Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Copyrighted material: don't paste it into these forums.

  1. #1
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 1997
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    532

    Default Copyrighted material: don't paste it into these forums.

    Kindly do not post copyrighted material on these forums. To put it bluntly, this is a violation of federal law and theft from the copyright owners. It is also against forum rules.

    I know it's easy to copy and paste content. Often articles published on the `Net illustrate exactly what we want to say or they contain information that would be useful to other forum members. Nevertheless, publishing copyrighted materials on this forum exposes us and you to the potential for litigation.

    There is a way to appropriately reference external material. It's called "fair use." There's no easy-to-understand definition of fair use, but my understanding of its application in our context allows this: Summarize the content of the article in your own words; if necessary, post a small (no more than a few sentences) excerpt; and post a link to the entire article.

    I am asking the moderators to take firm action on this issue. We will endeavor to help posters do this the right way, but the bottom line is that we cannot permit copyrighted material.

    David

  2. #2
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Fair use. . .

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

    Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. It is based on free speech rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    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—

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

    the nature of the copyrighted work;

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

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


  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Question. . .

    Can we post a photo such as the one below, copyrighted but taken from an ADF&G public document? Any public document such as Wikipedia, a government agency, etc?

    Publications Incorporating U. S. Government Works
    Works by the U. S. government are not eligible for U. S. copyright protection. (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html)

    Last edited by Marcus; 03-30-2007 at 14:18.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,020

    Default

    I am not sure Marcus, but I do know F&G wanted to use a photo from my website for a presentation and they called for permission and also got permission in writing from me.

  5. #5
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default More questions. . .

    Sorry for the questions, but don't want to make any mistakes. What about PhotoShop altered photos? At what point does the original photo cease to exist when it's been cropped, color-altered, flipped, or otherwise reconstituted digitally? At what point does a digitally altered photo become a new work unto itself?

    See the ADF&G photo above and the one below.

    Last edited by Marcus; 03-30-2007 at 14:18.

  6. #6
    Member Cliffhanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Homer, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    723

    Default Issues

    At my job, I deal with this stuff everyday. I'm the person who notified (gently) the Fishing Forum moderator of the copyright violation on the Russian River bears story by Craig Medred. Let me say, right up front, that I am not speaking for my employer in this message, but from experience I've had both as a photographer at the Anchorage Daily News and in working freelance assignments on my own.

    An original intellectual work of art by an idividual is just that. It is the individual's intellectual property and cannot be changed by manipulating the elements in the work of art (i.e., painting/photograph/graphic). When push comes to shove, a judge can look at the original, look at its successor, and say the elements in the second mirror, or are close enough to the original, that it is STILL the original. It's a form of plagiarism which copyright protects against.

    When a piece of art is created, it is copyrighted automatically. It is!

    Here's the decription of this from the US Copyright web site: "Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright."

    Proving when an individual actually created the piece can be sticky, and that's why the copyright paperwork should be filed to protect the originator.

    "Fair use" can depend on which lawyer is interpreting the policy, but generally the outline in the previous message by Marcus here holds true. If a copyright piece of work is used to further a discussion of an issue, then, in general, it is considered "fair use". Tread carefully.

    Generally, using photographs and articles from government web sites is acceptable because the work has been paid for by you, the taxpayer. Taking in image from a government website and manipulating it to the point that the original truth of the photo is no longer true can mean trouble, however.

    The best policy is what the owner of this web site and the moderators are doing right now: stating the policy and enforcing it.

  7. #7

    Default question

    In all my research papers in college, high school, profession, ect., you are allowed to put other works in your paper as long as you do not cite it as your work. You have to say where the quoted (cut and paste) material was from and the author, ect. Is this not the case here?
    Hike faster. I hear banjo music.

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Thumbs up Thanks. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Cliffhanger View Post
    An original intellectual work of art by an idividual is just that. It is the individual's intellectual property and cannot be changed by manipulating the elements in the work of art (i.e., painting/photograph/graphic). When push comes to shove, a judge can look at the original, look at its successor, and say the elements in the second mirror, or are close enough to the original, that it is STILL the original. It's a form of plagiarism which copyright protects against.

    "Fair use" can depend on which lawyer is interpreting the policy, but generally the outline in the previous message by Marcus here holds true. If a copyright piece of work is used to further a discussion of an issue, then, in general, it is considered "fair use". Tread carefully.

    Generally, using photographs and articles from government web sites is acceptable because the work has been paid for by you, the taxpayer. Taking in image from a government website and manipulating it to the point that the original truth of the photo is no longer true can mean trouble, however.
    Cliffhanger, Thanks for the additional, clarifying information. Seems to me that most, maybe all, the copyrighted text/graphics posted on the forums fits the definition of being ". . . used to further a discussion of an issue, . . ." and is thus "fair use."

    In the case of newspaper articles and such, though, it's likely a good idea to summarize the content and post a link.


  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Fair use?

    What does one do with this sort of thing, which I just received in an e-mail from a friend? Is it copyrighted? And if copyrighted, is it "fair use" to post it as furthering political discussion?
    Last edited by Marcus; 03-30-2007 at 14:18.

  10. #10
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    3,895

    Default Delete

    I would delete it as fast a possible. It probably contains a virus as I can see a serious infection within the photo.

    Seriously, if you do not know the source, don't post it.
    "Never again shall one generation of Veterans abandon another".
    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  11. #11
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Dave,

    I run a Mac, so I'm not too worried about whatever virus you're seeing.

    Okay, since I don't know the source, could I clip a portion of such a photo/graphic, say 10% - 25%, and then post a link to the complete photo? See below:

    http://davehughes.com/images/edited.jpg

    http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/004200.html

    Not trying to be a smart ass or beat a dead horse here, but where does common sense, fair use, and freedom of speech fit in?

    Thanks, and help,
    John


  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,020

    Default

    Can you say.......
    Attached Images Attached Images

  13. #13
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    3,895

    Default Marcue

    The infection I was refering to was wearing a dress and being pushed in front of a train! ;D I infected NY back in 99 or 2000.

    Some journalist probably took the picture and it is his property. Unless it was taken by Bill looking for proof of death for insurance purposes.

    Don't know what to tell ya.
    "Never again shall one generation of Veterans abandon another".
    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  14. #14
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Smile Common sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daveinthebush View Post
    Don't know what to tell ya.
    Know what you mean, Dave. I'm having some trouble understanding the rule "do not post copyrighted material on these forums" claiming such posting is "a violation of federal law."

    But this is simply not true. As my quote from Wikipedia notes, "the fair use of a copyrighted work. . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." Cliffhanger too says, "If a copyright piece of work is used to further a discussion of an issue, then, in general, it is considered 'fair use.'"

    So what are we to do? I can understand not posting in entirety a copyrighted work from, say, the Anchorage Daily News or the Peninsula Clarion. After all, such folks post those kinds of articles in hopes of luring people to their Web sites. When we want to cite something of that nature, the best thing to do is post an excerpt with the Web site address for the rest. That's understandable and fair.

    But what to do with the graphic of a Spartan hoplite, which I lifted from a Wikipedia site and posted on a General Discussion thread about the movie "300"? I have no idea who owns the copyright for that graphic, assuming it's copyrighted at all, but my use of it fell plainly under the definitions of "Fair Use" cited above.

    So where does common sense come into play? Posting copyrighted material is simply not against Federal Law when it is within the definition of "Fair Use."

    Is "Fair Use" really that hard to figure out? I don't think so.


  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,020

    Default

    Marcus, the simple solution is to post your own thoughts and not quote stuff or copy stuff from others. It seems pretty simple to just write original thoughts instead of thoughts or writings of others.

  16. #16
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Help us out here. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    . . .the simple solution is to post your own thoughts and not quote stuff or copy stuff from others. It seems pretty simple to just write original thoughts instead of thoughts or writings of others.
    Why would or should anyone "just write original thoughts?" Come to think of it, what is an "original" thought?

    Why would anyone not want to legally use supporting literature, editorials, expert opinions, scholarship, and the like? Why should anyone forego such? Seems self-evident to me that the laws defining Fair Use were intended to support and defend that academic and social necessity, not to mention free speech.

    Help us out here. . .



  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,020

    Default

    Marcus I am not wanting to debate with you, I just posted a solution to the problem that would not put the fine folks that allow us to post on their forum in danger of litigation.

  18. #18
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Smile Just do what's right. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Marcus, the simple solution is to post your own thoughts and not quote stuff or copy stuff from others. It seems pretty simple to just write original thoughts instead of thoughts or writings of others.

    Marcus I am not wanting to debate with you, I just posted a solution to the problem that would not put the fine folks that allow us to post on their forum in danger of litigation.
    Debate is not needed, nor is it intended on my part anyway. However, discussion never hurts. No one wants to run the risk of being sued or to put forum owners at risk. That said, the issue is just not as simple as you're proposing, however much we might wish it so. For instance, anything published in the United States before 1928 is not copyrighted, nor is anything published by the United States government. I doubt anything published by the State of Alaska is forbidden territory, and Fair Use laws protect freedom of speech.

    To my mind, posting on these or countless other Internet forums need not become an issue of fear and trepidation when it's really an issue of common sense and good will. Cliffhanger and wildog both made good points, which are not that hard to understand. Copyright laws were written to protect the interest's of the person holding the copyright, and if those interests aren't violated, there's no offense. It seems pretty straightforward to me.


  19. #19
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Smile An example. . .

    Maybe an illustration will help. Let's say we're down in the General Discussion forum, discussing evolution vis-a-vis the existence of God—a not uncommon topic on that forum. Suppose I post the following:


    "Could it be that this longing for the sacred, a universal and puzzling aspect of human experience, may not be wish fulfillment but rather a pointer toward something beyond us? Why do we have a "God-shaped vacuum" in our hearts and minds unless it is meant to be filled?

    "In our modern materialistic world, it is easy to lose sight of that sense of longing. In her wonderful collection of essays, Teaching a Stone to Talk, Annie Dillard speaks about that growing void:

    "Now we are no long primitive. Now the whole world seems not holy . . . We as a people have moved from pantheism to pan-atheism . . . it is difficult to undo our own damage and to recall to our presence that which we have asked to leave. It is hard to desecrate a grove and change your mind. We doused the burning bush and cannot rekindle it. We are lighting matches in vain under every green tree. Did the wind used to cry and the hills shout forth praise? Now speech has perished from among the lifeless things of the earth and living things say very little to very few. . . And yet it could be that wherever there is motion, there is noise, as when a whale breaches and smacks the water, and wherever there is stillness there is the small, still voice. God's speaking from the whirlwind, nature's old song and dance, the show we drove from town. . . What have we been doing all these centuries but trying to call God back to the mountain, or, failing that, raise a peep out of anything that isn't us? What is the difference between a cathedral and a physics lab? Are they both not saying: Hello?"

    (The Language of God, Francis S. Collins, Free Press, New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, 2006, p. 38-39)



    I've made my point, adding to the discussion, by citing a copyrighted work, which in turn cites a copyrighted work, both duly noted, credited, and referenced. Moreover, I've made my point far more eloquently than I could with an "original" thought of my own, and I've added to my point the credibility of two established authorities. Where's the violation? Hey, maybe someone will be moved to buy Collins' book. I know I'm going to buy Ms Dillard's.



  20. #20
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    3,895

    Default To me

    To me, in my opinion after working outside for two days polishing the boat and doing all the maintenence, old muscles sore, it is fine.

    But to be safe, why not carry the questions over to Forum Tips. I am just the law enforcement officer trying to follow what laws Congress has emposed over the land. %D

    Brian and David frequent that forum more than here. The questions are best aimed at them.
    "Never again shall one generation of Veterans abandon another".
    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •