Copyright Infringement for posting news stories?

[PK90 3,570]

Interesting post from Eric at GlockTalk.

 

GT's New Copyrighted Material Posting Policy - Please Read

Folks, this is an issue that has been a long time coming and it is something that I must now make a policy change on.

 

The distinction between fair use and copyright infringement is unclear and not easily defined. You need to understand that when you posted copyrighted material online that you could be exposing yourself to legal action and while each member is ultimately responsible for what they post, I don't want to have to defend this site in court, for someone else's actions.

 

It has been this site's policy, in the past, to leave it to each members' discretion to follow all applicable laws when it comes to the content they post and to remove any copyrighted material when its owner made us aware of their intellectual property being posted here. In today's litigious society, this policy no longer seems adequate.

 

From now on, I do not want any content from other sites posted here. This means no reposting of news articles, blog content or any other content from anyone else's website or publication, all or in part. If you want to discuss a news article from another site or source here, you can summarize it and link to it, or you can simply link to it. Please do not post even part of it here verbatim, even if you acknowledge its source.

 

As always, if anyone thinks that their copyrighted material has been used on this site without their approval, please report the thread and I will deal with it.

 

I am going to talk to a lawyer about Copyright and Fair Use laws, in the next month or so. I will try to hammer out a more flexible policy, that protects everyone's rights. Until then, this is how it is going to be.

 

I urge anyone who reposts potentially copyrighted material to read up on the law. You need to understand the potential legal liability you are opening yourself up to, by doing so. For my part, I choose to ere on the side of caution.

 

I ask that anyone that sees any such content posted here to report the thread/post, so it can be removed. I want the posters of such content to understand that if my site incurs legal expenses defending itself for content that you posted here, we will take legal action against the poster of that content, to recoup our legal expenses. I don't want to be a hard-ass about this, but this is a completely avoidable eventuality. Don't post copyrighted material and there is not a problem for anyone.

 

If you have reposted articles, or other copyrighted materials here, in the past, I suggest you find the threads in question and edit them. If the post has been quoted by someone else in the thread, report the thread to me, so I can deal with it.

 

Folks, I really hate that steps like this are necessary, but this is the world we live in. I am going to try to find or develop a system that will allow the easy and convenient display of content like news articles, while still preserving the owner's copyright. Until then, it doesn't take much longer for you to post a summary of the content you wanted to share than it does to simply repost it. Eric

OOPS!!! Will I get sued now for posting this?

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

This may be what's driving this (note I only posted an excerpt, not the entire article):

 

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars/

 

Steve Gibson has a plan to save the media world

[GoNRA 12]

I think News is different cause it's meant for the public, and looks to spread its material by any means necessary, it is also free. If it's a book, or other type of material that you would be required to buy otherwise, I think you could have this problem. If they were that concerned about copyright infringement, I believe they would go after youtube first.

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

... If they were that concerned about copyright infringement, I believe they would go after youtube first.

 

They already did:

 

http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/07/what-the-viacom-vs-youtube-verdict-means-for-copyright-law183.html

 

... Viacom, the media conglomerate that owns a slew of television networks as well as Paramount Pictures, sued Google, the owners of YouTube, for direct and secondary copyright infringement. In essence, Viacom claimed that YouTube violated copyright laws by helping distribute illegally copied videos that were uploaded to the site by individual users. ...

[PK90 3,570]

Got this from the CourierPost:

 

Your Limited Right to Use Site Materials. This Site and all the materials available on the Site are the property of us and/or our affiliates or licensors, and are protected by copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. The Site is provided solely for your personal noncommercial use. You may not use the Site or the materials available on the Site in a manner that constitutes an infringement of our rights or that has not been authorized by us. More specifically, unless explicitly authorized in these Terms of Service or by the owner of the materials, you may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit, translate, sell, create derivative works, exploit, or distribute in any manner or medium (including by email or other electronic means) any material from the Site. You may, however, from time to time, download and/or print one copy of individual pages of the Site for your personal, non-commercial use, provided that you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices. For information about requesting permission to reproduce or distribute materials from the Site, please contact us.

[Drew 4]

This may be what's driving this (note I only posted an excerpt, not the entire article):

 

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars/

 

Steve Gibson has a plan to save the media world

[Drew 4]

... If they were that concerned about copyright infringement, I believe they would go after youtube first.

 

They already did:

 

http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/07/what-the-viacom-vs-youtube-verdict-means-for-copyright-law183.html

 

... Viacom, the media conglomerate that owns a slew of television networks as well as Paramount Pictures, sued Google, the owners of YouTube, for direct and secondary copyright infringement. In essence, Viacom claimed that YouTube violated copyright laws by helping distribute illegally copied videos that were uploaded to the site by individual users. ...

 

Now that makes sense because 1 viewer is copying material to show to millions of others. TV stations make their money by the amount of people watching their channels and seeing the commercials.

[GoNRA 12]

"Please note: There are times when copy/pasting is allowed: namely, when you are quoting someone

[Redfish62 1]

I always thought if it was on the internet it was free for the taking.

[KpdPipes 388]

I know the standard in the PAS has been attribution.. As long as the source is listed you were ok, especially if it were linked directly.

[jermz1987 243]

I always thought if it was on the internet it was free for the taking.

 

 

That's what I thought.

[coldsolderjoint 84]

I always thought if it was on the internet it was free for the taking.

 

 

That's what I thought.

 

I think that only applies to porn.

[kenw 293]

Even porn is protected by copyright.

[coldsolderjoint 84]

[GoNRA 12]

Well if anything, many things circulate throughout the internet, and many if not all of us have circulated something from time to time. I think you could argue it's one of those things that everybody does, and it isn't strictly enforced, otherwise (everybody) wouldn't be doing it. I could see suing a big company for it, but to sue an individual/non-profit I think it is a big waste of time. Plus everyone for the most part remains annonymous on the internet and it would be hard to track every single individual who is guilty of doing this, if it is really illegal. You see millions of people quoting sources without the essential source listed, but I guess it would be in the best interest to list the source and it's author, if you plan on participating in these actions.

 

Once you expose information on the internet, that is basically like releasing that information to the public, of course people are gonna use it. I know during college, people would cut and paste information and just change the words around. I never did this, because I wouldn't want to get caught and get the boot from college. I'm sure these companies who print this information to the public would not waste their time suing a non-profit. Youtube is different they are a huge organization, who can spend some dough if need be. I'm not surprised pbs was looking for a quick handout from em, you get too big and people will take advantage of it. Kind of like Napster and Metallica case, or suing google, yahoo, ect.

[bulpup 98]

"Please note: There are times when copy/pasting is allowed: namely, when you are quoting someone

[kenw 293]

Relevant to this subject.

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

[chefhunter34 1]

Well they can sue me, you cant get blood from a stone... I will hide the guns, but I have no money to take