(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.
|
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
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]