Forum Moderators: not2easy
"Copyright © 1987 by Author XXX. The Copyright has been reserved in all forms and it may not be distributed. It is partly presented with the express permission of the author. Any reproduction in whole or part by and individuals or organizations will be held liable for copyright infringement to the full extent of the law. "
Can I copy his articles to my site?
Can I change parts of his text?
What should I do to copy his articles to my site, to be everything legal?
Thx. and have a nice day:)
What part of the disclaimer to you interpret as anything other than "NO!"?
No, you can not alter it.
No, you can not copy it.
No, you can not steal it.
If you come back to answer this thread, you gotta tell us what your reasoning is, which you think gives you license, to pilfer, much less ask these questions here?
Can I copy his articles to my site?
You can legally copy those articles only if you get the permission of the copyright holder. Otherwise you will be in violation of copyright law.
Can I change parts of his text?
Of course you can change parts of his text. But if you do it without permission and publish it, you are still in violation of copyright law.
What you are suggesting is called a "derivative work", which allows the original copyright holder to still control the publication of that work.
What should I do to copy his articles to my site, to be everything legal?
Get permission from the copyright holder or move to a country that is not a signatory of the Berne Convention.
By the way, even if that notice was not at the bottom of the page, it would still be covered by copyright.
If you want articles on a subject, you should either write them yourself, by them, or pay someone to write them for you. Infringing on the wrong person's copyright can be a lot more expensive in the long run.
I offered to reproduce the article unchanged, with their full contact information etc., in a positive context. They never bothered to reply. I just wrote my own small article based on facts from different public sources, including their. Plain facts as such are not copyrighted.
That company lost publicity and goodwill. Now I always write the contents by myself only. I have not asked for such a permission again, so I do not know if nonresponsiveness is the normal outcome. Sad in case such an attitude of copyright holders could result in more infringements. But then copyright owners do indeed react.
If you ask someone for permission and they don't reply.
It doesn't mean you have permission
There is no need to discuss matters of course here. What would have been interesting and valuable to hear is, does anybody have any real experiences regarding getting permission to use copyrighted text, and if so, what is the proper way to proceed. Obviously few webmasters have, thus no such comments.
Personally I suspect it is difficult to get a permission. Rather than going into the trouble of defining all the legal conditions copyright holders simply refuse permission - implicitly or explicitly.
But if that is the case, then we should perhaps not advise inquirers here that they must get permission. It is better to say outright: forget the whole idea, you cannot steal, you cannot obtain permission, so you must produce original text, images yourself.
Off-topic: I can partly understand the frustration of young people copying seemingly "worthless" images etc. they are not allowed to take. (Better not even mention music, software...) They genuinly feel it is (or should be) "public domain". Will their attitude change when they grow up? I fear legislation will have to adopt to some extent to the prevailing values of the society, and the rigid copyright will be loosened up.
[edited by: geekay at 10:28 pm (utc) on Feb. 8, 2005]
You can legally copy those articles only if you get the permission of the copyright holder. Otherwise you will be in violation of copyright law.
This is not always true -- academical institutions, libraries have license that allows students or visitors make photocopy of article. This is considered fair use. Now re-publishing article, particularly to make some money out of it is a big no-no, copying however is okay under many circumstances.
This is not always true -- academical institutions, libraries have license that allows students or visitors make photocopy of article. This is considered fair use. Now re-publishing article, particularly to make some money out of it is a big no-no, copying however is okay under many circumstances
Yes it is always true. It is always true because I was replying to the specific question where the "you" in my reply was to the specific person asking the question "Can I copy his articles to my site?".
That specific case is NOT covered by fair use. He is not archive.org, he is not a library, he is not talking about personal use for research, he is not talking about commentary, review or news coverage, and there was no mention of taking portions of the article. He mentioned copying for distribution on a website based on that theme.
And Fair Use is not a "license". Fair use is the rights retained by the public that were not granted exclusively to the copyright holder.
Yes it is always true.
No, its not always true as I shown in my post, but I agree that it is true in this specific case :)
The question was "Can I copy his articles to my site?"
This is not a general question, it is a specific question.
I provided a specific answer to that specific question.
Any time that specific question is asked in regards to copying whole copyright protected articles to a topical website, that will *always* be the answer.
I know what Fair Use is. I don't think anyone on this site has gotten flamed worse than me for defending it.
Fair Use *never* applies in a case like this, so you *always* need to get permission. And since this wasn't even about a "case like this" but *this specific case*, the always is singular.
I also had someone put my copyrighted content in a frame with a redirect to my site and when the suspect site's emails bounced I wrote the host and within a few hours the hosting company wrote back and said to let them know within 24 ours if it's still there and if so they will remove the site entirely.
So tread lightly with taking another's content :o)
PS. any content you use, with permission or not, will be labeled Supplemental Contents by the search engines which means they know you were not the original author--they have a way of checking, and it's my experience that these pages never rank well anyway so its a waste of your time.
So write your own content and you'll do a lot better. If you can't write hire someone to do it for you--as long as it's original and they agree never to use it anywhere else.
Some jerk copied a bunch of stuff from my web site last year and my attorney crawled up places in that guy that normally are only seen with a colonoscopy. Not to mention I immediately filed DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) complaints with his web host, google, etc. and those sites went down the next day and are still DOWN a year later.
"they know you were not the original author--they have a way of checking, and it's my experience that these pages never rank well anyway so its a waste of your time."
I have to disagree with that: Over the years, I've read lots of threads on this forum with themes such as ..
'They stole my content and knocked me down/out of the SERPS' or
'How come I rank #500 for my trademarked company name?'
There's a recent thread about how to prevent theft @a
[webmasterworld.com...]
We hire real graphic designers to make custom layouts for our web sites, and pay them real money. No derivation from off the shelf templates, 100% new designs created in photoshop and converted to HTML.
Anyway, we get a call from one of our customers one fine day telling us someone has stolen our web site layout and gives us a URL. The internet isn't as big as you think, people run across these things everyday. I look at the URL and sure enough, the entire page layout was lifted, including some custom graphics, by some shoddy web designer and then new content typed over it.
I grab the phone and called these people and read them the riot act about stealing copyrighted material, yada yada, he claimed total ignorance about it. Then I get some justification from this guy like "You can't copyright page design" at when point I said "I have the invoice, the original files, and I can get an affadavit from the web designer easily that these are all original, would you prefer I just file a criminal charge of THEFT?". At this point feeling backed into a corner he says "Well, I hired some guy I know from church, he's an honest man" and which point I lost it and screamed "WELL HE MUST'VE SLEPT THROUGH THE SERMON ABOUT THOU SHALT NOT STEAL!".
Then to be a total ass, as I'm know to be in such circumstances, I gave him till 5PM close of business to fix it or I unleash the legal hounds.
Funny thing, it was fixed before 5PM.....
would you prefer I just file a criminal charge of THEFT?
While that might have been effective, it is totally incorrect.
It is not theft, and it is very rarely a criminal charge. When it is a criminal charge, you are not the one to make charge, that is up to the US attorney's office.
It is infringement, and a civil charge.
for ex. can I copy some info that was written in a public forum?
If you produce your own content, you avoid all potential legal entanglements while also gaining the advantages of having unique, custom-tailored materials that reinforce your message perfectly and drive business.
That very same content can then be leveraged to help increase both your site's credibility and traffic through appropriate distribution.
One can either author their own content or hire a professional to produce text that meets their specific needs, depending on their skill level, time constraints and/or budget.
would you prefer I just file a criminal charge of THEFT?While that might have been effective, it is totally incorrect.
Actually, I was told by my intellectual property lawyer that you CAN just walk in a file a report. It's just like someone stole something from your house. Whether they press charges or not is another matter, but the scare tactice made the dirtbag shake in his boots and take my stuff off, which was the point. I figured if he was too stupid to realize I could have his ecommerce site disabled immediately for stealing my graphics, I was sure he was too stupid to know whether it would fall under criminal or civil penalties.
Actually, the only thing you CANNOT do, which I did not do, is threaten to push a criminal charge in order to get payola which is civil - that will get you in trouble for blackmail.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 11:38 pm (utc) on Feb. 10, 2005]
Anything anyone writes ANYWHERE has their copyright the minute it's written, or the site owners copyright, or BOTH depending on how the site's user agreement is written. Using anything you didn't create without permission, unless the site plainly states you can use the material freely, is just asking to have someone with a law degree pick your pocket or shut you down at a minimum.
Just say NO to cut and paste content creation.
A referer to the source is always good manners though.
Even artwork and prints in the public domain can be copied, as long as you don't claim it as "your own" artwork and try to claim copyright control over it.
This is why we see so many classical music collection from concertos all over the world, in very different quality. The music is simply in the public domain, but the orchestra who played it will still have the copyright ownership to that specific recording. So mp3 downloads of classical music, for example, is most often illegal, but the actual sheets and music compositions are often in the public domain.
At least, this is how I understand it.
It's just like someone stole something from your house.
If that is what your IP attorney told you, then they are wrong.
Stealing personal property from you is larceny. Once they take that property from you, you no longer have use of it.
Copying your work without permission is an act of infringement. They have not removed any personal property from your possession. You still own the copyright. The copyright is still in your possession.
Now you might be able to walk into your local police station and report the infringement to have a record, but that is all that it will do for you. They have no juristiction. Not even if it was your next door neighbor, could they do anything. Copyright is strictly federal in nature, and is handled on the federal level. Larceny laws are generally at the state level.
Still, the fear factor did work on the guy, so I'm pleased with the results.
Regardless, next time I'd just use the DMCA and shut him down, I've used that a few times since that incident and the web hosting companies jump like they'd been shot when you send that little nastygram
I have to disagree with that: Over the years, I've read lots of threads on this forum with themes such as ..
'They stole my content and knocked me down/out of the SERPS' or
'How come I rank #500 for my trademarked company name?' [/qoute]
Right. I should have clarified further. But I suspect this is caused when you change the original after the theft has occured and then your page is given a later date than the stolen one.
like the weather in a country.
like the amount of calories in some food.
what if there is site listing some food with the nutrition facts which is all over the web and books..
so is it legal to get such content?
thanks
So you can post, say, distances between cities but don't copy someone's chart showing the distances between all the major towns and cities in Vancouver. Compilations, if unique in some identifiable way, can be copyrighted.
BigDave
>Of course you can change parts of his text. But if you do it without permission and publish it, you are still in violation of copyright law.
Actually I had a Motorola Attorney tell me that as long as you change 80-90 percent of the words, for example, then you can alter and publish it. Of course after that amount of work, it pretty much becomes your own writing anyhow.
what if there is site listing some food with the nutrition facts which is all over the web and books..
Not only are the "facts" not copyrighted, but in this case it comes from a public domain source. The United States federal government. The USDA to be exact.
[nal.usda.gov...]
But if someone is displying more information than what is in the charts, like explanation of how that food works out with different diet plans, then that explanation is covered by copyright.
Actually I had a Motorola Attorney tell me that as long as you change 80-90 percent of the words, for example, then you can alter and publish it. Of course after that amount of work, it pretty much becomes your own writing anyhow.
I would not bet on that myself. And certainly not when it comes to fiction instead of technical documentation.
If you sat down with a work, and a thesaurus, and just change the words in place, but left the structure exactly the same, they could have an incredibly strong case against you, if they had a good lawyer.
What you need to do is change it to a new, unique expression of an idea. Read a section, collect the facts, write a new section based on those facts.
I like what I call the teacher test. If your high school teacher would accept it in a report, knowing your method for translating it, then it is probably okay.
jim_w's original...
Actually I had a Motorola Attorney tell me that as long as you change 80-90 percent of the words, for example, then you can alter and publish it. Of course after that amount of work, it pretty much becomes your own writing anyhow.
My "Legal" Copy?
IN FACT, WE HAVE ONE Motorola Attorney TELLING US that SO long as WE ALTER 80-90 percent of the CONTENT, for INSTANCE, then WE MAY CHANGE IT and PUT IT ONLINE. BUT THEN, ONCE that MUCH work IS DONE, it HAS BASICALLY BECOME your own PIECE OF WRITTEN CONTENT ANYWAY.
I'm not a lawyer, so I won't even try to comment on the legal side of this, but I think the above example pretty clearly shows how changing 80% of the words does not make the material my own. It's still jim_w's story; it's still his comment to make. Just because I can spend a few minutes playing human thesaurus doesn't make the material mine.
I realize this has primarily become a legal discussion, so no doubt someone is going to retort with "but legally changing 80%...". And I'm in no position to argue whether that's true or not. However, if this discussion has a more literary/ philosophical side to it, I think it's worth pointing out that word choice is not the end all of expressive ownership, and simply changing someone else's words, while a lawyer may not object, is still objectionable.
cEM
If one would resort to do doing such things, then it would be prudent to also add ones own anecdotes and points of view. I file my own copyrights and have had people take my ideas and incorporated them into their own products. This was because I did file a copyright but I did not get a patent on the idea.
Well, depending on if it is fiction or technical issues makes a big difference as well as a lot of other factors.
Not as much as you might think. With technical docs, there are quite a few more portions that are simply not copyrightable, but the copyrightable parts of the expression receive just about the same coverage.
For example, if one is talking about taking apart a widget that can only be taken apart one way, this is obviously much different than ‘Moby Dick’ or the Theory of Relativity vs ‘War and Peace’.
The term for your example in software copyright is "efficiency". If there are only a few efficient ways to do something, then that portion does not receive copyright protection. It is considered like the ingredient list and simple directions in a recipe.
But the parts of that explanation or recipe that go beyond those simple steps still receive the full protection of the law.
I find it interesting that you chose two examples of fiction that are in the public domain.
If one would resort to do doing such things, then it would be prudent to also add ones own anecdotes and points of view.
But that is not just replacing 80% of the words. That is a lot more like using the original for research.
