I've noticed that some members have a habit of posting entire articles from other sources into threads on the Org. This is particularly the case for the original post of a new thread about some online article. This is illegal and is a copyright infringment.

Can the Org please establish a policy against this type of copyright infringement?

Most people do include a link to the original and the author's name, which is nice, but doesn't negate the copyright issue. One can't type an entire magazine article from one source onto your own website and then make it legal by including the original author's name. The same applies to online publications.

We have clear rules against infringing on Prince's copyrights and associated artists. Many of these people are multimillionaires who would suffer little from a video of theirs being posted here, especially considering that they're not even selling copies of the video.

Yet we routinely infringe upon the rights of reporters, websites, and magazines. These are often underpaid or financially struggling entities who invest time and money in doing interesting articles, and they rely on readers & clicks to earn money and remain in business. Yet we take clicks and readers away by posting entire articles here.

An appropriate rule would be something like:

1. When quoting an article from another website or publication, include no more than 3 paragraphs or 1/3 of the original text.

2. Always include a link to the original source if it's online.

3. Always include the author's name, publication name, and title of the original piece.

These simple rules would go a long way to protecting artist's rights and livelihood. The addition of, say, 500 clicks from the Org could help an author be assigned another story from a small publication and will encourage more stories that could be interesting to us.

Any thoughts?

Thank you,

As far as the articel that CocoRock posted, the Org has a full go ahead to post the article and photos from the site it came from.

controversy99 said:

I've noticed that some members have a habit of posting entire articles from other sources into threads on the Org. This is particularly the case for the original post of a new thread about some online article. This is illegal and is a copyright infringment. Can the Org please establish a policy against this type of copyright infringement? Most people do include a link to the original and the author's name, which is nice, but doesn't negate the copyright issue. One can't type an entire magazine article from one source onto your own website and then make it legal by including the original author's name. The same applies to online publications. We have clear rules against infringing on Prince's copyrights and associated artists. Many of these people are multimillionaires who would suffer little from a video of theirs being posted here, especially considering that they're not even selling copies of the video. Yet we routinely infringe upon the rights of reporters, websites, and magazines. These are often underpaid or financially struggling entities who invest time and money in doing interesting articles, and they rely on readers & clicks to earn money and remain in business. Yet we take clicks and readers away by posting entire articles here. An appropriate rule would be something like: 1. When quoting an article from another website or publication, include no more than 3 paragraphs or 1/3 of the original text. 2. Always include a link to the original source if it's online. 3. Always include the author's name, publication name, and title of the original piece. These simple rules would go a long way to protecting artist's rights and livelihood. The addition of, say, 500 clicks from the Org could help an author be assigned another story from a small publication and will encourage more stories that could be interesting to us. Any thoughts? Thank you,

.

i've been wondering about this, especially in connection with gifs and other images reposted here.

.

could an argument be made that discussion boards on the ORG would fall under some kind of fair use clause, since they're non-profit?

OldFriends4Sale said:

Great. It looks like the original source is a nonprofit educational institution, so it makes sense that they would share content. Thanks for following up on that.

XxAxX said:

It's case by case. I know mostly about text, less about photos. For text, discussion boards have to abide by copyright law, which dictates that quoting must be limited in length, should be for some covered use, such as commentary or discussion, and must cite the original source. So, three paragraphs or so of a long article appropriate. A good example of a discussion board's own rule on respecting copyrights is: http://www.democraticunde...sofservice

For photos & images, generally one should get the permission of the copyright holder even for a discussion board. That said, sometimes it's difficult to find that person. Or a portion of the image or a thumbnail version could be used, so most of the avatars, for example, should be protected. And of course use of copyrighted photos is rampant on the internet.

The purpose of the copyright is of course to protect artists rights and the commercial interests of those who support & fund artists's work. But a lot of websites treat abiding by copyrights as an exercise in avoiding lawsuits. Therefore, wealthy artists with lawyers tend to be protected. A low paid reporter or photographer for a small magazine won't have the money to sue, and therefore might have the work copied more easily, although they might either provide rights when asked or request that a quote or photo be taken down out of respect.

There's some more info here: https://www.advisen.com/d...operty.pdf

controversy99 said:

XxAxX said:

.

i've been wondering about this, especially in connection with gifs and other images reposted here.

.

could an argument be made that discussion boards on the ORG would fall under some kind of fair use clause, since they're non-profit?

It's case by case. I know mostly about text, less about photos. For text, discussion boards have to abide by copyright law, which dictates that quoting must be limited in length, should be for some covered use, such as commentary or discussion, and must cite the original source. So, three paragraphs or so of a long article appropriate. A good example of a discussion board's own rule on respecting copyrights is: http://www.democraticunde...sofservice For photos & images, generally one should get the permission of the copyright holder even for a discussion board. That said, sometimes it's difficult to find that person. Or a portion of the image or a thumbnail version could be used, so most of the avatars, for example, should be protected. And of course use of copyrighted photos is rampant on the internet. The purpose of the copyright is of course to protect artists rights and the commercial interests of those who support & fund artists's work. But a lot of websites treat abiding by copyrights as an exercise in avoiding lawsuits. Therefore, wealthy artists with lawyers tend to be protected. A low paid reporter or photographer for a small magazine won't have the money to sue, and therefore might have the work copied more easily, although they might either provide rights when asked or request that a quote or photo be taken down out of respect. There's some more info here: https://www.advisen.com/d...operty.pdf

thank you! will check that out. i'm guilty of re-printing entire articles, using copyrighted gif images here on threads for fun.

.

in one sense, i think that an artist who allows his/her work to be uploaded to the net implies consent to re-distribute insofar as we all know we live in a 'link and like' culture now, where we freely swap information and ideas around between us on the internet.

.

it happened to me, in a way. one of my copyrighted uploads was translated and published on some weird international website... i know i could petition to have it removed, but the website admin is in china and blah blah blah...

.

then again, i admit i infringe against others' copyrights by re-printing articles in discussion threads and using Gifs without explicitly granted permission from the artists.

.

i'd be happy to pay .5 cents or whatever agreed-upon amount for the right to use copyrighted images, if there was some fair way to pay-per-click. maybe someday there will be internet 'tollbooths' governing copyrighted materials, whereby all can be happy.

.

then again, i'm not sure i like that idea either.... really don't know what the answer is.

.

[Edited 6/9/15 10:03am]

Thanks for posting that new rule on the PM&M forum. Hopefully people won't feel stifled. Cheers!