Copyright Infringement - Copy/Paste Articles
acutejam
Posts: 1,433
I'm thinking we're not supposed to wholesale copy and paste whole articles into message boards. I could be wrong, we're not makin money off the content, but I think fair use would be a few sentances/paragraphs from an article.
While i thoroughly appreicate a post of an article, I'm more interested in if YOU can summarize the article and present the most interesting parts from your viewpoint. I rarely read through a full article, I skip to the debate.
I'm not here to debate Rush Limbaugh and Noam Chomsky.
Anybody know if full article copy/paste on a message board is copyright infringement?
While i thoroughly appreicate a post of an article, I'm more interested in if YOU can summarize the article and present the most interesting parts from your viewpoint. I rarely read through a full article, I skip to the debate.
I'm not here to debate Rush Limbaugh and Noam Chomsky.
Anybody know if full article copy/paste on a message board is copyright infringement?
[sic] happens
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
A thread was started just with a quote from MLK and under it written "Listen to him" I understand why though. Not everyone is a writer
perhaps if said work is copyrighted by the author, then maybe? But I don't think it's a big issue.
plagiarism on message boards are, I've often seen some people post articles or large parts of one then claim it's their own work. They tend to edit the authors name and such.
I've called a couple people out on that one before. (On this board)
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Although a lot of these "because I say so" posts are based on reading and learning about the issues. I see no problem with either approach, although I have a preference for concise posts. Shorter articles are more likely to get read than really long ones.
Often people will want to know where you got your info from, especially if they don't agree with it. So I see concise as providing both your opinion and something to back it up with. We are mere poltical junkies and it is nice to see the perspectives from of more experience and education.
I agree about the long articles. It feels like homework on here some nights.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
Yes it is. You can quote part of the article and link to the rest. Always attribute.
Admin
i see no problem as long as there's a link to the original article or the source is included in the pasting. but when ppl put paragraphs from someone's book and insert it into their own rant making it look as if it's them who wrote then i'd say it's wrong.
on a related note...can presidents be cited for plagarism? i mean, if you look up a quote from any president's speech it is attributed to them, not the speech writers
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
But the speeches are written just for them specifically, so I don't think it can be considered plagarism.
---
The speech writer is hired to perform a task, the product of that task belongs to his employer. But yes, any good political junkie knows exactly who wrote it.
If you write a novel at work, on company time, on company equipment, the company could rightfully publish the novel as its own.
Answer: The fair use doctrine, as currently interpreted by the courts, probably would not entitle you to do so. Even though news items are factual and facts themselves are not protected by copyright, an entire news article itself is expression protected by copyright.
A court would apply the four factor fair use analysis to determine whether such a use is fair. In Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic, the court found that such a use was minimally -- or not at all -- transformative, since the article ultimately served the same purpose as the original copyrighted work. The initial posting of the article was a verbatim copy of the original with no added commentary or criticism and therefore did not transform the work at all. Although it is often a fair use to copy excerpts of a copyrighted work for the purpose of criticism or commentary, the copying may not exceed the extent necessary to serve that purpose. In this case, the court found that only a summary and not a complete verbatim copy of the work was necessary for the purpose of commentary and criticism.
The court also found that although the website solicited donations and advertised the services of another website, the overall nature of the website was non-commercial and benefited the public by promoting discussion of the issues presented in the articles on the website. However, the court found that the nontransformative character of the copying outweighed the consideration of its minimally commercial nature.
Finally, and most importantly, the court found that posting entire news articles on the website had an adverse market effect on the copyright owners.
And no one makes me close my eyes
So I throw the windows wide
And call to you across the sky....
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006