Forum Moderators: not2easy
I'm probably asking a very dumb question but hey its better to ask a dumb question and learn about it rather than staying ignorant....
If i like an article on any website, can I copy/paste it on my website and MENTION the source that I got it from so and so website.
For instance, if I like an article about Britney Spears on BBC. Can I use that article on my website and mention that I got it from BBC.com
OR
Should I first get permission from the website before using their content.
THanks for ur advice.
LEo
Should I first get permission from the website before using their content.
Yes.
Eliz.
Obviously this is not a legal definition of the law, but rather a private policy to be figured out in advance of actually using the content.
For example, on my own site I write some articles that are private and are for members only and I write others that I allow others to be used as long as they maintain the copyright, my bio, and a link to my site. I also publish those articles in Adobe Acrobat to insure that my copyright info can't be deleted (at least not easily) and used without my permission.
Fortune Hunter
Unless it is explicitly made clear that copying the article is permitted, don't assume it is permitted.
I would imagine those free article sites wouldn't be as popular as they are if you did, but what "should be" and what "is" are usually 2 different things...
Any ideas?
All I know is the articles I'm currently running rank higher on my site than on the original author's site.
Then again, I have a higher PR site to start with.
If you are found to be in violation the owner of the article can, as a minimum, sue you for any profits you have made that are in any way related to your theft of their content. If they can prove you knowingly stole it they may be able to 3x that award.
As someone else said, you can include brief quotations from the article providing that you include a reference to the original. So, if you wrote your own article, you could include quotes from the source in your article, and mention it. This is called fair use. You CANNOT quote the entire original and call that a fair use quote, though.
You absolutely CANNOT just go copy and paste an article onto your website.
The Article City site states you can as long as you:
Copying of Contents, in whole or in part, is permitted provided that author by-lines are kept intact and unchanged. Hyperlinks and/or URLs provided by authors must remain active.
But you are correct, permission from the original author would certainly be best and many of the links back to the authors sites clearly indicate these articles are free.
It's a good starting point instead of scouring the net looking for stuff.
Just be careful that you read the CCL that is linked from the article to make sure that you meet the qualifications to use that article. Some of them are licensed for non-commercial use only.
For the large sites, better to just link with your own summary/indication of what the article is about... unless you are actually interacting with the content (quoting then responding as in a review). If you want entire articles, look to smaller sites and those mentioned earlier in this thread that are set up specifically to share/syndicate articles.
What US courts often rule to be fair use, European courts often rule to be copyright infringment.
Remember also that if you copying from sites in other countries you are also exposing yourself to their countries' copyright laws; enabling them to take action against you in whichever country they think will be toughest on copyright infringment.
Not really correct, at least if you are in the United States.
It is the location where the copying takes place that determines juristiction.
Due to their laws, Canadian Citizens are not violating copyright when they download songs from the internet, because they pay for the right with a surcharge on blank media. As a copyright holder in the united states, I could not file a US suit against a canadian for an action that took place in canada.
The rules can be a bit different when it comes to multi-national corporations with datacenters and subsidiaries in many different countries. But on a individual or small business basis, you only have to worry about your own country.
Due to their laws, Canadian Citizens are not violating copyright when they download songs from the internet, because they pay for the right with a surcharge on blank media. As a copyright holder in the united states, I could not file a US suit against a canadian for an action that took place in canada.
What? I would understand if the ones collecting the fee then went and handed it over (i.e., paid some sort of royalty)to the copyright owners. But how can they collect a fee to "cover" downloading copyrighted material that doesn't BELONG to them?!
Also, I realize not every country recognizes US copyrights -- but Canada?
The Australian High Court has ruled that even if you are a US site (hosted entirely in the US) you are still subject to Australian jurisdiction if your site is viewable in Australia. While this particular case concerned defamation laws, I suspect that in Australia lower courts would take the High Court's precedent as also applying to copyright.
The BBC's take on the issue is at
[news.bbc.co.uk...]
Much content from smaller news services around the world is done in this way, particularly where they do not have the resources to cover the story themselves.
What you do is write a headline and standfirst as well as a paragraph or two of your own then continue...
"According to (whichever news source it may be)...
...and here you can include a couple of paragraphs of text from the original source article.
You could carry on...
"Additionally the (which ever news source it may be) stated..."
Or:
"It was reported on (which ever news source it may be) that..."
Intersperse the quotes with journalistic comments of your own. Write a news article about the news article...
Effectively what you are doing is reporting, or creating, news about the news. You become a second (or third) tier news service as such.
Bear in mind that you must have your own genuine reportage as the foundation and justification of the article.
Syzygy
What? I would understand if the ones collecting the fee then went and handed it over (i.e., paid some sort of royalty)to the copyright owners.
When did I suggest that they did not hand over the levy? A quick search on [canadian blank media] would have told you all you ever wanted to know about it.
But I'll help you out here, try checking out [cpcc.ca...]
But how can they collect a fee to "cover" downloading copyrighted material that doesn't BELONG to them?!
The *material* DOES belong to them, they have just granted the artist a copyright according to their countrie's laws.
Also, I realize not every country recognizes US copyrights -- but Canada?
They recognize your US copyright just fine. They just don't recognize US copyright law. They recognize Canadian copyright law as it applies to copyrights in other Berne countries.
aeclark,
Yes, you are absolutely extrapolating too far.
Dow Jones is an *international* media company. They have a presence in Australia and the person claming defamation lives in Australia. The court has jurisdiction over both parties. If it was me that was being sued, they could go ahead and claim jurisdiction and sue me in absentia, but they would just be wasting their money, cuase I would not show up.
Copyright is a National right, and is accepted as such unless there is another treaty that gives that right away. No country is going to mess with that unless they want to tempt losing their own national rights on external copyrights.
The one place you might be able to prosecute extraterritorial infringement is when it is done by a national, as many countries certainly claim the right to control their citizen's actions whether or not they are in the country.
The content found on "article farm"-type sites cannot be trusted. I have seen several of my popular articles hosted on these sites, "contributed" by a total stranger to me with a hyperlink back to *their* website. This is not a rare occurance.
This is why I would suggest *always* contacting the author directly, regardless of where you saw the article (and whatever that site's licencing policies may be). Always be sure, or -- alternatively -- always keep a handy legal defense fund ready in case you get the pants sued off you.
As someone who writes customized original content for websites (see my profile, if you're interested) it really irritates me when I see my work "offered" by a strange website, along with glib permission to copy and paste at will.
Long story short: article farm sites have a certain proportion (I can't pretend to know what %) of IP that isn't rightfully theirs. Use caution!
It's grey whether or not copying songs off the internet is OK in Canada. What clearly IS ok is when you make a copy from your friends original. That is what the levy is specifically intended to cover. Whether it also applies to a copy made where you don't have access to the original is all fuzzy and grey.
It's probably moot as the recording industry have fired up their lobbyists again and are busy trying to have that levy revoked, or at least made not to apply to songs copied from the internet.
Enjoy it while it lasts....
