Copyright question about clip and pasting articles to discussion news groups
RO...@hotmail.com
articles in their entirety to a news group might be a copyright
infringement. The article is posted in full and the url back to the
original source is always included with the post. There is no attempt
to claim the article is anyone's other than the author. The posted
articles are generally from newspapers that publish stories on line.
The purpose of the newsgroup is to discuss current issues in the news.
I might add that some of the sites advertise that the article may be
printed out (they offer a special page layout for such a purpose) and
some also suggest emailing the article to a friend. It seems to me
that if they suggest emailing the article to a friend there is little
difference between doing that and posting the entire article to
friends in a news group. I am not a lawyer and would appreciate any
guidance you all may offer.
Thank you for your consideration,
Road
Bob Stock
I've always felt that posting an entire article to a newsgroup or
other Internet forum, even for discussion purposes, is copyright
infringement. It seems to me that the better practice is to copy a
small portion of the article and then give the URL of the article if
people are interested.
That said, it's not uncommon to see people do this, and I rather doubt
that publishers go after individual posters. Also, the claim that the
copying is fair use is at least a colorable argument. Whether it
would prevail is uncertain. Check out the website
http://www.freerepublic.com/ for a case that is currently wending its
way through the courts on this subject but on a grander scale. (See
the box entitled "Important Legal Notice" toward the bottom of the web
page for more information, although I believe they screwed up the
links to the court documents.)
------------------------------
Bob Stock, California Attorney
Nothing I've said should be relied on as legal advice.
------------------------------
nos...@isp.com
> It was brought to my attention recently
> that clipping and posting news articles in
> their entirety to a news group might be
> a copyright infringement.
If the source article is copyright protected and if the (re)poster
doesn't have the copyright owner's permission, there is no "might be"
(compared with: "is") about the matter.
> There is no attempt to claim the article
> is anyone's other than the author.
This is not a valid defense to a copyright infringement claim.
> The posted articles are generally from
> newspapers that publish stories on line.
These are the sort of folk who have the economic means and
self-defined self-interest to make then to proscecute vigrously to
redress copyright infringement claims.
> The purpose of the newsgroup is to
> discuss current issues in the news.
It is almost never necessary to quote extensively (or even: exactly)
from copyright protected news stories or related commentary to enable
discussion of current issues in the news.
To the extent that by "issues" you would include/refer to the manner
by which this-or-that commentator or media enterprise, as such,
reports what it considers/contends to be "news" (e.g., "CNN sez . .
!" or "Those assertedly 'spin-free' folk at Fox News claimed . . . !"
or "'The Nation' wrote . . .!") -- i.e., need appropriately to quote
from others' copyright protected works -- these media enterprises' own
(self-defined) decisions as in part influenced by the copyright act's
"fair use" provisions (as these enterprises themselves apply/interpret
those provisions) almost always, as a PRACTICAL matter, will protect
the average person.
> I might add that some of the sites advertise
> that the article may be printed out (they offer
> a special page layout for such a purpose) and
> some also suggest emailing the article to
> a friend.
The copyright act in this respect provides, in substance, that the
copyright owner may decide what kinds of reproduction/redistribution
permissions/authorizations to grant to others. Granting permission to
email an article to a friend is (obviously) not the grant of
permission to publish the article on a publicly accessible web site
Usenet newsgroup.
You would be well advised to revist some of the web sites to which you
refer and to read more carefully than you evidently so far have such
enterprises' there published notices about what
permission/authorization is/isn't granted/withheld.
> It seems to me that if they suggest emailing
> the article to a friend there is little difference
> between doing that and posting the entire article
> to friends in a news group.
Here is the important difference:
- If you email such an article to a friend, you will not be
sued.
- If you post such an article to another publicly accessible
web site or Usenet newsgroup and if the copyright owner learns of this
and believes it to be in its (self-defined) self-interest to do so (a
decision in which you as unauthorized copier/poster generally will not
have any say), you will be sued and almost certainly will lose (or
feel constrained to yield to the demands made in/by the plaintiff in
that lawsuit).
> I am not a lawyer and would appreciate any
> guidance you all may offer.
Unless as part of a well thought-out and, preferably, well-organized
political organizing effort -- in other words, if for *other*
cost-vs.-benefit considerations you've carefully calculated it would
be well-worth undertaking such an exercise -- try to avoid putting
yourself in a position which makes it necessary for you to retain
(especially if you have to then pay for) a lawyer to try to mitigate
the effects of your having disregarded cautionaries of the sort above.
Paul Tauger
<RO...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ik4b6u40se5pi3ap0...@4ax.com...
Rohan
>Date: 09.02.2002 19:44 Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <a44jid$1cndo8$1...@ID-101118.news.dfncis.de>
>
>Sure. It's copyright infringment. Period.
No its not, period.
The fair use guidelines of the Copyright Act state that use of copyrighted
material "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not
an infringement of copyright." (Title 17, U.S.C., Section 107).
A four-point test is specified for determining if use of a work in a specific
case is "fair use." These factors are:
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 portions 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. (Title 17, U.S.C., Section 107).
Basically, if you copy an article in usenet it is "fair use", as long as your
using it for educational purposes, you are crediting the original author, and
you are not profiting from its use. And contrary to what someone else said in
this thread, it sometimes is necessary to post an entire article. Because some
people's servers block them from certain web sites, or because links to
stories, particularly recent news items, often go dead very quickly.
If you were right, then college students could be sued for quoting news items
or books in their term papers. Or you could be sued yourself, since you just
infringed that original poster's copyright by pasting his text in your post.
Rohan
Paul Tauger
"Rohan" <roha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020209213744...@mb-mt.aol.com...
> >From: "Paul Tauger" ptauger...@earthlink.net
> >Date: 09.02.2002 19:44 Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <a44jid$1cndo8$1...@ID-101118.news.dfncis.de>
> >
> >Sure. It's copyright infringment. Period.
>
>
>
> No its not, period.
>
>
> The fair use guidelines of the Copyright Act state that use of copyrighted
> material "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching
> (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research,
is not
> an infringement of copyright." (Title 17, U.S.C., Section 107).
The use in question was quoting, in its entirety, a protected article in a
Usenet post. Feel free to point to any instance in which copying a work in
its entirety in such fashion constitutes fair use.
>
> A four-point test is specified for determining if use of a work in a
specific
> case is "fair use." These factors are:
Wrong. The four factors are non-dispositive and other factors may be
considered. Fair use is an equitable doctrine, codified in statute, but the
equitable nature controls.
>
> 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 portions 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. (Title 17, U.S.C., Section 107).
>
> Basically, if you copy an article in usenet it is "fair use", as long as
your
> using it for educational purposes,
You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Calling infringement an
"educational use" doesn't cut it. If you'd read any of the caselaw on the
subject (which you haven't because I'm betting your not a lawyer, just a net
wannabe) you'd know that there are limits on the number of copies, requireme
nts vis-a-vis lesson plans, and a "spontaneity" requirement.
you are crediting the original author, and
> you are not profiting from its use.
Not even close. Not-for-profit is not a defense to infringement.
- Vox Populi ©
"Rohan" <roha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020209213744...@mb-mt.aol.com...
> >From: "Paul Tauger" ptauger...@earthlink.net
> >Date: 09.02.2002 19:44 Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <a44jid$1cndo8$1...@ID-101118.news.dfncis.de>
> >
> >Sure. It's copyright infringment. Period.
>
>
>
> No its not, period.
My god Rohan ... you're correct this time.
You've been paying attention in school, haven't you ?
>
>
> The fair use guidelines of the Copyright Act state that use of copyrighted
> material "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
> (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not
> an infringement of copyright." (Title 17, U.S.C., Section 107).
> Rohan
--
"If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
- Al Capone
RO...@hotmail.com
nervousness on the part of the library staff as they watched an
endless stream of students cart journals into the copying machines to
reproduce articles (in their entirety) for the preparation of term
papers, theses and dissertations. I also recall professors handing
out copied articles to classes of current literature as these articles
had yet to be incorporated into a text. It is from this frame of
reference that I made my judgment in the news group when we discussed
the propriety of sharing articles for discussion. From what you
stated, it would seem to me that our universities could be hauled into
civil court for copyright infringement on a huge scale. Why is this
not happening, or is it happening?
Respectfully,
Road
Paul Tauger
you are replying. Assuming it's to me, the original post addressed
wholesale copying of articles on Usenet, not college students photocopying
articles to be used in their studies. I expect you understand the
difference.
With respect to professors handing out articles, as I said in another post,
when determining whether the educational exemption applies, courts will look
at the number of copies made, whether the copying is part of a formalized
lesson plan, whether it was done spontaneously for the purpose of a single
class or is done with regularity, etc.
And, of course, you recognize the difference between wholesale copying of
protected material to Usenet and a professor teaching a course.
<RO...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q45d6ugldd37bvng6...@4ax.com...
Bob Stock
<ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The use in question was quoting, in its entirety, a protected article in a
>Usenet post. Feel free to point to any instance in which copying a work in
>its entirety in such fashion constitutes fair use.
I'm not sure what you mean by "in such fashion." If you mean
identical facts, it would be fascinating if you could provide a case
in which the identical facts was deemed an infringement. If, on the
other hand, you simply mean cases in which the use of an entire work
was deemed fair, those, of course, exist.
"[C]opying . . . the entire work for a different functional purpose
may be regarded as fair use." M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, 4 Nimmer on
Copyright § 13.05[D][1] (1999).
Among the many "different functional purpose" cases reported by
Nimmer, Haberman v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 626 F. Supp. 201 (D. Mass.
1986) found Hustler Magazine's reproduction of two photographs in
their entirety to be fair. The magazine's purpose was to entertain
its readers. There were no damages, no supplanting of the
photographer's market.
In Belmore v. City Pages, Inc., 880 F. Supp. 673 (D. Minn. 1995), a
police officer (Belmore) wrote a short article that was published in a
police union newspaper. City Pages republished Belmore's entire
article, preceded and succeeded by critical commentary. City Pages'
stated purpose was to criticize a "transparently racist" article by a
police officer. Id. at 678 n.4.
As the City Pages editor put it, "[my] purpose in reprinting the
entire article was . . . to ensure that my readers understood what I
was criticizing . . . ." Id. at 679. The court agreed, finding the
reprinting of the entire article to be "reasonable":
"[A]lthough wholesale copying militates against a finding of fair use,
this factor does not have significant weight when applied to the
unique facts presented in this case."
Now, I'm not saying that the use described here by the original poster
would be fair. And, certainly, his categorical statements are
unsupported, but yours are extreme as well, particularly when you
consider how much more knowledge you have than he does.
Bob Stock
>The fair use guidelines of the Copyright Act state that use of copyrighted
>material "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
>(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not
>an infringement of copyright." (Title 17, U.S.C., Section 107).
Your statement is misleading. You omitted a fairly (heh) important
word. I'll repeat your paragraph with that word inserted in all caps:
The fair use guidelines of the Copyright Act state that the FAIR use
of copyrighted material "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news
reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." (Title
17, U.S.C., Section 107).
Roger Schlafly
> > 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 portions 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. (Title 17, U.S.C., Section 107).
> > Basically, if you copy an article in usenet it is "fair use", as long as
> > you are crediting the original author, and
> > you are not profiting from its use.
> Not even close. Not-for-profit is not a defense to infringement.
See factor #1 above. Not-for-profit is indeed a fair use defense.
I think it is usually rude to post a long article on usenet when the
original
is readily available at a URL. Posting some comments and an excerpt
of a few paragraphs is usually much better for everyone involved. But
Bob is correct that posting the entire article might very well be fair use.
nos...@isp.com
> I recall some nervousness on the part of the
> library staff while in graduate school some years
> ago about students carting journals to the copying
> machines to reproduce articles (in their entirety) for
> term paper and thesis and dissertation preparation.
> I also recall professors handing out copied articles
> to classes of current literature as these articles had
> yet to be incorporated into a text. * * * [Is it
> correct] that our universities could be hauled into
> civil court for copyright infringement on a huge scale.
> Why is this not happening, or is it happening?
The librarians' "nervousness" was well-founded because, with increased
frequency since the early 1990s -- primarily, as a result of a
successful infringement lawsuit brought by a consortium of scientific
publishers agasint the Texaco Oil company and of a similar (and like)
lawsuits) against Kinkos and other mass-retail copying enterprises
arising from large-scale college/university course material copying --
such lawsuits have been brought or claims made and, without a lawsuit
eventuating, numerous settlements (royalty payment arrangements) and
also resulting revision by many colleges/universities and like
institutions (e.g., see the Texaco case) of their internal guidelines
regulating the sort of wholesale copying to which you refer.
Relatedly (obviously), publisher and publisher representatives (e.g.,
collective representation through trade associations) make
cost-vs.-benefit decisions whether/when to make a claim and to
prosecute. But your apparent initial impression (speculation) that
there haven't been claims/lawsuits of this sort is mistaken.
RO...@hotmail.com
current case for me to review where entire articles were posted on a
website to invite critical commentary.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3277e90b80.htm
Thank you Bob.
Within this document, there was reference to a case that seemed a bit
closer to the actual question I posed originally. This case (RTC v.
Netcom) entailed someone posting entire sections of material to a
usenet group in the spirit of creating a critical discussion.
Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services,
Inc. ["Netcom II"], 923 F. Supp. 1231 (1995)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~oracle/mgarde/netcom.txt
http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/netcom.txt
It seems, to my untrained eye, that some of the issues presented in
this case pertain to posting full articles to a usenet group for the
purpose of discussion. The points in the Fair Use law (?) were
addressed by the court and one particular issue here is the potential
financial loss to the plaintiff due to the posting of their materials
on usenet. I think that might be pertinent to my question as follows:
1. Would the posting of entire articles reduce the original author's
revenue? In other words, would people go to the usenet group to read
from this source rather than going to the original website? Since the
materials are available for free at the website, I don't see a loss of
revenue in this respect.
2. I believe I am correct in stating that some websites can charge
their advertisers by the amount of traffic visiting their site. If
posting of their website's articles reduced their traffic and hence
their advertising revenue, I could see this as a basis for complaint.
I should note that many discussion newsgroups are pretty sparsely
populated judging from the small number of daily posts that occur. I
also realize that measuring a newsgroup's traffic by the number of
posts would have to be an approximation of the minimum number of
readers/traffic at that news group.
Please excuse my awkward language. I hope the gist of what I am
trying to communicate comes through. You all have been immensely
helpful with your posts regarding the questions I posed and I am very
grateful for your efforts as you have taught me a lot.
Respectfully,
Road
Bob Stock
>1. Would the posting of entire articles reduce the original author's
>revenue? In other words, would people go to the usenet group to read
>from this source rather than going to the original website? Since the
>materials are available for free at the website, I don't see a loss of
>revenue in this respect.
>
>2. I believe I am correct in stating that some websites can charge
>their advertisers by the amount of traffic visiting their site. If
>posting of their website's articles reduced their traffic and hence
>their advertising revenue, I could see this as a basis for complaint.
>I should note that many discussion newsgroups are pretty sparsely
>populated judging from the small number of daily posts that occur. I
>also realize that measuring a newsgroup's traffic by the number of
>posts would have to be an approximation of the minimum number of
>readers/traffic at that news group.
As you say, to the extent that you reduce the traffic to the copyright
owner's website, you reduce their revenue flow. Also, not all
articles are free. Some, depending on age, for example, you may have
to pay for. What I think is interesting is that if you post the
entire article and also post the link, an argument could be made that
some number of readers will click on that link who would NOT have gone
to the website on their own. In that sense, you may increase the
revenue to the copyright owner.
Paul Tauger
"Bob Stock" <bst...@xmindspring.comx> wrote in message
news:f17d6usrhngo8lst5...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2002 21:34:06 -0800, "Paul Tauger"
> <ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >The use in question was quoting, in its entirety, a protected article in
a
> >Usenet post. Feel free to point to any instance in which copying a work
in
> >its entirety in such fashion constitutes fair use.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "in such fashion." If you mean
> identical facts, it would be fascinating if you could provide a case
> in which the identical facts was deemed an infringement. If, on the
> other hand, you simply mean cases in which the use of an entire work
> was deemed fair, those, of course, exist.
I was referring to cases in which an entire newspaper article is reproduced
in its entirety outside of an educational or critical context.
Paul Tauger
"Roger Schlafly" <rog...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:iQz98.1323$SQ1.55...@twister1.starband.net...
> "Paul Tauger" <ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > > 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 portions 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. (Title 17, U.S.C., Section 107).
> > > Basically, if you copy an article in usenet it is "fair use", as long
as
> > > you're using it for educational purposes,
> > > you are crediting the original author, and
> > > you are not profiting from its use.
> > Not even close. Not-for-profit is not a defense to infringement.
>
> See factor #1 above. Not-for-profit is indeed a fair use defense.
Feel free to cite any case, anywhere, at any time, in which "I didn't make a
profit," obviated liability for copyright infringement.
Arthur L. Rubin
I suppose I should add my 2¢ worth. It's clearly copyright violation
(sorry, Vox) unless permission was given, because no commentary
is provided with in, making "Fair Use" virtually impossible.
Factor 1. neutral, rather than positive
Factor 2. positive
Factor 3. exceedingly negative
Factor 4. unknown
However, if the "E-mail to a friend" is available and encouraged
(hence permission is granted), it's unclear whether E-mailing to a
newsgroup (through a mail-to-news gateway) or mailing list is also
permitted.
_I_ wouldn't do it.
--
Arthur L. Rubin 216-...@mcimail.com
Rohan
> "Rohan" <roha...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020209213744...@mb-mt.aol.com...
> > >From: "Paul Tauger" ptauger...@earthlink.net
> > >Date: 09.02.2002 19:44 Central Standard Time
> > >Message-id: <a44jid$1cndo8$1...@ID-101118.news.dfncis.de>
> > >
> > >Sure. It's copyright infringment. Period.
> >
> >
> >
> > No its not, period.
> >
> >
> > The fair use guidelines of the Copyright Act state that use of copyrighted
> > material "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
> teaching
> > (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research,
> is not
> > an infringement of copyright." (Title 17, U.S.C., Section 107).
>
> The use in question was quoting, in its entirety, a protected article in a
> Usenet post. Feel free to point to any instance in which copying a work in
> its entirety in such fashion constitutes fair use.
>
Copying an entire newspaper would be copying a work in its entirety.
Copying one article is not.
Using it for educational purposes and not-for profit go to the intent
of the poster, which goes back to point #1 above. No I am not a
lawyer, but like all citizens whether lawyers or no, I am still
obliged to know the laws of the country I live in. I have NO wish to
become an attorney, so I am definitely not a "wannabe".
And there is another distinction here too. Courts are increasingly
treating the internet as a speech medium rather than a print medium,
such as the difference between libel and slander, for example.
Why don't we just simplify the discussion right now? Why don't you
show me a single case where anyone was successfully sued in a federal
court or where a federal court upheld a lower ruling of copyright
infringement of posting news items to Usenet. And you still ignored
the last part of my post. If you are correct, then you have infringed
my copyrighted material right here in this thread by quoting my text
in your post without my permission.
Rohan
RO...@hotmail.com
Thank you for the information on the Texaco and Kinko cases (more on
these later).
I used the example of a university as a close parallel to what goes on
in the discussions of a usenet news group. I particularly meant the
copying of articles for the express purpose of sharing information in
an educational manner. As I was looking for sources on Fair Use, I
ran across a site that published its views on the subject. The source
for this site is a consortium of universities (CETUS) who feel some
threat from copyright laws and are organized to lobby their position.
This group does a good job explaining the issues and commenting on
cases where the courts have ruled on Fair Use. Both the Kinko and
Texaco cases are discussed among others and each of the four Fair Use
points are addressed according to how the courts ruled.
CETUS home page
http://www.cetus.org/index.html
page where Fair Use is outlined and cases are described
http://www.cetus.org/fair5.html
If we take the four points addressed in Fair Use in relation to usenet
news group postings an analysis somewhat like the following may be
made.
PURPOSE
The educational use of the material weighs in favor of Fair Use. No
profit is made from the posting of news articles to a news group.
There is a question of transformation, viz do comments accompanying
the article stand alone or do additional comments in a thread
contribute to transformation? I believe the Free Republic case is
addressing these issues now.
NATURE
The work is non-fiction (hopefully :-)) and is factually based. The
articles are also copyrighted and therefore takes care of the "first
to publish" condition for unpublished works. This weighs in favor of
Fair Use.
AMOUNT
According to the CETUS website " No exact measures of allowable
quantity exist in the law." One argument for posting an entire
article is so preserve it in the news group. It is not uncommon to
try and return to a web address only to find it no longer exists and
the material therein is lost. Posting the article in a newsgroup
preserves it for continued discussion.
EFFECT
The purpose is education and it is a non-commericial enterprise. The
articles are free on the websites and the only commercial effect might
be a reduction in traffic to that website of a likely negligible
amount. There is also the possibility that the website would receive
an increase in traffic due to this free advertising in the newsgroup.
I suspect this would weigh in favor of Fair Use.
Three of the four points seem to lean towards Fair Use.
This is only my amateur opinion and I would certainly appreciate any
comments people would like to offer.
Road
RO...@hotmail.com
>[Posted with Agent News Reader http://forteinc.com/ ]
>|In misc.legal
>|on Re: Copyright question about clip and pasting articles to discussion news groups with a
>|msg-id <3c645a65...@news.mindspring.com>
>|nos...@isp.com wrote:
>
>>Here is the important difference:
>> - If you email such an article to a friend, you will not be
>>sued.
>
> To get around this just email the article to:
>
>mail2news-2002MMD...@anon.lcs.mit.edu
>
>*from* the web site that provides a "e-mail to" link.
>
>mail2news-2002...@anon.lcs.mit.edu
>
>You didn't send the article, they did and they said it was ok to email the
>article to any valid email address.
Thank you for the suggestion Keith I will look into it. By the way,
nice cat on your home page! I also noticed that you did not list
Copernic as one of your search engines. I use is a lot since it
incorporates a number of search engines and has some other nice
features. It is free and is available at www.copernic.com .
Thanks again for your input.
Road
Roger Schlafly
> > See factor #1 above. Not-for-profit is indeed a fair use defense.
> Feel free to cite any case, anywhere, at any time, in which "I didn't make
a
> profit," obviated liability for copyright infringement.
I don't know whom you are quoting, but you seem to be confused
about the 4 fair use factors. Fair use factor #1 gets cited all the
time. Look for that, not your mischaracterization of it.
Roger Schlafly
> I suppose I should add my 2¢ worth. It's clearly copyright violation
> (sorry, Vox) unless permission was given, because no commentary
> is provided with in, making "Fair Use" virtually impossible.
Commentary is not required for fair use.
> Factor 1. neutral, rather than positive
> Factor 2. positive
> Factor 3. exceedingly negative
> Factor 4. unknown
Positive for the copyright owner or the copier? It is only a potential
dispute between those parties, and which is positive depends on
your point of view.
Bob Stock
>Copying an entire newspaper would be copying a work in its entirety.
>Copying one article is not.
Each article in a newspaper has separate copyright protection. The
newspaper would probably also have compilation copyright protection,
which protects the original selection, coordination, and arrangement
of articles and other material.
Bob Stock
<bst...@xmindspring.comx> wrote:
>"[C]opying . . . the entire work for a different functional purpose
>may be regarded as fair use." M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, 4 Nimmer on
>Copyright § 13.05[D][1] (1999).
[snipped cases that found fair use even when entire work was copied]
Another very recent case in which entire works were copied is Kelly v.
Arriba Soft Corp. from the 9th Circuit. In that case Kelly's entire
images were copied by Arriba's image search engine, transformed into
thumbnails, and the court found that the use was fair (the use in full
image size was not deemed fair):
"[T]he extent of permissible copying varies with the purpose and
character of the use. If the secondary user only copies as much as is
necessary for his or her intended use, then this factor will not weigh
against him or her.
This factor will neither weigh for nor against either party because,
although Arriba did copy each of Kelly's images as a whole, it was
reasonable to do so in light of Arriba's use of the images. It was
necessary for Arriba to copy the entire image to allow users to
recognize the image and decide whether to pursue more information
about the image or the originating web site. If Arriba copied part of
the image, it would be more difficult to identify it, thereby reducing
the usefulness of the visual search engine."
Arthur L. Rubin
>
> "Arthur L. Rubin" <216-...@mcimail.com> wrote
> > I suppose I should add my 2¢ worth. It's clearly copyright violation
> > (sorry, Vox) unless permission was given, because no commentary
> > is provided with in, making "Fair Use" virtually impossible.
>
> Commentary is not required for fair use.
There are the four factors, but the purpose of the "fair use"
statute is to for specified uses, which include commentary
and educational use. If none of the specified uses apply,
then a finding of "fair use" is unlikely, even if the
factors are positive.
>
> > Factor 1. neutral, rather than positive
> > Factor 2. positive
> > Factor 3. exceedingly negative
> > Factor 4. unknown
>
> Positive for the copyright owner or the copier? It is only a potential
> dispute between those parties, and which is positive depends on
> your point of view.
Positive factor toward fair use. Sorry for the shorthand.
Arthur L. Rubin
> If we take the four points addressed in Fair Use in relation to usenet
> news group postings an analysis somewhat like the following may be
> made.
>
> PURPOSE
> The educational use of the material weighs in favor of Fair Use. No
> profit is made from the posting of news articles to a news group.
> There is a question of transformation, viz do comments accompanying
> the article stand alone or do additional comments in a thread
> contribute to transformation? I believe the Free Republic case is
> addressing these issues now.
Called it "educational" would be incorrect, although your argument'
that replies may be commentary would add to the arguement. This
factor is closer to neutral than supporting "fair use".
>
> NATURE
> The work is non-fiction (hopefully :-)) and is factually based. The
> articles are also copyrighted and therefore takes care of the "first
> to publish" condition for unpublished works. This weighs in favor of
> Fair Use.
Agreed.
>
> AMOUNT
> According to the CETUS website " No exact measures of allowable
> quantity exist in the law." One argument for posting an entire
> article is so preserve it in the news group. It is not uncommon to
> try and return to a web address only to find it no longer exists and
> the material therein is lost. Posting the article in a newsgroup
> preserves it for continued discussion.
In general, though, copying an entire article is a negative factor.
Furthermore, your supporting argument is clearly invalid. The copyright
holder has the right to refuse to further distribute the article.
>
> EFFECT
> The purpose is education and it is a non-commericial enterprise. The
> articles are free on the websites and the only commercial effect might
> be a reduction in traffic to that website of a likely negligible
> amount. There is also the possibility that the website would receive
> an increase in traffic due to this free advertising in the newsgroup.
> I suspect this would weigh in favor of Fair Use.
The purpose is NOT education. (Well, maybe YOUR purpose is, but
the purpose of other people who post news articles is clearly
visiblility for them.) Neutral to slightly against Fair Use.
> Three of the four points seem to lean towards Fair Use.
One of the four points leans toward "fair use", regardless
of how you capitalize it.
RO...@hotmail.com
Road
Roger Schlafly
> There are the four factors, but the purpose of the "fair use"
> statute is to for specified uses, which include commentary
> and educational use. If none of the specified uses apply,
> then a finding of "fair use" is unlikely, even if the
> factors are positive.
Why is someone posting articles to a usenet discussion group,
if not for commentary and education? Even if the original poster
had no editorial comment to add, he usually wants to generate
comments from the group.
> > > Factor 1. neutral, rather than positive
> > > Factor 2. positive
> > > Factor 3. exceedingly negative
> > > Factor 4. unknown
> Positive factor toward fair use. Sorry for the shorthand.
You are ignoring the most important factor, #4. In most cases,
posting an isolated newspaper article and link on usenet does
not have any adverse on the market for the copyright owner.
It generates publicity and traffic to the newspaper web site. The
newspaper is happy about it. Nobody cancels a subscription to
the NY Times just because an occasional NY Times article
shows up on usenet for free.
Arthur L. Rubin
> Why is someone posting articles to a usenet discussion group,
> if not for commentary and education?
To support the poster's ego? To libel the paper? I don't
know. Just look at Vox's posts, and see if there is any
desire or likelyhood for "commentary" or "education".
...
> ... Nobody cancels a subscription to
> the NY Times just because an occasional NY Times article
> shows up on usenet for free.
But nytimes.com advertisers might cancel their ads if too many
NY Times articles appeared on USENet.
Roger Schlafly
> > Why is someone posting articles to a usenet discussion group,
> > if not for commentary and education?
> To support the poster's ego? To libel the paper? I don't
> know. Just look at Vox's posts, and see if there is any
> desire or likelyhood for "commentary" or "education".
Yes, I think his purposes include commentary and education.
> > ... Nobody cancels a subscription to
> > the NY Times just because an occasional NY Times article
> > shows up on usenet for free.
> But nytimes.com advertisers might cancel their ads if too many
> NY Times articles appeared on USENet.
Possibly. Or they might place additional ads because of the
increased traffic and new visitors that are brought in by the
links on usenet. If the NY Times wanted to argue in court that
it suffers commercial damage, then it would have to show evidence
that the advertising losses exceed the gains. IMO, not likely in
most cases.