| actually, that was my next blog. i was going to say search for mccain and check out how the headlines belie each newspapers slant. nice tool. i wonder how many sources moreover draws from? how about that anonymous post in sustenance regarding the ducasse review? how strange?
Yeah, we've done some emailing about that one. Friendly sources. And of course, they are technically correct. It is a copyright violation to reprint the entire article (i.e., reprinting the whole thing as is is not fair use.) Still, since nobody reads this site it seems fine. (All my bbc pictures are violations as well.)
i think it is fair use. Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
(1) seems good. (2) doesn't seem bad, but I'm not sure how what it really means. (3) is where I think the problem is. This wasn't a quote, it was 100% of the original text. The law talks about "...the amount and substantiality of the portion used...." But this was no portion, it was the entire thing. And (4) definitely get us (i.e., if everyone could reproduce, verbatim, the entire contents of copyrighted NY Post articles, and offer them free on the web, this would definitely hurt the ability of the Post to generate revenue (ad revenue) through its web site. And to top it all off, there wasn't even a link to Post. (I'm not certain the article was even on line, but if not, the case is even worse because it clearly hurts the Post's ability to generate revenue from selling papers if the info is all available in its entirety on line.)
IANAL (I am not a lawyer) but I think for it to be considered educational or news reporting, some comments on the work have to be offered. In other words, you are free to reproduce parts (even substantial parts) of copyrighted works if you are directly commenting on it (if you are putting the quotes in the context of your own argument.) The Post post offered no such context. It was just a verbatim copy of the copyrighted work.
Of course, as I hope is clear by many of my other posts, I'm not a big fan of this sort of copyright law. Notice the post is still up on the site. But, strictly speaking, I do think it is in violation of the law. (Great link to the actual text of the law, btw.)
you goddamned fascist, always cozying up to da man. i found the link to the law page on the commondreams fairuse policy at the bottom of all their posts. i wonder to what degree various points of fairuse must be satisfied to be considered fairuse? i would contend that the entire post was a comment on a post i had previously had on the subject and since the venue was noncommercial there was no copyright infringement. there wasnt a link, its true, but there was an effort at attribution. i disagree that the post ability to make money was infringed upon in this instance. if someone created a mirror site to the post without ads, i might see some problem with that but i cant imagine why anyone would try to do that.
|
how about that anonymous post in sustenance regarding the ducasse review? how strange?
- dave 8-02-2000 6:33 pm
Yeah, we've done some emailing about that one. Friendly sources. And of course, they are technically correct. It is a copyright violation to reprint the entire article (i.e., reprinting the whole thing as is is not fair use.) Still, since nobody reads this site it seems fine. (All my bbc pictures are violations as well.)
- jim 8-02-2000 9:39 pm [add a comment]
i think it is fair use.
Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
- dave 8-02-2000 9:59 pm [add a comment]
(1) seems good. (2) doesn't seem bad, but I'm not sure how what it really means. (3) is where I think the problem is. This wasn't a quote, it was 100% of the original text. The law talks about "...the amount and substantiality of the portion used...." But this was no portion, it was the entire thing. And (4) definitely get us (i.e., if everyone could reproduce, verbatim, the entire contents of copyrighted NY Post articles, and offer them free on the web, this would definitely hurt the ability of the Post to generate revenue (ad revenue) through its web site. And to top it all off, there wasn't even a link to Post. (I'm not certain the article was even on line, but if not, the case is even worse because it clearly hurts the Post's ability to generate revenue from selling papers if the info is all available in its entirety on line.)
IANAL (I am not a lawyer) but I think for it to be considered educational or news reporting, some comments on the work have to be offered. In other words, you are free to reproduce parts (even substantial parts) of copyrighted works if you are directly commenting on it (if you are putting the quotes in the context of your own argument.) The Post post offered no such context. It was just a verbatim copy of the copyrighted work.
Of course, as I hope is clear by many of my other posts, I'm not a big fan of this sort of copyright law. Notice the post is still up on the site. But, strictly speaking, I do think it is in violation of the law. (Great link to the actual text of the law, btw.)
- jim 8-02-2000 10:51 pm [add a comment]
you goddamned fascist, always cozying up to da man. i found the link to the law page on the commondreams fairuse policy at the bottom of all their posts. i wonder to what degree various points of fairuse must be satisfied to be considered fairuse? i would contend that the entire post was a comment on a post i had previously had on the subject and since the venue was noncommercial there was no copyright infringement. there wasnt a link, its true, but there was an effort at attribution. i disagree that the post ability to make money was infringed upon in this instance. if someone created a mirror site to the post without ads, i might see some problem with that but i cant imagine why anyone would try to do that.
- dave 8-02-2000 11:21 pm [add a comment]