Forum Moderators: not2easy
I mainly want to focus on printed articles, not internet based. I plan on scanning actual pages and then use text recognizable software to covert images into text.
My question is - do I need permission from each source where the article was originally published or is it enough to simply quote where this article was obtained?
I think you know what I mean. If you didn't create it, it is not yours - morally or legally. Get permission.
Besides you can see many information agencies posting articles such as:
"The New York Times report says...........follows an article or a quote from the NY Times"
Do they get permission for each article posted, do they get one time permission from NY Times to quote them? Or is it simply universal practice where news agencies are authorized to quote each other as long as they credit the original source?
Yes, you can (usually) get away with saying "The New York Times reported that..."
You can't scan in an article from the New York Times and post it on your web site. Not without violating copyright law, at least.
Yes, you can (usually) get away with saying "The New York Times reported that..."
Usually? Are there restrictions, circumstances? Is there special editing should be done to the article before posting it?
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to publish an article and then claim that it was me who wrote it, I absolutely agree and prepared to give full credit to the original author and source.
even if you give full credit, you must also have the permission of the owner.
In latest discussion regarding copyrighted material, hakre, a member of webmaster world wrote - "mardi is right. making a copy without the right violates. if you do create something on your own, you're the copyright owner and you can publish whenever and whereever you want. "
Is this considered legal?
lets stay away from the moral concept of copywrited material
I'm not certain morality is such a fluid concept, but those discussions are not the purpose of this forum. Is it okay if we stick with legal concepts?
You can't take the intellectual creations of others and publish them without the expressed written consent of the copyright holder (usually the creator). It is illegal.
That is a violation of copyright law in this country (USA).
I have no expertise in copyrights outside of the US.
There are so many infrigements against copyright and licensing it is funny.
Also you may find this [wired.com] article interesting.
You are right however when you say that you cant copyright news. IF you realy want to copy articles then I suggest you read the article then put it out of site and re-write it from scratch using your own words. Yes it woudl take longer but does it really need to be a short cut. You will also find the re-writting idea stands a lot less change of you ending up in court :)
Imagine that instead of hakre's comment followed an article from the NY Times
I'm imagining it. It is illegal :) A reference to a New York Times report is legal - a recitation of a New York Times report is not.
As for the story you referenced, I won't get into an argument with an Irish publisher about whether or not US copyright laws are bad, I will just say, the law is the law.
if you're sick of the system, which tries to turn 1 buck into manies, then don't discuss about copyright. name the gang.
for the newspaper article discussion i should admit that most online newspapers like nytimes etc. have not paid their authors for the online-publishing rights. that's also a copyright infringement in the internet.
At the moment there are too many people taking this and that.
I know that one of our sites is now seriously considering a full charge basis because we are tired of people ripping content.
Actually mack, your idea was my second option and if it is the safe way around, I will surely take it. I am not looking for a shortcut, but if simply quoting original publisher and following with the original content is legal, it is definitely worth saving hours of rewriting what was already written.
What you asked about in your original post is in direct violation of U.S. Copyright Laws [WhatIsCopyright.org] supported by just about every country in the world through the Berne Convention. [law.cornell.edu]
The later suggestion of partial quoting may be legal in some cases under the terms of Fair Use [fairuse.stanford.edu], which you should read up thoroughly before moving forward.
if simply quoting original publisher and following with the original content is legal, it is definitely worth saving hours of rewriting what was already written.
Quoting the original publisher may be legal in some cases, following the quote with the original content in it's entirety is not.
Virtually every major news source has very clear terms posted on their website about the use and misuse of their copyrighted material. Regardless of your personal views, I wouldn't suggest breaking those terms unless you're prepared to pay the legal fees to defend yourself. (and more than likely lose the fight)
If you're just looking to serve quality content to your visitors without having to write it yourself there are ways to do so without diving into the litigation abyss.
As Visit_Thailand suggested, there are many free news syndication networks such as iSyndicate and Moreover which exist for exactly this purpose.
There are also dozens of sites devoted to providing free articles on just about every subject imaginable. A search for "free content" and "free articles" will provide more material than you could possibly ever need... minus the legal fees. :)
However, case commentary suggests:
''Gibson LJ said that had the purpose been for reporting current events he would have considered the dealing 'fair'. This was because M & S was not in competition with the newspapers or the NLA and it was using the copies purely internally and not for its own gain, for example, by selling copies to others.''
- extract from Seneca EP copyright EMIS Professional Publishing and Authors 2001
So perhaps if your purpose is to (a) provide said relevant articles for a limited / closed audience, (b) not provide them for any particular commercial gain or competition to the original publishers, (c) provide them a relevant / newsworthy / reporting manner; then you may be able to do this legally.
Matthew
[edit typo]
if simply quoting original publisher and following with the original content is legal
It is not.
I am not trying to discuss the system of copyright laws
am trying to find a legal way to publish news articles for my visitors.
Actually, what you are trying to do (although you may not realize it) is to take the property that others have spent hours - perhaps months - creating, and use it on your site without compensation. Attribution and compensation are not the same. Giving attribution does not free you from your obligation to pay whatever compensation is demanded by the copyright holder - if the copyright holder will even grant you reprint permission at all.
Since this board is populated by people who create for a living, you will probably not find a lot of support for ignoring copyright laws here:)
now the internet makes it simple to show private stuff to lot of people and i think that's what makes a difference to the past. it's hardly unfair to put so much stuff under copyright where it might not be applied. the commercial guys try to make the whole net commercial, but, besides some big portals and news agencies, there is a lot (if it isn't the most and most valuable) stuff in the net which has to be seen as private imho.
so that's why copyright laws have a leck and each commercial thinking person pushes forward to make an extra business of it. and that's not the berne convention was dedicated to.
No press releases, newsletters, web pages, or copyrighted content may be inserted into WebmasterWorld posts. Minor fair use excerpts of less than one paragraph (4 sentences) may be used if the content is publically available on the internet. All other forms of inserted content from press releases, newsletters, web pages, or any other copyrighted content placed into messages will be removed without exception.
Note that if the content is not available on the Internet, no use is permitted.
I think if you follow such a policy on your own site, Artstart, you will steer clear of copyright infringement problems. Good luck.
That's why Brett's TOS mention 'Minor fair use excerpts of less than one paragraph (4 sentences)'. (my emphasis)
Generally you should be able to quote someone else's work within your own work if it is 'fair use' - if it is relevant and if your own work contains the primary ideas, and the use of someone else's work is in support of or used as an example within your own work.
So - small snippet yes, as long as your own work can justify it. Large 'snippets' no.
Would any of you by any chance know where I will be able to find exact figures of what may be used? Exact amount of words, percentage of the piece?
Would any of you by any chance know where I will be able to find exact figures of what may be used? Exact amount of words, percentage of the piece?
Unfortunately Fair Use statutes aren't that simple. Context is everything. It's more a matter of "how, why, and in what way" the copyrighted material is being used than it is a matter of "how much", though in most cases the less you use, the safer you are.
This article from the Electronic Frontier Foundation is a good place to start:
Understanding Fair Use [eff.org]
Do they get permission for each article posted, do they get one time permission from NY Times to quote them? Or is it simply universal practice where news agencies are authorized to quote each other as long as they credit the original source?
It depends. Newspapers are members of syndicates which share some content for a membership fee. Reprints on non-syndicated articles are usually available through boilerplate agreements; some news organizations will have reciprocal agreements with other news organizations. The news organizations, like other content providers, will also sell their content wholesale to content resellers like Pinnacor, TMS, NewsEdge, and Yellowbrix for broader dissemination.
One of the sites I manage offers a targeted news feed under contract with one of the major resellers; we also occasionally reprint articles from industry journals and provide video clips from CNN, CNBC, etc. through separate requests. All of these need to be negotiated and paid for, though oftentimes the fee is trivial and the agreement is boilerplate depending on the size and circulation of the reprint, the "premium-ness" of the content, and the length of time the content will be posted (e.g. 30 days for Reuters, 90 days for McGraw-Hill, never for Lexis-Nexis).
For an idea of fair use in action, see news.google.com. A title and news blurb is provided, nothing else but a link. This does require active maintenance, since most major newspapers won't provide online content past 10 or 14 days and AP and Reuters content is restricted at the source for 30 days.
Not knowing what kind of site you're envisioning, I'll toss out [ecmag.net...] as possibly enlightening as well.
