion that it's ok to redistribute an article because it's not freely linkable on a website! I'm not trying to jump on this poster, who obviously wants to do the right thing. I just think it's an interesting illustration of how far we've come in expecting everything to be free online, with instant gratification.

I believe the single most pirated writer on the Patriots beat is Mike Reiss. Almost every blog he posts is posted here by someone. And every time that happens, probably 100 people who would have otherwise clicked on Reiss's site don't bother. Which means that the Globe doesn't know those hundred people give a damn, which means they undervalue Mike's work and underestimate the level of interest in the Patriots.

(FWIW, I write a blog on my own area of expertise, for which I receive no compensation. But as I shop a book proposal to publishers, I can point to the high traffic on my blog as evidence of public interest in my subject. Clicks can be valuable in many ways that aren't necessarily apparent to the reader.)

 

[Ian]

I'm intrigued by this question, because it turns the usual argument on its head. You often read arguments that it should be ok to redistribute an article if it's freely linkable on a website anyway. Here instead is the suggestion that it's ok to redistribute an article because it's not freely linkable on a website! I'm not trying to jump on this poster, who obviously wants to do the right thing. I just think it's an interesting illustration of how far we've come in expecting everything to be free online, with instant gratification.

I believe the single most pirated writer on the Patriots beat is Mike Reiss. Almost every blog he posts is posted here by someone. And every time that happens, probably 100 people who would have otherwise clicked on Reiss's site don't bother. Which means that the Globe doesn't know those hundred people give a damn, which means they undervalue Mike's work and underestimate the level of interest in the Patriots.

(FWIW, I write a blog on my own area of expertise, for which I receive no compensation. But as I shop a book proposal to publishers, I can point to the high traffic on my blog as evidence of public interest in my subject. Clicks can be valuable in many ways that aren't necessarily apparent to the reader.)

Well said, and the same issue applies to Reiss's Blog as well, as Boston.com I'm sure monitors his traffic. Our insider, Christopher Price, writes for local publications here in New England and is writing for us as a guest, and it's important to read his blog and not copy and paste it here. He gauges his readership by the number of times the blog entries and articles are read, and cutting and pasting them here prevents him from really knowing who's reading him.

Excellent post patchick. That summed it up pretty well.

Ian

 

[Pats726]

I'm intrigued by this question, because it turns the usual argument on its head. You often read arguments that it should be ok to redistribute an article if it's freely linkable on a website anyway. Here instead is the suggestion that it's ok to redistribute an article because it's not freely linkable on a website! I'm not trying to jump on this poster, who obviously wants to do the right thing. I just think it's an interesting illustration of how far we've come in expecting everything to be free online, with instant gratification.

I believe the single most pirated writer on the Patriots beat is Mike Reiss. Almost every blog he posts is posted here by someone. And every time that happens, probably 100 people who would have otherwise clicked on Reiss's site don't bother. Which means that the Globe doesn't know those hundred people give a damn, which means they undervalue Mike's work and underestimate the level of interest in the Patriots.

(FWIW, I write a blog on my own area of expertise, for which I receive no compensation. But as I shop a book proposal to publishers, I can point to the high traffic on my blog as evidence of public interest in my subject. Clicks can be valuable in many ways that aren't necessarily apparent to the reader.)

Some good points...thanks..it;s very hard with this whole new medium too understand what is OK and what is not..and with copyright laws changing, it is even harder to really understand in "old" media. I will agree totally about MikeR though..and how that might be under representing what his numbers are.