Skip to comments.How/Where??? Excerpt/Blocked sources/etc.
Posted on 07/15/2007 1:50:52 PM PDT by TheBattman
OK - so I wanted to post a Mitch Albom hit piece - but realized upon trying to post that the Detroit (not so)Free Press is blocked.
Now - I at least think I have a clue about the FR problems with materials being posted (although it seems that the sources would be glad to be quoted to increase hits to their own site, and to float the name about... but that is another argument)...And I understand that legal agreements have been reached with several media sources that require only excerpts, while there are apparently some that are completely banned/blocked.
Now - my question is twofold:
First - I have read several times where Admin Moderators have posted that we should check some mythical list for those sources we can and cannot site - and if they can be posted in complete, or have to be excerpted. But where is this list? Either I am blind, or dumber than I thought - because I have looked all over every page I can, and have even done a search using several different terms...
Second - What is up with some sources not even being usable in any form? I can understand even not being able to paste ANY of their text - but a title with a link should, logically (uh-oh, we can't have that) that should not infringe on any copyright.
So - someone, please point me to the official FR policy. Thanks.
Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints
In addition to the list, a link to which has been provided by a couple of folks, you need to also look at the source. For example, ‘small town daily’ not on the list might run a story originated by the LATimes. The LA Times excerpting rules would apply. Also, with regard to broadcasters, keep an eye out for Gannett owned stations.
As for the sites totally banned, they tend to be hard core communist or racist (or racist communists) or out and out nutcase sites. For example, don’t post from Stormfront.
Thanks - I didn’t figure it would take too long...
While we’re on the topic where can one find the list of sites that cannot be posted here because some people here don’t like them. I’d ask Bob Wallace why but I don’t know who he is or how to contact him.
That thread says nothing about forbidden links though.
That's right. We call it the Mullah Omar rule.
Please do not post full text or even excerpts from the following Gannett Web sites:
So I tried to post a title and a link - but the FR software completely would not allow it at all.... I did not post ANY text from the web source... Detroit Free Press...
Okey doke :-)
Don’t worry about it, Mitch ain’t worth it.
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
3) 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 distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
FL-102, Revised July 2006
Stupid question time, the Detroit News is now part of Media News Group newspapers. Can a FReeper post from it?
There was a good Canadian artical, which I had to sent to fanfan by real email, (fanfan hosts the Canadian ping list).
We still can’t post from the Detroit News?
The defunct media are dinosaurs, and FR is the comet.
I have to excerpt that Canada Free Press as well.
You may be right - but it was something worth kicking around a bit, as it was so full of wrong, misleading, and even lies (surprise from a uber-leftist in a Commie Rag like the Detroit not-Free Press).
So in other words - the courts have been used, with FreeRepublic as the victim, to rewrite the U.S. Code on Fair Use... or so it would appear.
I wonder - does DU have the same restrictions and threats of lawsuits? Or do they not even bother to find sources for their rantings?
Ok - so what do you then put in the "source" box? Do I put trash in there, or what?
List the source if you want. But since you are not posting the ARTICLE, but your comments on the article, the “source” is actually YOU. If you have any questions, I’d contact the Admins and clear it with them first. But unless the Left has repealed free speech, commenting on an article is still protected under the Constitution.
As for The Detroit News, I have not seen where it has been "sold" by Gannett and I am not aware of the status of its Joint Operating Agreement with The Detroit Free Press. Suffice it to say that, if the two editorial pages are still one and the same, it is not likely that The Detroit News will be removed from the Gannett "list." For your safety, please understand.
If you know more about the above than we do back here, please let us know.
I wonder - does DU have the same restrictions and threats of lawsuits?Not sure about DU, but another left-wing site called Common Dreams routinely posts the FULL TEXT of articles from the Detroit Free Press.
If the Detroit Free Press knowingly allows Common Dreams to post the full test of their articles, it would considerably weaken their case against FR doing the same thing, IMHO.
Don't you think it would be smart to put that link on the "Posting Comment" page that each user sees when they are posting a comment?
Gannett now owns the Free Press, Media News Group owns the News.
However the JOA is still in effect, so guess we can’t post from either.
Bummer, cause there are good articles from the Detroit News.
I notice there are a lot of AM edits. Am I reading the original lists correctly as having been edited to make them current?