copyright-free and can be used in any manner you wish

Can Modifications Give You Copyright Privelage?

[jpell]

"All article text is copyright-free and can be used in any manner you wish. We ask only that you attribute the articles to XYZ website"

Does this mean I can claim copyright to the article with my own re-write, no matter the breadth, with authorization to allow copyright-free distribution as long as credit is given to me as the source?

[401khelp]

Sounds to me like they have given up any copyright claim. If so, then you are free to use the material, including a substantial rewriting of it, in any way you want. They are only asking you to do the right thing and give them credit or attribution. Sounds pretty fair to me and easy to do -- "We want to thank XYZ.com for the material this article is based on."

An yes, your substantially rewritten article could be copyrighted, but it would be real tacky to actual attempt to copyright the original material.

[jpell]

Hi 401khelp

"An yes, your substantially rewritten article could be copyrighted, but it would be real tacky to actual attempt to copyright the original material."

Very true. What I wanted to know is that if I can diplay the article with something like: This article may be republished in it's entirety only. Then having something to the effect of courtesy XYZ company through mysite.com. at the bottom of the article. That way the writer will be given credit for the article and mysite.com will be given credit as the place where the article was found should it be published by someone else.

[Marshall]

You may want to read their "fine" print, if any. Sounds like you are free to use their articles, but not necessarily redistribute them. The fact they want you to give them credit suggests they want people reading the article to visit their site.

[ccDan]

I've looked around the web a bit on this, and it appears that "copyright-free" does not necessarily mean "public domain".

In some uses, copyright-free means that you are free to use the material, but the original author may still retain the copyright on his/her work.

I'm not sure whether re-writing or adding to the material would be permissable. Does modifying an article constitute use, or do they intend for the article to be used on as-is basis?

My assumption would be, since they are saying "copyright-free" and not "public domain", they are retaining their rights to the work. In that case, modifying the work (rewriting, adding to it, etc.) would constitute creating a derivative work--which is a right granted only to the copyright-holder, unless they've sold or relinquished that right. But, to me, that does not appear to be the case.

So, I would get the web site owner's permission before modifying or rewriting any of their material.

[jpell]

From the Site:
"About XYZ Content
Founded in 1996, XYZ Content's mission is to provide informative, high-quality content for reporters, editors and publishers in both the print and online media.

XYZ's content is available free of charge and can be copied or e-mailed directly from this site. Text files can be published in whole or in part with your staff byline, or used as research materials. Color graphics are available in 72-dpi JPEG format and may be published only with the associated article text.

To view, e-mail or copy/paste articles and other content, you must register as a member. There is no membership fee and your personal information will be kept confidential. On subsequent visits, registered members will have immediate access to all articles.

There are no limits to the amount of content you use. We only request that you retain the XYZ attribution at the beginning and end of each article, and that you retain any embedded tags (used for tracking purposes).

Please e-mail us with your comments and suggestions. The availability of this service is dependent on the sufficient use, publication, and tracking of the content we provide."

What I wanted to know is that if I can display the article with something like: This article may be republished in it's entirety only (to ensure the XYZ info remains in tact). Then having something to the effect of courtesy XYZ company through mysite.com incorperating a link to mysite.com at the bottom of the article. That way the writer will be given credit for the article and mysite.com will be given credit as the place where the article was found should it be published by someone else.

Thanks for all of the great posts. I'm seeing a trend here and I just don't want to run into any trouble before the bugs are worked out:)
JPell

[401khelp]

jpell:

How about dropping XYZ.com an email and asking them is this would be an appropriate use?

From what you have posted, it seems to me that they are giving you broad latitude in using the material.

This article may be republished in it's entirety only (to ensure the XYZ info remains in tact). Then having something to the effect of courtesy XYZ company through mysite.com incorperating (sic) a link to mysite.com at the bottom of the article. That way the writer will be given credit for the article and mysite.com will be given credit as the place where the article was found should it be published by someone else.

Seems reasonable to me as long as you fully comply with the conditions set forth by XYZ.com.

[401khelp]

I've looked around the web a bit on this, and it appears that "copyright-free" does not necessarily mean "public domain".

Interesting. I took "copyright-free" to mean that no copyright is claimed for the material. This would, to me, mean it is in the public domain. I'm thinking of examples like federal government publications that are never copyrighted and therefore are public domain.

I'm going to have to read up on this. Thanks for the insight.

[ccDan]

401khelp wrote:

Interesting. I took "copyright-free" to mean that no copyright is claimed for the material. This would, to me, mean it is in the public domain.

That's what I previously thought as well. But, apparently, that's not necessarily the case.

I guess it depends upon what the site owner thought "copyright-free" means. ;-)

[ccDan]

401khelp wrote:

Interesting. I took "copyright-free" to mean that no copyright is claimed for the material. This would, to me, mean it is in the public domain.

That's what I previously thought as well. But, apparently, that's not necessarily the case.

I guess it depends upon what the site owner thought "copyright-free" means. ;-)

[jpell]

Thanks 401k for the post,
They may say yes or they may say no, my concern is do they have a legal basis for saying no based on their wording of their TOS?
Jpell

[Marcia]

Modifications to original works are derivative works. There doesn't seem to be any specific permission given for another person to modify and claim copyright on the derived work, and should the original author have a complaint about it, I wouldn't want to be in the position of having the web host contacted to remove the site if it isn't permitted.

There are no limits to the amount of content you use. We only request that you retain the XYZ attribution at the beginning and end of each article, and that you retain any embedded tags (used for tracking purposes).

Seems they are tracking, and it has not been put in the public domain. It also sounds, when they're saying to attribute them at the beginning and end, that they expect the articles to be used intact.

I personally would leave theirs intact; modifying it with their attribution top and bottom muddies the issue as to the authorship of the content they originally published.

Leaving theirs intact, publishing as is properly attributed and writing another piece referring to portions seems like that is what would warrant copyrighting, because even with references and quotes it would still be an original work.

[jpell]

Marcia,
That was a great reply. The only thing I would like to modify is this:
<p>This is the article xyz co. will let me re-distribute free of copyright and charge because by doing so they may get more visitors to their site because it was referenced a few times in the article, and for other reasons. This article courtesy xyz co.</p> (HTML just for emphasis)

My version:<p>This is the article xyz co. will let me re-distribute free of copyright and charge because by doing so they may get more visitors to their site because it was referenced a few times in the article, and for other reasons. This article courtesy xyz co. via mysite.com Free to re-publish (sp) in it's entirety only</p>
The article and author didn't change. Yes, they are tracking it, but my bet is that they would imagine most publishers are using the article for content, not backwards links. Backwards links is my main reason for using the article with the supplimenting content as a bonus.

[Marshall]

This is a highlight straight from Copyright Laws of the United States - [copyright.gov...]

§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

(1) literary works;

(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;

(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;

(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;

(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

(7) sound recordings; and

(8) architectural works.

(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.

§ 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works
(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.

(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.

§ 104. Subject matter of copyright: National origin
(a) Unpublished Works. — The works specified by sections 102 and 103, while unpublished, are subject to protection under this title without regard to the nationality or domicile of the author.

(b) Published Works. — The works specified by sections 102 and 103, when published, are subject to protection under this title if —

(1) on the date of first publication, one or more of the authors is a national or domiciliary of the United States, or is a national, domiciliary, or sovereign authority of a treaty party, or is a stateless person, wherever that person may be domiciled; or

(2) the work is first published in the United States or in a foreign nation that, on the date of first publication, is a treaty party; or

It goes on for a long time. Visit copyright.gov for the complete law.

[ccDan]

jpell writes:

This article courtesy xyz co. via mysite.com Free to re-publish (sp) in it's entirety only

I don't think that you could do that.

As a user of their site, they have given *you* permission to use the article free of charge on your site.

The way I see it, that does not give you permission to give visitors to your site distribution rights to *their* article.

[jpell]

Hello Marshall,
Thanks for the post. I used the same source in re. to a copyright question regarding recipes.
Is it allowable to publish a copyright free article in it's entirety noting the author as per T.O.S. of the authors website with an addition of your website as the source where the re-publisher(sp) found it, as long as you as the "source" complied to the T.O.S of the originating article's author? i.e., the article must begin and end with author name, and published in whole or in part. While noting "courtesy xyz website", which is required by their T.O.S., is adding the following; "via (or some other term) mysite.com" a violation in any way when allowing the same article to be re-published (sp) from mysite.com?
JPell

[jpell]

ccDan,
That's a great point. I didn't think of that. Perhaps that's why they require membership even if it is free. Hmmm.... So does membership equal rights to redistribute just like a fee would?
Jpell

p.s., I'm guessing that it does.

[Marshall]

I think it is still a TOS question, not necessarily a copyright question, when it comes to redistributing an article in this instance. The fact you have to be a "member" may grant you that use as pointed out before. Still, the best solution, and the safest, is contact xyz.com and ask. That way too, you have an email with their header informaton granting you permission should there be any problem down the road.

[jpell]

I took your advice and emailed my request over two days ago. There has been no response so I am concluding there will be a a re-write of their T.O.S. in the interum. Better safe than sorry still holds true. Thanks for everyone's great advice.
JPell