Copyright Opinion

[inkkognito]

I'd like to toss this one out there, as I want to make sure I'm getting the right advice. Recently I did an Examiner article and considered pulling some quotes from TripAdvisor reviews but decided against it. I tend to be overly cautious where copyright is concerned. Today a fellow Examiner posted an article that is basically: "Here are reviews of an attraction:" followed by a copy/paste of full reviews from another website. I'm not sure which one because she didn't credit it. I reported it to my channel manager, but he said it's okay to do that because she was just copying reviews that people publically posted. Wouldn't that still be copyrighted (although by the individuals as opposed to the website)? And if so, isn't it still technically not allowed to repost it without permission? Or am I just overly paranoid?

[jeffo]

If it is a review posted on web site, that's copyrighted, period. Everything that is written and created is copyrighted as soon as the words exist in a medium. Press releases, as someone mentioned in another thread, are copyrighted, but the original copyright holder voluntarily gives anyone rights to make copies because they want the news to get out. But a review is clearly copyrighted and a person owns that copyright. If the initial author wants people to copy it, they can. But if they don't ask permission, that's a clear copyright violation. Unless the site has words on it that say it can be copied, your channel manager is just plain wrong.

[GirlWithPoisonPen]

The standard is that you can quote up to 400 continuous words of something without sliding into copyright violations (i.e. having to get a formal release for usage). The key is to quote and to give credit to the source. This convention exists because otherwise, you'd never be able to quote from anything--a book, poem, essay, website, speech.

It would have been fine for you to use quotes from Trip Adviser as along as you say where you got the quotes and as long as your entire story didn't consist of quotes from Trip Adviser. It's the difference between using a couple quotes to make a point and poaching someone else's work entirely.

Your fellow Examiner sounds lazy.

[veinglory]

I think you are 100% right. Material on the internet is *not* copyright free. You can quote a few lines of it. I would stay *way* under 400 words for a short post and make sure I stayed under 5% of the whole and linked to the whole review.

[jeffo]

The 400 words is not a legal limit. If you're discussing something for education or news, you can quote articles for "fair use." There's no legal definition of how much you're allowed to use. Recently AP has tried to stop people on the Internet from quoting ANYTHING they have printed, but I don't believe they have been successful because of the fair use clause.

[inkkognito]

Your fellow Examiner sounds lazy.
{snerk} Yep, I often wonder why I kill myself writing original content when a few of my local colleagues simply reprint press releases or news stories. I'm funny that way...when I'm hired to be a writer, I actually "write."

[Medievalist]

The standard is that you can quote up to 400 continuous words of something without sliding into copyright violations (i.e. having to get a formal release for usage).

Well, no, actually it's not. Fair Use in both the EU and the U.S. is not stipulated in the statute--moreover, it's entirely different wrt to digital media/Web.

You can certainly quote small parts, with a citation and a link--unless the rights holder says you can't.

Quoting entire reviews is not acceptable, as you and others have noted.

I pretty much always ask--and have never been told "no," and often get links because of the courtesy contact.

[Medievalist]

The 400 words is not a legal limit. If you're discussing something for education or news, you can quote articles for "fair use." There's no legal definition of how much you're allowed to use. Recently AP has tried to stop people on the Internet from quoting ANYTHING they have printed, but I don't believe they have been successful because of the fair use clause.

The fair use clause basically means that the definition of fair use is determined on a case by case basis--in court.

[Medievalist]

I think you are 100% right. Material on the internet is *not* copyright free. You can quote a few lines of it. I would stay *way* under 400 words for a short post and make sure I stayed under 5% of the whole and linked to the whole review.

This is actually a much better guideline.

[miles111]

The fair use clause basically means that the definition of fair use is determined on a case by case basis--in court.


I agree.

From what I remember there exists no "standard" for the amount of material that would constitute fair use. It used to bother me that the rules are so vague. But I now feel it has to be that way because there are so many variables.

Material quoted for educational use seems to get the most favorable (flexible) treatment when there are questions about fair use

But what makes this question so hairy, imo, is that what constitutes fair use cannot be determined simply by how much of the original work is quoted. What is critical, is the importance of the copied material to the value of the original work. Would (could) the particular material chosen for copying have a negative affect on the value of the original piece? Lots of potential land mines there, I would say.

[moth]

I think you are 100% right. Material on the internet is *not* copyright free. You can quote a few lines of it. I would stay *way* under 400 words for a short post and make sure I stayed under 5% of the whole and linked to the whole review.
Second Medievalist - I totally agree with this.

[benbradley]

I'd like to toss this one out there, as I want to make sure I'm getting the right advice. Recently I did an Examiner article and considered pulling some quotes from TripAdvisor reviews but decided against it. I tend to be overly cautious where copyright is concerned. Today a fellow Examiner posted an article that is basically: "Here are reviews of an attraction:" followed by a copy/paste of full reviews from another website. I'm not sure which one because she didn't credit it.
It's usually quite easy to see what other website(s) any text is on. Take about five to ten consecutive words, put double-quotes around 'rm, put that into Google, and the site(s) will usually come right up. There are cases where the site doesn't want search sites to index it, but those are very unusual.
I reported it to my channel manager, but he said it's okay to do that because she was just copying reviews that people publically posted. Wouldn't that still be copyrighted (although by the individuals as opposed to the website)? And if so, isn't it still technically not allowed to repost it without permission? Or am I just overly paranoid?
I agree with others, that's a clear violation. I don't know if egregious is a legal term, but IMHO its "lay" use applies here.

Your manager, the author and the editor all should know better.
The standard is that you can quote up to 400 continuous words of something without sliding into copyright violations (i.e. having to get a formal release for usage). The key is to quote and to give credit to the source. ...
Where's a reference for this? Perhaps this is from a specific court case?
Second Medievalist - I totally agree with this.
Yeah, last I read about fair use on http://copyright.gov, it said what Medievalist and others said.

[princessvessna]

On my channel we just got a note that pasting entire press reviews as your article is lazy (duh!, considering this is supposed to be something we are writing ourselves, examining, etc) so there is hope yet.

This is what he said about attribution

"It’s important that you attribute information to sources… not simply cut and paste. The general rule of thumb is that you can directly quote a sentence out of an article or a paragraph out of a book. It’s always good to link to the original source."

I dont know about just one sentence (sometimes I quote 2 or 3, attributed), but there's that