Forum Moderators: not2easy
So say we have a site about widgets, and you have done your 4 year degree on widgets, and all things widgety. So you proceed to 'blog up' a site about widgets, sharing information about widgets that you have gained on your travels.
The question is- if you are printing factual information about widgets.....information that you know based on reading previous info.....what is its status in regards to copyright?
WebmasterWorld is great- the users are the content providers.....but for a site that includes factual information......how do you define "what is yours" and what you should reference etc.....
I hope I'm getting my angle across here....you know...sticky copyright issues...legal fights....money going down drains etc- while at the same time wanting to build a comprehensive site :)
Just a couple of examples for comparison.
-WebmasterWorld glossary - as an example
I am sure most of the terms in it are Brett's or accumulated on the board, and thus part of WebmasterWorld. If someone else referenced this, is it up to the discretion of the owner or is it OK as long as a direct reference is placed somewhere on the "other" page?
-News
I know that the TOS here makes sure that people don't splurge copy and paste efforts from news articles...due to legalities. So what is the line here? If I make a new section about widgets....and I am referencing other sites who contain the "real" article....or piece a few articles together and reference them.......where do I draw the line, or where can I draw the line even? What is the score!
-Sport
This one sounds a bit more iffy. Sports results. Say I run a nice DB run site where I can punch in the scores through a form. I can either obtain all the results from one web site, or obtain the results I want from a variety of websites (say 2 results per site for example). I mean....I could actually memorize these and claim to know them- see what I mean? :)
Where is the copyright line drawn, who defines what in this "line" and can anyone shed any light! :)
I write with the first paragraph in mind...like WebmasterWorld, I want lots of content on a specific topic - can only be a good thing!
see [nolo.com...] for a summary of fair use.
Are you creating new content, and referencing or quoting portions of other works? Fair use is a very important, and heavily eroded concept. Thomas Jefferson would be having a fit over what we have done with it. "That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature..."
If you are seeking commercial benefit from the labors of others, that is another matter.
In my case, or the one in mind- no. The content in itself will always be free. I'll check out the link.....I guess its a big issue I am going to read top to bottom before "borrowing" becomes my middle name....next to QC of course ;)
"Research and scholarship -- for example, quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author's observations. "
As long as I'm referencing info with integrity it is OK.
I'm not into the game of copying and pasting other peoples works...I like to mould them into my own and approach the subject top to bottom in the way it was intended to be written......not the way it was intended by someone else.
They call it "referential integrity" for db's I believe.....
Copyright - law - trouble.........not my scene :)
The key is that you should add value to the copied bit, by reviewing it or using it as part of your argument or article, not the whole bit.
The principle I think is that you cannot copy anything without permission that would cause your copy to be a replacement of the original. In webspeak, that a person interested in the original would visit your site, rather than the original source (book, site, magazine, newspaper etc) where you copied it from.
Thats not saying we are right, but given the large grey areas here, it seems to be as "fair" as possible and we will worry when we get sued!
I'm thinking that referencing books is a good way- as it does not compete with the content on site in any way.....be it content value or SE rankings (and pagerank).
Maybe even an affiliate program with written permission from the author is a sound practice.
Either way, the law seems "fair", as the link provided mentions....I can live with fair....
Great topic, especially as this issue of forum posting and copyright has just come up in another area of my interest.
Firstly, if one "publishes" to a forum, I presume that one transfers or shares the copyright (such as it might be) to the forum. There is, for example, a great knowledge base here. Were poster X to decide to open up his or her new search engine forum, would they be allowed or entitled
a) to request their posts be deleted from this forum
b) to use the posts that they themselves made on this forum on their own forum
On your original Sport point, I believe you are not allowed to reproduce the fixture list for the English Premier League (and USA sports?) even if you claim to know it or remember it. It is an absolute copyright, despite the facts being in the public domain.
Messages posted in a message board are usually just questions and answers, one's opinion or expression. The Copyright Laws don't seem to define what an "original work" is, so I assume it is open to debate.
Section 102 of the Copyright Laws includes the following paragraph:
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
This just shows that the Copyright Laws does exclude certain things from protection. I don't think that all messages fit into this, but I think that some messages do.
There are some messages that are very short. For example, an entire message could just be a few words, "Good point, Howard." That is not covered under copyright protection, because it is not "original".
At what point does a message become original? How many words does it take to make an original message?
Finally, I just reviewed the WebmasterWorld terms of service, and nowhere does it say that I transfer my copyrights to them.
I guess it depends on whether the stuff we write is classed as intellectual property. If it was, then no doubt we can copyright it...but as you say, what defines original and at what point does it become original?...
In the case of posting messages to a board...i was thinking more along the lines of messages being "property"....as you say, "good point howard" could hardly be copyrighted...IMO its a message consisting of 1's and 0's that sites on the hard drive of the board. Since the memory is "purchased" in the form of a server, I assume it could be classed as the property of the webmaster, and wouldnt be subject to copyright.
Good "guess"? Seems everytime I wonder about the law its one big grey messy area.
What constitutes original work is akin to beauty being in the eye of the beholder. If I draw a picture of my patio flowers in crayon on a paper bag, the minute that's created I am the legal copyright owner of that. It is an original work. If anyone wants to adapt it as a web or magazine graphic they need my permission because it's then a derivative work.
If I process a client product photo, altering color and contrast and feather it or collage it, the original belongs to the client, but I own the copyright on the created graphic.
Concerning web site or message board content, I have a lengthy document on my hard drive that's the synopsis and basis of the copyright and content policy of an enormous community web site whose policies are set in stone by the corporate legal department. Every word on every board or anyplace is their property, with the exception of contract staff who might write articles for them, which falls into a different category.
The owner of a web site is the legal copyright owner of its content. What's been written into the Terms of Service here is a concession which is, in my opinion, based on what I've observed to be a depth of character and a profound sense of respect and appreciation for the contributions of the members.
From the Terms of Service [webmasterworld.com]:
You will not copy and retransmit any information out of these forums without first getting the permission of Search Engine World and the original author of the message.
What I'm typing right now is "original work" and needs permission of both to copy or use. Had it existed as a prior work on a web site of my own it would raise a different issue, that of first use, but nevertheless, the principle would still stand.
There's a world of difference between what some call research and outright poaching of content from public sources such as web sites. One is honest and proper if credit is given; the other is plagiarism and thievery, imho. How it's viewed may differ, particularly with the individuals who do it, but the principle of copyright still stands.
I see the two sides of the coin. A web site doing "user submitted tutorials" has remarkable similarity to a few things I've read (maybe even written) online.
On the other hand, I want to make a competitive website. Seems with so many people online- there are scores (maybe millions) of people that pass the "copyright line". I just want to make sure I'm on a level playing field :) by getting the content I wish but playing 'by-the-book'
