PDA

View Full Version : So I have seen this @ thr, and TFL similar Copyright Policy Rules


freonr22
09-11-2010, 12:59 PM
Does this mean we cannot post pictures anymore, even with sources cited? I know it was talked about here maybe a month ago, I dont know where. I assume that this would be the appropriate forum for this topic, although it would get more exposure in the off topic section

and I have not been to thr in a long time,

http://www.thehighroad.org/announcement.php?a=26

Zeanah (http://www.thehighroad.org/member.php?u=24)
System Administrator


Join Date: December 20, 2002
Location: South Georgia
Posts: 3,641
http://www.thehighroad.org/images/misc/im_aim.gif (http://www.thehighroad.org/announcement.php?a=26#)

Clarification of THR Policies
Policy Changes and Clarifications

Recent events have shown us here at The High Road that we need to clarify the understandings we have with our users. Some of this is a change from past policy, while other portions are simply a statement of what has been implicit for these last few years.

Regardless, these are the rules that you are accepting when you participate here on THR. If you have questions, please feel free to contact anyone on Staff.

Copyright

1) As a general rule, users are only allowed to post text and/or images that they own. If you wrote it or you snapped the photo, then you are within the rules. Reposting a cool image from another site that's relevant here is not allowed.

2) Fair use allows limited reposting of others' content, but this is an increasingly grey area in the online world. The US Copyright Office has guidelines, but they are imperfect at best. While many of us were taught that "a paragraph or two" was a reasonable use, there are instances where even this may qualify as copyright infringement depending on the length of the original publication.

3) Because fair use is such a grey area, we would strongly encourage users who wish to refer to material owned by others to post the links to other sites along with their own brief summary of the content they are linking to. If appropriate, you may, as an alternative or addition, quote a sentence or two from the site you are linking to, but this should not exceed one paragraph of copied text.

4) By posting here you are granting us a perpetual, irrevocable license to post your comments on thehighroad.org. You are agreeing that we may edit your posts, allow others to quote them in their own posts, and modify the format as necessary as this site and technology mature. Once your posts are a part of the site they can be very difficult to remove without destroying the value of the threads you participated in, so you are acknowledging up front that we may refuse to remove your posts should you ask us to do so.

Hold Harmless

Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.


Ohh and at least he doesnt say site owner

And @ tfl I guess i am banned from reading the policy? (i think its a glitch actually, and emailed a mod today for an answer) Maybe someone else can get it open?


The Firing Line has adopted a new policy for referencing copyrighted material in messages posted here.
You MUST read and follow this new policy, which is designed to protect TFL, its owners, staff, and members from possible copyright violation lawsuits.
Members who violate the new policy risk loss of their posting privileges.
Click to read TFL's Copyrighted Material Policy: Click here to view the policy. (http://thefiringline.com/forums/announcement.php?a=94)


Actually I can post a new thread anywhere it seems, so I am not sure why the following comes up?

freonr22, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:


Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. If you are attempting to create a thread in the Gun Show forums, be sure to read the rules thread posted at or near the top of the forum. You need to meet a few criteria as shown in that thread before you are allowed to start a thread in the Gun Show. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Anyways, not so much about the other sites, but REALLY about the Copyright thing?

ocabj
09-11-2010, 1:24 PM
Considering I have a pending lawsuit against a company for stealing two of my photos and using them on their website, I do understand the copyright issues of hotlinking images.

Does this mean we cannot post pictures anymore, even with sources cited?

And just because you cite your source when you post someone else's copyright image, it doesn't give you permission to post/republish that image to begin with.

I actually received an email a couple days ago from a company who wants to use one of my SHOT Show 2010 photos for an internal report for their private clients. It won't be seen by the general public, yet the company still contacted me for permission for limited use of my copyright.

Librarian
09-11-2010, 5:08 PM
Note: Mod hat OFF!

3) Because fair use is such a grey area, we would strongly encourage users who wish to refer to material owned by others to post the links to other sites along with their own brief summary of the content they are linking to. If appropriate, you may, as an alternative or addition, quote a sentence or two from the site you are linking to, but this should not exceed one paragraph of copied text.

I have long thought this was the Right Thing To Do - actual librarian training - and so that's almost always the way I refer to things off site.

For background on why such a policy*, if ever it becomes a policy, might be appropriate, see http://www.righthavenlawsuits.com/


*I don't make policy, the Head Janitor does.

Al Norris
09-11-2010, 8:09 PM
freonr22, We Goofed! Plain and simple.

The policy statement for TFL is contained in the global announcement that ran for a month (expired on 09-09-10). Without giving it much thought, the link in the general notice (which can be dismissed - see the big red "X" in the upper right frame? Click on it. You won't see it again), and the link in the forum rules go directly to the announcement, which has expired, which needs at least super-mod capability to see! We'll get that remedied quickly. :o

So this is what you should be seeing:
New TFL Policy for referencing copyrighted material

Recently, lawsuits claiming copyright infringement have been filed against several websites on behalf of at least one newspaper, with the prospect of many more to come.

The suits claim, among other things, that participants of the website copied and pasted whole articles from the newspaper’s website in violation of copyright laws.

Anything ‘published’ on the web is viewed as intellectual property and, regardless of whether it displays a copyright symbol or not, is therefore copyrighted by the originator. The only exception to this is if there is a “free and unrestricted reuse” statement associated with the work.

At this time there is no way of telling what the outcome of these lawsuits will be, but it is expected that there will be many more of them as other newspapers, magazines, etc., sign on in an effort to protect their intellectual property.

In order to protect our members and TFL from possible litigation, all members must abide by the following new rules:

1. Copying and pasting entire articles from another site to TFL is strictly prohibited.

2. Copyright law provides for “fair use” of portions of a copyrighted work. You can copy no more than a SINGLE paragraph from the article to your post (3 or 4 sentences at most).

3. You must provide a link to the article along with the name of website. For example: ww.xxx.yyy/zzz (The Lower Thumbsuck Daily News).

4. You must provide, in your own words, a brief summary of the article AND your reasons for believing it will be of interest to TFL members. Failure to do so may result in the thread being closed or your post being deleted as a “cut and paste drive by.” (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=418983)

5. Photographs and other images are also copyrighted. "Hotlinking" of images (so that it appears in your message) from other sites is also prohibited unless you own rights to the image. If you wish to share an image, provide a clickable link to it.

Posts that do not follow these new guidelines will be altered or deleted by staff. Members who continue to violate this policy may lose their posting privileges at TFL.

Thank you for your cooperation and your participation in TFL, the best firearms site on the web.

Again, allow me to extend our apologies to you, and thank you for finding this error. No one else has said a word!

freonr22
09-11-2010, 8:21 PM
Thank you Al Norris! I mean that with all the respect, you and your fine team! I am soo bummed out concerned that we cannot, as a voice, relay what is heard elsewhere, such a shame. I mean "John told Peter that my daughter went poo poo on the waste basket" and I cannot tell Calguns, or TFL, etc. I understand if its a for profit like giving a book, or music to someone else to deprive them of revenue. but, someone else picture of primer sizes for example is disheartening. otoh, I totally understand the forums' collective position

JDay
09-11-2010, 8:33 PM
That admin doesn't know what he is talking about when he says that fair use is a "gray" area. There is nothing gray about it, in fact it is part of US Copyright law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_law

The legal concept of "Test copyright" was first ratified by the Kingdom of Great Britain's Statute of Anne of 1709. As room was not made for the authorized reproduction of copyrighted content within this newly formulated statutory right, the courts created a doctrine of "fair abridgment" in Gyles v Wilcox, which eventually evolved into the modern concept of "fair use," that recognized the utility of such actions. The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1]

The four factors of analysis for fair use set forth above derive from the classic opinion of Joseph Story in Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342 (1841), in which the defendant had copied 353 pages from the plaintiff's 12-volume biography of George Washington in order to produce a separate two-volume work of his own. The court rejected the defendant's fair use defense with the following explanation:


[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy…

In short, we must often… look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.


Once these factors were codified as guidelines in 17 U.S.C. § 107, they were not rendered exclusive. The section was intended by Congress to restate, but not replace, the prior judge-made law. Courts are still entitled to consider other factors as well.

Fair use tempers copyright's exclusive rights to serve the purpose of copyright law, which the U.S. Constitution defines as the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (Art. I, § 8, cl. 8). This principle applies particularly well to the case of criticism and also sheds light on various other limitations on copyright's exclusive rights, particularly the scenes à faire doctrine.

Al Norris
09-11-2010, 8:48 PM
And Righthaven filed a lawsuit against a website for using 4 paragraphs from an article that had 38 paragraphs. Was 4 paragraphs fair use or infringement? We won't find out unless this goes to trial. Currently, Righthaven is settling for sums in the range of 2.5K to 5K.

Sorry JDay, but Fair Use is Fair Use only when a court says it is. Meanwhile, your legal bills to defend against the suit is gonna be climbing.

"That admin" who composed the basic outline was a former editor of American Rifleman. I suppose that position doesn't mean he knows anything about copyright law. I suppose...

freonr22, you're welcome. Glad I could clear that little thing up.

JDay
09-11-2010, 8:58 PM
And Righthaven filed a lawsuit against a website for using 4 paragraphs from an article that had 38 paragraphs. Was 4 paragraphs fair use or infringement? We won't find out unless this goes to trial. Currently, Righthaven is settling for sums in the range of 2.5K to 5K.

This is the US, you can sue anyone for anything.

Sorry JDay, but Fair Use is Fair Use only when a court says it is. Meanwhile, your legal bills to defend against the suit is gonna be climbing.

This lawsuit is nothing more then an example of the newspapers trying to stay alive. None of them have kept with the times and now they're running scared because they are no longer profitable. There is plenty of existing case law dealing with fair use and I wouldn't be surprised if these cases get tossed out.

"That admin" who composed the basic outline was a former editor of American Rifleman. I suppose that position doesn't mean he knows anything about copyright law. I suppose...

Editors edit, American Rifleman has lawyers who deal with legal issues such as copyright law. Although I don't know why they would even have to worry about violating it since they compose their own articles and have photographers who take pictures for them.

Al Norris
09-11-2010, 9:34 PM
freonr22, got it fixed about 15 minutes ago... Mal beat me to it. sigh...

freonr22
09-11-2010, 10:02 PM
Mal was the one I emailed, I was unsure of who to send to :)