Skip to comments.Copyright, fair use, posting to FR, etc
Posted on 02/01/2008 3:07:03 PM PST by Jim Robinson
We received a copyright infringement notice today from Forbes.com. They requested that we either remove a thread that contained a full text posting of one of their articles or reduce it to a brief one paragraph excerpt with a link back to their source article. We have complied with their request and have added Forbes.com to the excerpt and link only list.
My understanding of fair use is that we can quote small amounts of copyrighted works for critiquing and discussion purposes as long as we're not adversely impacting the publisher's market for his works.
Our excerpt and link list is growing (click link above) and I'm afraid it's just a matter of time until we're going to have to require excerpting on all posts.
Please comply with our source publishers' copyright requests by excerpting your article posts where required and linking back to the source sites. Please keep the excerpts brief and do not continue the excerpted article in the comments or reply sections.
Thank you all very much.
Can you make that a perminent link on or in the banner area?? It would make life much easier for everyone.
Did Mitt Romney buy Forbes?
(just kidding——I think)
How dare they try to profit from their intelectual property. Do they have no social conscience? Has hillary been notified?
I had something pulled earlier this week that sighted Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not on the banned list.
Wikipedia’s own web site says that they allow posting of Wikipeida material.
I think Wikipedia is OK.
What do you say, boss?
Yes. Please. Thanks.
thanks... list will come in handy...
I was afraid that this was inevitable. One problem I forsee is that other sites that are under the radar, unlike FR, will post full text articles at their websites and then we will be forced to read the rest of articles at that site instead of the original source.
I just excerpt by default and that way there is no error. If it is a site that I don’t want to get any hits, I just don’t post. If what I post is of interest to some, then further reading is a mouse-click away.
I say they’re a bunch of propagandizing Marxists and their material is highly unreliable and is subject to change at anytime without notice because they allow anyone with an Internet account to go in and edit it. You may post something to FR today from their site that looks halfway reasonable (probably added to their site by a commonsense conservative), and then go back a week later and it’s totally opposite after being edited by some liberal yahoo.
Me too. I figure if anyone's interested in the thread they won't mind follwing the link to read the whole source article.
Jim, are you ignoring me? There have been a few threads where we are listing our dream presidential candidate. I listed you. You would be awesome. A true conservative’s conservative. I know that you have better things to do, but a gal can dream. LOL. Have a great day!
It is always a simple matter to just hit the top link bar in order to read the entire article which is what I usually do anyhow.
Hi Jim, I agree with xcamel. If there is a way to make it easier to find the list, it would definitely increase compliance.
Wikipedia has enjoined other, smaller, sites from using their material.
That is the problem with Wikipedia. Awhile back, I read something that was clearly wrong, and easily provably wrong. I went in an edited it and put in the correct dates and story.
Since then, I have never used that site as a source for anything. - Tom
When a FReeper is about to post an article, FIRST present a page in which he provides the URL, then clicks "Next" (or whatever). Look up to see if this is a site that is:
- requires excerpting, or
- is fair game.
(My blog will always be "fair game". An entry from December, just appeared in a church newsletter in the UK, with attribution. Nobody's seen fit to post anything to FR, but then again I can't see why they would. *\;-)
Present different screens depending upon the result, so the posting FReeper knows what the rules are BEFORE he goes through the entire posting process.
It is a simple matter... unless you're on dialup (and folks still are) and the site is larded-up with graphics and other slow-loading material. When I still used dial-up, "excerpt" meant I was not going to read the article unless I was really, really, interested enough to wait many minutes for the garbage to download.
Even now if it's excerpted, it's fairly likely I won't click through; it it's presented in its entirety on FR there's a fair chance I'll read it.
I hadn’t considered the dial up folks.
Sorry, I’ve had high speed for a very long while now.
I remember my early years of AOL blue strip.
I’ve been on line 14 or more years now.
It would be impossible to show that FR is depriving anyone of revenue by reposting material here for discussion purposes.
At best, an argument might be made that a few people here might hit the Forbes website and thus deprive them of some webpage hits which could result in advertising dollars. But you couldn’t prove it, and it’s just as arguable that FR is directing more traffic to a site by those curious about the source.
Why aren’t public libraries illegal?
You're very fortunate. We only got there year before last, and even then limited to 26 kbps by poor telephone copper. (It got to where I could tell a bit about the weather conditions by listening to the connection negotiation tones.)
This article should make your head explode.
NFL Pulls Plug On Big-Screen Church Parties For Super Bowl
The NFL said, however, that the copyright law on its games is long-standing and the language read at the end of each game is well known: “This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL’s consent is prohibited.”
The league bans public exhibitions of its games on TV sets or screens larger than 55 inches because smaller sets limit the audience size. The section of federal copyright law giving the NFL protection over the content of its programming exempts sports bars, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said.
If nominated by my party I will not run. If elected I will not serve.
That sounds like the best approach.
You are a very wise man.
Besides, you're more valuable running FR!
I must agree, Jim is much more valuable running FR. However, if we could find someone like him to run. . .
Like I said, he is a conservative’s conservative.
Will do! I’m sorry for the stress that this stuff must cause you, Jim. Letters from lawyers are never fun to receive.
Thanks for everything you do to keep FR going strong. :) G-d bless you and yours!
Same here. In general, if they don't want their stuff posted here, I don't want to give them traffic. That's especially true for those who require links only.
I'm thinking a firefox plugin that blocks content from all sites that restrict access would be just about right.
Excerpts. I hate them
And I don’t understand why so many original sources would want Free Republic to excerpt thier articles.
Often times, when I or other FReepers have to excerpt an article we cut and paste. We - snip - out sections to make that under 300 word requirement.
In other words we edit.
Do these morons in the MSM really want us FReeprs editing their copyrighted material? Cause that’s what we do.
Excellent idea! We do want to follow the rules.
Me thinks, therefore ..........
You should check that subject. They probably undid your edit.
Link and excerpt is one thing. I think the ones who insist that we not quote them at all (or in rare cases, even cite them) are idiots. They’re actually using copyright in a way that brings DOWN traffic to their sites.
But they’re liberals, so I don’t expect them to be intelligent.
I just went there and checked and my edits are still intact- Tom.
Before hitting the link, click on Tools, Options, Content tab, check 'block pop up windows', uncheck 'load images automatically'. Add in flashblocker, and you should be set.
Of course, that's for Firefox.
IE, try Tools, Internet Options, Advanced tab, scroll to multimedia, uncheck 'show pictures' check 'show image download placeholders', uncheck 'play animations...', uncheck ' enable automatic image resizing' and see if that helps.
I used to be on dial up, and after that a very slow DSL. If you need help with Seamonkey, Netscape or Mozilla, let me know, and I'll see what I can do.
Amazing! How will they maintain a “neutral point of view” if they let factual information overwhelm liberal propaganda?
Well said #21 Sionnsar. I, however am forced to connect by carrier pigeon and my bird is getting older and arthritic....walks most of the time.
My corrections were on a subject that was not political, so there was no need to change it back. - tom
That's usually the liberals' favorite place to insert their little pink pills.
So gett two or three sets just under the legal limit and place them around the room.
BTW, it might be time for the Sports Broadcasting Act to be repealed.
We’d best practice up on our “book report” skills.
i WONDER if we could proactively approach some of the more conservative folks and publications and ask them or express blanket permission to post full articles WITH the link to their sites?
Thanks for all you do for us and for our Republic.
Why don’t news sites want FR to post their stories? I can kind of see how they wouldn’t want the whole story, so that you have to go to their site to read the rest and they get the hits, but how does it help them to forbid it completely? Won’t they just end up being ignored?