86 replies to this topic

[on2wheels]

Hey all,

I don't want to open a can of worms or say something out of place, but I've noticed that a few PS.com users routinely seem to post news stories from other news sources in their entirety. I don't want to single out any particular poster, but this is one example.

Given the nature of the site, I think we need to be quite careful about breaking the law - copying and pasting a whole article (even if you link back to the source) is a copyright infringement, and we're depriving the source of its traffic (and thereby advertising revenue) by reproducing the articles in their entirety within our forum software.

A better solution would be if we wrote a synopsis (or copied the first 10-20 words or so) and then linked to the original source - that way, there's no risk of any issues.

o2w

edit: added example

Edited by on2wheels, 26 January 2010 - 08:51 AM.

[Waddle]

Hey all,

I don't want to open a can of worms or say something out of place, but I've noticed that quite a few PS.com users routinely seem to post news stories from other news sources in their entirety. I don't want to single out any particular poster, but this is one example of that.

Given the nature of the site, I think we need to be quite careful about breaking the law - copying and pasting a whole article (even if you link back to the source) is a copyright infringement, and we're depriving the source of its traffic (and thereby advertising revenue) by reproducing the articles in their entirety within our forum software.

A better solution would be if we wrote a synopsis (or copied the first 10-20 words or so) and then linked to the original source - that way, there's no risk of any issues.

o2w

edit: added example

Good point, it is too easy to copy and paste but forget the implications.

[Paradox]

Did this come to mind because you used to be a journalist by any chance?

But it's a valid point.

BBC News - Terms and Conditions

[gordon]

I think if you include source and the link back to the original article we should be OK, but you need to make it clear that it's a story from elsewhere. The quotes should really be inside a quote box as well to show that they are a quote rather than an original post.

We've had articles taken from The Register and the author come here and discuss the articles and he's not mentioned any problem with quoting articles here.

[DBRG]

Not so. This usage would fall under a number of exceptions. Exceptions too wordy for me to type out with my iPhone but ones you can easily Google in about 10 seconds flat.

[on2wheels]

Did this come to mind because you used to be a journalist by any chance?

Yup. I worked as an editor for a long time, and was once part of an operation against a site much like this one, where we collected a lot of evidence of systematic copyright infringement and then took the site to court. As it turned out, it was entirely without malice (more or less by coincidence, various site users had posted articles from our news source), but the legal team for the publisher I was working for made mincemeat of the site. Needless to say, ignorance or carelessness didn't really help as a defence in their case.

It wasn't pretty, and it just seems like an unnecessary hassle for PC.com - I imagine there's a lot of people who aren't the greatest fans of the police, and it seems foolish to me to give them ammunition.

I think if you include source and the link back to the original article we should be OK, but you need to make it clear that it's a story from elsewhere.

It might well be that the sites decide not to prosecute, but copying a whole article is a copyright infringement.

Not so. This usage would fall under a number of exceptions.

I doubt any of the fair dealing rules apply, I'm afraid. The copyright service lists the following as possible fair dealing scenaria:

• Private and research study purposes.
  
• Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
  
• Criticism and news reporting.
  
• Incidental inclusion.
  
• Copies and lending by librarians.
  
• Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes.
  
• Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as time shifting.
  
• Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.
  
• Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society.(Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a licence from PRS for Music.)

I suppose we could claim that our use here falls under 'criticism', but only if the original poster actually criticises the article - which often doesn't happen beyond "this copper did a great job" or "I can't believe they're cutting our budget", neither of which (in my opinion) is enough of a critique to stand as a defence of the infringements.

o2w

Edited by on2wheels, 26 January 2010 - 09:10 AM.

[hampshiresaint]

Man. No need to get all "police" on this

I know lots of forums when users copy and paste information. As long as an admin will remove the post if a media source complains then no real problems.

[on2wheels]

As long as an admin will remove the post if a media source complains then no real problems.

Good one - that argument is known as 'reactive moderation'. Legally, this means that the administrators and moderators make the claim that they never look at the forums, and can claim plausible deniability. "We had no idea this got posted, and we don't have the time to moderate everything that comes in, but if you find anything that infringes on your copyright, we'll take it down asap".

The problem is that this defence tumbles down if the moderators and admins are active on the forums: If they participate in a thread where a copyright infringement has been committed, then they are deemed to have seen the infringement without acting on it, which compounds the original infringement with a systematic issue; the people running the site either not being aware of or not dealing with issues of copyright infringement.

There's a secondary problem as well: Imagine if, say, the Daily Mirror sent a Notice and Take Down (NTD), demanding that all DM content was taken down from the site within a week. Moderators would spend a significant amount of time hunting down all DM articles, but would they be able to find them all? Would all articles be marked with "Daily Mirror" (and not "Daily Miror" or "Daily Mirro" - or other typos which might stop the article from showing up in a search)? Probably not, and so if the site admins were served with a legal demand to remove all content, in the worst possible case they could potentially have to go through every single thread (around 100,000, as far as I can tell) to identify all Trinity Mirror Group content, or be slapped with a full-on lawsuit.

Of course, if the admins and moderators are happy to take that risk, then my whole point is moot. Personally, if I were an admin, I wouldn't take the risk (I've been in copyright legal proceedings often enough to know how vile they are), but I'm not, so I'm happy to leave that decision to them

o2w

[DBRG]

McNae's Chapter 28: have a look under what is protected. I'll post it later if you'd like.

[Rocket]

Yup. I worked as an editor for a long time, and was once part of an operation against a site much like this one, where we collected a lot of evidence of systematic copyright infringement and then took the site to court. As it turned out, it was entirely without malice (more or less by coincidence, various site users had posted articles from our news source), but the legal team for the publisher I was working for made mincemeat of the site. Needless to say, ignorance or carelessness didn't really help as a defence in their case.

It wasn't pretty, and it just seems like an unnecessary hassle for PC.com - I imagine there's a lot of people who aren't the greatest fans of the police, and it seems foolish to me to give them ammunition.



It might well be that the sites decide not to prosecute, but copying a whole article is a copyright infringement.



I doubt any of the fair dealing rules apply, I'm afraid. The copyright service lists the following as possible fair dealing scenaria:




I suppose we could claim that our use here falls under 'criticism', but only if the original poster actually criticises the article - which often doesn't happen beyond "this copper did a great job" or "I can't believe they're cutting our budget", neither of which (in my opinion) is enough of a critique to stand as a defence of the infringements.

o2w

Yes, but the fact sheet you quoted about Copyright is itself Copyrighted but you still posted it!

[DBRG]

Yup. I worked as an editor for a long time, and was once part of an operation against a site much like this one, where we collected a lot of evidence of systematic copyright infringement and then took the site to court. As it turned out, it was entirely without malice (more or less by coincidence, various site users had posted articles from our news source), but the legal team for the publisher I was working for made mincemeat of the site. Needless to say, ignorance or carelessness didn't really help as a defence in their case.

It wasn't pretty, and it just seems like an unnecessary hassle for PC.com - I imagine there's a lot of people who aren't the greatest fans of the police, and it seems foolish to me to give them ammunition.



It might well be that the sites decide not to prosecute, but copying a whole article is a copyright infringement.



I doubt any of the fair dealing rules apply, I'm afraid. The copyright service lists the following as possible fair dealing scenaria:




I suppose we could claim that our use here falls under 'criticism', but only if the original poster actually criticises the article - which often doesn't happen beyond "this copper did a great job" or "I can't believe they're cutting our budget", neither of which (in my opinion) is enough of a critique to stand as a defence of the infringements.

o2w

The keyword in your reply is "systematic". This site is not systematically infringing against a specific supplier. No judge in the land would consider 'our' use anything other than fair.
DBRG
(Trained journalist, ex-ITN, ex-EMAP etc etc etc)

Edited by DBRG, 26 January 2010 - 10:16 AM.

[Paradox]

They copyright copyright pages?

Do they copyright those copyrights to prevent the copying of those copyrights as well then?

[Rocket]

They copyright copyright pages?

Do they copyright those copyrights to prevent the copying of those copyrights as well then?

This fact sheet is Copyright © The UK Copyright Service and protected under UK and international law.

[Paradox]

Madness!

[Trojan631]

They copyright copyright pages?

Do they copyright those copyrights to prevent the copying of those copyrights as well then?

Also:

This fact sheet is intended only as an introduction to ideas and concepts only. It should not be treated as a definitive guide, nor should it be considered to cover every area of concern, or be regarded as legal advice.

[Waddle]

They copyright copyright pages?

Do they copyright those copyrights to prevent the copying of those copyrights as well then?

Huh!

Edited by Waddle, 26 January 2010 - 10:25 AM.

[Wiggle]

What about hotlinking images from google images. Are we allowed to do that?

[Rocket]

I can feel a new sig coming on.

[Hyde]

I can feel a new sig coming on.

Wait a second, you'd better make sure it's not copyrighted first

[Waddle]

I can feel a new sig coming on.

Do tell!

[nigenet]

What about hotlinking images from google images. Are we allowed to do that?

That would introduce a whole new kettle of fish, as you are not only using a (possibly) copyrighted image without permission, you are also using someone else's bandwidth (as the image is drawn off their server using up their bandwidth).

I have had an image on my website posted by someone onto a lot of very popular profiles on Myspace. It used my monthly bandwidth allowance up in about 2 days! Luckily I manage the bandwidth allowances on this account, so I was able to increase it, add protection against hotlinking, and then check the logs... cue one angry message to the guy who was posting it. His response? "I didn't get it from your website, I found it on Google images" *sigh*

[on2wheels]

The keyword in your reply is "systematic". This site is not systematically infringing against a specific supplier. No judge in the land would consider 'our' use anything other than fair.

DBRG
(Trained journalist, ex-ITN, ex-EMAP etc etc etc)

Regardless of whether or not it is a systematic infringement or not, if the site was served with an NTD, the content would have to come down.

Purely hypothetically: Imagine I have a popular website about matters which was of interest to PS.com, and someone decided to post, say 12 of my articles over a 12-month period. I discover this, and I get upset: PS.com is indexed in Google, and so someone searching for "topic on my website" will find both PS.com and my website. This means that my results are being diluted, and two problems emerge: 1) People can read my articles here on PS.com, which means that I don't get the traffic, I don't get the ad impressions, and I lose money and 2) I rank lower in the search engines due to duplicated content.

To deal with this, I send a NTD to the site owner, demanding they take all my content down immediately. In this scenario, PS.com can choose to do one of three things:

- Take the content down (and admit that they were in the wrong, which opens a can of worms for the next person who comes along, this time with a compensation claim)

- Take the content down 'out of courtesy', but not admitting liability

- Leave the content up, claiming fair dealing.

Personally, if PS.com chose for the latter option, I would send another NTD, along with an invoice for unauthorised use of my content, and a threat to go to court. If the content stayed up, I would NTD the PS.com web host, speak to a solicitor, and initiate court proceedings.

I doubt it would take very long for PS.com to fold (the web host would have to act on my claim and either remove the threads or shut down the whole web server). Now, they would have to take the content down and pay my invoice (which would probably be in the region of a couple of thousand pounds), or face me in court.

As I said, it's all hypothetical etc, but PS.com is a high-profile site with a lot of police staff; It's not unthinkable that someone would go out of their way to get back at us somehow, and if they play for maximum disruption they could cause a lot of trouble.

All I'm saying is that I don't fancy PS.com's chances in a 'fair dealing' defence, and that if the bulk of the people on this forum are pledging to uphold the law, we should probably consider stricter standards in all aspects of law - including rights-clearing the use of avatars made available to forum members (check out the cartoons, for example), and emphasising the importance of staying on the right side of copyright with regards to news articles etc.

o2w
(also trained journalist, ex-Channel 5, ex-Future etc )

[Rich-Allen]

The whole copy and paste thing is a non-issue really, back when I posted on Sheffield Forum, people copied and pasted chapter and verse from the Daily Mail web site, nobody batted an eyelid except to whine and cry about immigrants or whatever the subject matter was.

[Paradox]

The whole copy and paste thing is a non-issue really, back when I posted on Sheffield Forum, people copied and pasted chapter and verse from the Daily Mail web site, nobody batted an eyelid except to whine and cry about immigrants or whatever the subject matter was.

I don't see the relevance. Just because someone (the Daily Mail in this case) has failed to make an issue out of it, it doesn't necessarily make it a non-issue.

In reality, sites like the BBC and Daily Mail are very unlikely to pay attention to all of the sites referencing their material. But this is more of a 'what if' look at things.

[on2wheels]

Rights-clearing the use of avatars made available to forum members

Actually, on this note, I found the following among the avatars:

 Screen_shot_2010_01_26_at_10.57.01.png   62.34K   41 downloads

... Which even has a copyright watermark stamped across it.

o2w