Forum Moderators: not2easy
There's a difference, I think, between researching and gleaning information, and regurgitating one source (like a message board) but just rephrasing it a little. However, I don't know if the latter is a copyright infringement--probably not.
My whole site will soon be regurgitated info from my own research of the subject matter. I will quote people, paraphrase and steal outright, but will never break the law cause no one has dominion over ideas.
Someone correct me where I'm wrong, but to the best of my knowledge and recollection, when I publish this post - I, the author - retain my creative rights, that is copyright, in its publication.
What about the forum where the post is "published"?
I do not believe WW claims any rights in the post, for various reasons. Such is the advice some lawyers give to forum operators. (Claim control? Okay, then accept accountability, the argument goes.)
Consistent with these 2 statements is the following from the WW Terms of Service [webmasterworld.com]
23. You will not copy and retransmit any information out of these forums without first getting the permission of the original author of the message and a WebmasterWorld.com administrator.
So, when you "lift content" from a forum, without prior permission form the right people, chances are pretty good that you are 1) violating the forum's TOS; and, 2) you are violating the copyrights of the individual posters.
Violating a forum's TOS is - or is akin to - a "breach of contract". You enter and view and make use of the forum on condition that you agree to the contract/TOS. So, violating the TOS is likely to expose you to suit for breach of contract. Some contracts spell out damages for their breach and some courts enforce contractual damage clauses.
Just because it's on the WWW that is no basis for you to copy or republish the work. The idea that "just giving a link" (after you copy the work) will protect you or "make it right" is just wrong.
Copy my copyrighted materials without my prior express written permission and there's a very high likelihood that you will be named a party to a mass lawsuit filed at the end of each year: 1 plaintiff. 230 infringers. 1 lawsuit. 230 judgments and the long reach of the U.S. federal court system.
Always ask first. 1 judgment could ruin your credit for the next 7+ years. It could serve as the basis of you losing favorable business relations with contextual advertising firms, etc.
The solution is so simple: Ask and get permission. If you don't get permission (or even a reply to a request) don't do it. Don't copy the work. Create your own original work. Be happy with that and, if you please, you can allow the whole world to copy your work on your own terms - because you created it and have that right. ;0)
[edited by: Webwork at 10:45 pm (utc) on June 14, 2005]
So, when you "lift content" from a forum, without prior permission form the right people, chances are pretty good that you are 1) violating the forum's TOS; and, 2) you are violating the copyrights of the individual posters.
Violating a TOS is meaningless except as it affects your relationship with the website with the TOS. In other words, it's *legally* meaningless (but could get you banned if they find out you're the person doing the summarizing).
The point is that summarizing other sources is entirely legal. It happens all the time in the news and books, magazines, newspapers, etc.
Violating a TOS is meaningless
So, what happens when Website.tld Inc. takes you to court for injunctive relief and money damages for violating the website's TCU?
The judge guffaws, says "TCU's are meaningless" and throws out the case?
I don't think I've seen that judicial opinion, the one that says "TCUs are meaningless". Have you Hugh?
Setting aside previous propositions, taking a sentence or 2 or 3, in the proper context, will likely fall within fair use. However, the fair use doctrine also talks about the purpose of making the use and whether there is a financial motive to the use.
This brings to mind the much discussed "scraper sites". I keep waiting to see a lawsuit filed against such a site operator who just scrapes away and then plasters contextual advertisements on the page. I want to see the scraper argue to the judge "But judge, I'm really a search engine" and then see if the argument passes the giggle test.
My money is on the giggles.
The same analysis, as applies to scraper sites, pertains to "review sites" and many "analysis sites" that do little more than copy and paste snippets of other people's works into a file/page and then apply AdSense to monetarize "the content".
It's called journalism.
Syzygy
Copyright law protects any expression of an idea. Copyright laws cover the contents of anything anybody writes in any form.
There is a way, though, you can use that idea that is perfectly legal and will provide an even greater service to your readers than simply pointing them toward somebody else's insights.
Make it your own. Take the idea to the next level. Research it to uncover more facets in it. Study it. Test it. Improve it (and I'm not talking about merely rewording it to make it more to your aesthetic taste). Use that idea as a starting point for coming up with a better, more beneficial idea that adds to the sum of knowledge in the world.
Copyright law exists for that very purpose: to ensure that the originator of a work is properly recompensed so they will have no fear of losing their work by letting others see it. As such, copyright law is really designed to facilitate having people learn from others and develop their own work to further the growth of knowledge.
If you want to point your readers to the ideas of others, make sure you have their permission first. But the more you can take the second route and add to the body of knowledge, the better off we'll all be.
