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.
Everything should be excerpted. It is a clear copyright infringement to post the entire article, and it prejudices your site.
Besides which, using excerpts requires a person to THINK about what he is writing, as opposed to a blind copy/paste.
And what of the brand sites that permit no excerpts, links only? And I think in this internet world there are sites that complain if they are even “deep linked” to (sending someone to an article rather than the front page).
At what point is it impossible to dispute what a so called “journalist” has written into the historical record because you cannot quote their writing?
I believe that it already does a lookup.
Some sites like USA Ptooey require FR to link only, no excerpt and some like the WaPoo must be excerpted and you’ll get hit with a reminder before the thread can be POSTed.
I think it’ll even notify you if the excerpt is too long.
Hey, at least you’re upfront about it . . .
>> You should check that subject. They probably undid your edit. <<
Not true. He has to win the argument; double-checking would be good to see if he needs to refute a counter-argument, but Wikipedia is actually pretty good at responding to correction.
Are we going to get the "nopost/exerpt" link in the header?
Could you also post the list of sites that FR itself has decided are not welcome here? I’m aware of LP and, for some reason, Americans for Legal Immigration, as well as racist sites like Stormfront. But a full list of those would be helpful.
I canm understand link-and-3excerpt. I don’t like it much, but I understnad it. Even s aimple title and link I understand, although I think it’s ridiculously restrictive.
What I don’t understand is why a site would not even allow itself to be linked from here. Wouldn’t not being allowed even as a link reduce the traffic to their site?
yeah yeah...thats, J i m R o b i n s o n...we understand and won’t do any write in stuff...????...any middle initial Jim?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.