Copyright Laws

[advath]

I see many times that people copy and paste articles from other online web sites. I often find my photos on other web sites and online forums. Sometimes the people that do this put a link to where the get the material from.

When a person copies and pastes an article or photo in their web site or online forum and adds a link to where they got it from without permission from the owner of the material, is that legal?

I even found our photos of a product that we sell exclusively on a web site that was selling that product. The problem there was that the site that stole the photos did not have the product it was selling. We contacted the owner of the web site. He wired a payment the very next day. Later that day the web site was off the Internet. That case was reported to the FBI because the site was accepting payments for all kinds of sporting goods that they did not have.

In this forum I often see an article copied and pasted with a link to where they got it. It is easy to find photos from my web site on other sites on the internet. I have been paid restitution for the stolen photos on many occasions.

My point is: Be careful what you copy and paste in your web site and/or in online forums. You may be held accountable and/or prosecuted.

[ashcraftpv]

I believe it is legal as long as you credit the source of article. The web is a public area. As long as there is not a visible no-linking policy on the site or an explicit copyright on the material, I'm pretty sure its ok to reproduce as long as you don't claim ownership of it.

but, I'm not a lawyer, so I may be completely wrong

[advath]

The facts are: Internet Copyright laws state that a warning does not have to be posted. Anything written in a web site, or any photo posted in a web site is automatically copyrighted. If anyone copies and pastes an article or photo from a web site to another (or any other published media) can be liable and/or criminally prosecuted.

[rainbowgirl28]

I've also had problems with people stealing copyrighted photographs of mine. I am currently in negotiations with a TV news station in St Louis who used one in a news report.

I probably do break the rules when I post full articles on this website. I do this for several reasons:

1. Newspapers often move articles around and take them off the website, making it hard for someone to find the article a day, a week, a month, etc later
2. Many news websites require registration which I hate. However, I sacrifice my email address for spam so that everyone else on here doesn't have to.
3. Pasting the text in here allows it to be searched by the forum search engine, which may be helpful to someone researching a topic.

When I post an article on here I always try to do a few things:
1. Paste the link to the original article.
2. Make sure the author's name in included in what I paste.
3. I rarely include the photograph from the article, and probably won't anymore now that I've had my own copyright infringement struggles.

My intent is that no one mistakenly think I wrote any articles that I paste here.

I have not had any complaints from anyone yet. I would certainly remove any copyrighted material immediately if a newspaper or whomever took the time to complain to me about.

The truth is, the viewership of this website is small potatoes compared to most newspaper websites. Because members of this site come from all over the country, I am not likely to pull any traffic away from their websites which would not already be there.

It's also not like I am making any money off this website, or profiting by posting stuff from other sources. I paste articles for informational purposes for website members.

[rainbowgirl28]

What they do on the Track and Field News messageboard is just post part of the article with a link to the rest. That is 100% legal.

A good percentage of the stuff I post actually falls under that category. Lots of the things I post are just little blips that were part of a larger story or whatever.

I have yet to have one complaint. Like I said, if anyone ever has a problem with what I post, just shoot me an email and I'll take care of it right away.

[advath]

10% is the general rule of thumb if you are quoting a source are adding to the material or commenting about it. You CANNOT copy and paste an entire article. You cannot use photos or graphs in any case without written permission from the author. In that case you are opening yourself to lawsuit and/or criminal prosecution from the author of the photo and/or the person in the photo. That means you cannot copy and past photos or graphs from a web site into your classroom paper. You even need to get permission just to put a link to the the photo or graph in anything you are writing.

For more information see http://www.cas.usf.edu/english/walker/p ... ummie.html

I'm just trying to give everyone a "heads-up". Many companies and people, including myself, are pursuing restitution for infringed Copyrighted materials, photos in my case.

[Robert schmitt]

I've also had problems with people stealing copyrighted photographs of mine. I am currently in negotiations with a TV news station in St Louis who used one in a news report.

Am I in trouble from you for using a picture of me you took as my avatar Becca??

[Russ]

Disclaimer

I have to poke my nose in here.

I've been teaching Copyright Law for 15 years (13. years now at New England School of Law in Boston). I've published about a dozen scholarly articles in US law journals about copyright.

I don't know everything about copyright, but its one of the few things that I do feel confident discussing.

Introduction

First off, there are very few "hard-and-fast" rules. There are not always simple answers to legal questions.

Here's a little bit to get us started.

As a general rule, any news articles, pictures, photographs, etc. may be protected by copyright, so long as the work is "an original work of authorship." Under today's copyright law (the 1976 Copyright Act) an author or publisher owns the rights to his/her work upon "fixation in a tangible medium" (e.g., written on paper, stored on a floppy disk, hard drive, flash drive, etc.). You don't have to put a copyright notice on a work in order for copyright protection to attach - "fixation in a tangible medium of expression" is all that's required for copyright protection to begin. So, generally speaking, we have to simply assume that articles, photos, music, videos, etc. are copyright protected whether or not there is any kind of formal notice of copyright. Under the old 1909 Act it was different (you had to put a copyright notice on works in order to receive copyright protection before Jan 1, 1978 [the date when the 1976 Copyright Act became effective]).

Fair Use: the law

Okay. That's Lesson I. Now for Lesson II: Fair Use (By the way I ordinarily devote 2 full weeks of class to covering the topic of Fair Use, so here's the very abridged version). Over 50% of the questions that I receive about copyright law deal with Fair Use. Someone will ask whether they "can use" this or that without infringing copyright law. Section 107 of the Copyright Act states as follows:

"...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means..., for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-

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 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."

Basically, "fair use" permits us to legally use photos, articles, etc. that may otherwise be protected by copyright, so long as we are using it for certain socially beneficial purposes (e.g., criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, parody, etc.). But simply because you are using a work for one of those types of socially beneficial puroposes isn't enough, by itself, to make the use non-infringing. In order to be a fair use, you also have to consider the 4 factors specified in Section 107. I spent nearly an 2 hours in my copyright class last week and this week mulling over and discussing half a dozen cases trying to sort out the multiple complexities involved in interpreting and applying those factors...so I couldn't begin to address those issues here). Suffice it to say that courts really consider each set of facts on a case-by-case basis, evaluating many, many facts and factors.

Application to Web Boards

So, web discussion boards may reproduce copyrighted material, so long as that reproduction falls within the "fair use" exception. Whether any given instance is fair use - as I think I've suggested - is a differnt story. Clearly Factor #1 favors the non-profit, educational aspect of what web boards do. Factor # 2 depends on what type of work is taken. News reports and factual data are more likely to be the subjects of fair use than photographs. Factor # 3 favors copyright owners when the whole work is taken, generally speaking. But in a very famous case, the US Supreme Court said that it was okay (i.e., fair use) in some instances even to copy all of a work (e.g., motion pictures - for purposes of "time-shifting"). Factor # 4 will really depend on the facts each case. The principal issue is whether the defendant's use of the copyrighted work functions as a substitute for the plaintiff's work (thereby operating as a viable substitute in the marketplace for the plaintiff's work). Will consumers buy the defendant's version (or be satisfied with the defendant's version) and therefore not purchase the plaintiff's work?

Business Judgment

Of course there's also the practical question - what I call the business judgment issue: what's the likelihood that the copyright owner is going to a) dicover the use; 2) track you down; c) sue you; d) win the case and get $ damages against you? Clearly, in our Internet world, there is so much copying going on that copyright owners can't begin to track down and prosecute every instance of infringement. That's a decision about "risk management" that everyone who copies, cut-and-pastes, and posts has to make for themselves.

Caution: Specific Responses

Some of what advath and ashcraftpv have said is right and some is just plain, dead wrong. I can't say that I personally really care whether you fellows give legal advice and practice law without a license, but if you are going to do so, at least give advice that's accurate.

For example, advath wrote:

"10% is the general rule of thumb if you are quoting a source are adding to the material or commenting about it."

Russ's Response:

Copyright law has no such 10% rule. The amount and substantiality of the use is merely one factor that courts consider.

advath:

"You CANNOT copy and paste an entire article. You cannot use photos or graphs in any case without written permission from the author."

Russ's Response:

Again, this is a false and misleading statement. You may do all of these things IF your use is a "fair use." That will depend on the way that the Section 107 factors apply in each individual instance.

advath:

"In that case you are opening yourself to lawsuit and/or criminal prosecution from the author of the photo and/or the person in the photo."

Russ response:

Okay. People can always sue you for just about anything. Remember the complex nature of fair use analysis, and remember the business judgment decison.

advath:

"That means you cannot copy and past photos or graphs from a web site into your classroom paper. You even need to get permission just to put a link to the the photo or graph in anything you are writing."

Russ's Response:

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Given the educational nature of classroom papers, I think I can convince any reasonable jury that copying a couple of photos or graphs into student writing is a fair use. Clearly, we'd need to know more about any given situation, but as a general rule, copying of a few photos and graphs for non-profit educational purposes (like classroom papers) will be fair use. The second sentence is so wrong, that it really doesn't really require much of a rejoinder. The phrase "in anything you are writing" makes this claim utterly false. That claim completey ignores fair use analysis.

These statements are simply too general. As I hope I've explained, the issues are far more complex.

Whew. Any Questions?
[/b]

[Bruce Caldwell]

The Plaintiff rests
Russ thanks

[ashcraftpv]

Some of what advath and ashcraftpv have said is right and some is just plain, dead wrong. I can't say that I personally really care whether you fellows give legal advice and practice law without a license, but if you are going to do so, at least give advice that's accurate.

hence my disclaimer that I am not a lawyer and may be dead wrong about all of it.


What I stated was merely my understanding of "fair use" as you define it above. I only reproduce articles on free sites and always point back to the source. I have yet to be contacted about removing an article, but would do so without hesitation.

[vaultmd]

Thanks, Russ

[cdmilton]

Good info Russ! Thanks!