PDA

View Full Version : copyright contradiction



cybrwurm
04-14-2007, 11:58 PM
.
> In 'FAQ: Copyright' Medievalist say: [snip] Keep in mind that you have copyright
> for your creation, even without registering. Also keep in mind that it's usually best
> to let your publisher register the copyright when the work is ready to be published.
.
wurm say: And yet kunatii's MS guidelines say they want:
"Your name and copyright notice and title on the cover"
.
I assume they mean the first page (title page) of the MS.
Are they just being weird or what?
.

Birol
04-14-2007, 11:59 PM
Can you provide a link to Kunatii's guidelines?

Medievalist
04-15-2007, 12:08 AM
.
> In 'FAQ: Copyright' Medievalist say: [snip] Keep in mind that you have copyright
> for your creation, even without registering. Also keep in mind that it's usually best
> to let your publisher register the copyright when the work is ready to be published.
.
wurm say: And yet kunatii's MS guidelines say they want:
"Your name and copyright notice and title on the cover"
.
I assume they mean the first page (title page) of the MS.
Are they just being weird or what?
.

Yeah, they're being weird. What they really want is an assertion that you are in fact the rights holder; that the work is your own. This is usually dealt with at the contract stage where there's a standard disclaimer and assertion statement.

By having you assert copyright, they're covering their ass.

cybrwurm
04-15-2007, 02:54 AM
.
> On 14Apr Medievalist say: [snip] What they really want is an assertion that
> you are in fact the rights holder; that the work is your own. [snip]
.
c: Well, the book as a whole is certainly my creation; but it is made up, in part,
by online dialogues that have taken place in various forums. Some of these
dialogues are over five years old now, and are also copied to my website.
.
> By having you assert copyright, they're covering their ass.
.
I can certainly understand and appreciate why any publisher would want to
protect their highly-exposed buttocks, but how exactly can I "assert copyright"
when I use (mostly very short) quotes from a variety of authors, as well as
the words of others (made in their own postings to various online-forums)?
Kindda hard to have a dialogue without someone else's input. :(
And it's simply not feasible to get written-legal permission from all the
participants (even if I could find them (which is doubtful)).
.

cybrwurm
04-15-2007, 04:59 AM
.
> Birol say: Can you provide a link to Kunatii's guidelines?
.
wurm say: hey, birol. no, i can't do that (don't know how-to);
but the quote is direct from their website (ie. the guidelines page).
.

LloydBrown
04-15-2007, 05:14 AM
Ooh.


An elevator pitch (logline) that tells us why your novel or book proposal is DIFFERENT and what it's main market appeal will be

and


our high Google indexing under searc terms

and misuse of quotation marks. That's a little disturbing.

Here's the link, btw.
http://www.kunati.com/query-faq-and-suggestions/

Marlys
04-15-2007, 05:30 AM
When you mention using dialogue from forums, do you mean you based some passages on real online conversations you had? Or that you're lifting other people's words verbatim? You can do the first, you can't do the second.

For instance, I could write a scene about someone flouncing off a message board in a huff, because it happens on forums all of the time. My flouncer's message could be similar to ones I've read over the years, and might incorporate elements from some of the most memorable ones I've seen. But I couldn't copy someone's post and paste it into a document I want to claim is my own work. Do you see the difference?

It doesn't matter if the posts have been online for five years or more--copyright belongs to the original poster, and is covered for much longer than that (life plus 70 years if you know who the author is; 120 years from creation or 95 years from publication if you don't know who the author is).

Birol
04-15-2007, 10:18 AM
... but how exactly can I "assert copyright" when I use (mostly very short) quotes from a variety of authors, as well as the words of others (made in their own postings to various online-forums)?

I'm with Marlys. This is very disturbing information. Are you just taking other people's words and using them as your own? That's what this sounds like.


Kindda hard to have a dialogue without someone else's input. :(

No, it's not. If you want to be a writer, write. Invent. Create.


And it's simply not feasible to get written-legal permission from all the participants (even if I could find them (which is doubtful))

Then you have a problem.

cybrwurm
04-15-2007, 11:56 PM
.
> wurm previously say: [snip] but how exactly can I "assert copyright" when I use (mostly
> very short) quotes from a variety of authors, as well as the words of others (made in
> their own postings to various online-forums)?
.
] on 15Apr Birol say: I'm with Marlys. This is very disturbing information. Are you just
] taking other people's words and using them as your own? That's what this sounds like.
.
wurm say: Yes, I see that I may have expressed myself badly in that particular sentence.
It could be taken to mean that the whole book is nothing but quotes and such, without
bothering to acknowledge sources. Rest assured that this is NOT the case. I simple mean
that *sometimes* during straight-narrative I will find occasion to include a quote (cited, of
course), and during the dialogue-sections the quotes by others are also clearly marked (just
as they are in this particular post). Just because I am including your words in my post, does
not mean that I am using them as my own. They are still your words (and clearly marked
as such), but I can hardly conduct a dialogue with you without them, now can I?
.
Take this post for example: Suppose I just yanked it right out of this thread, website, and
internet-environment altogether, and put it straight into a chapter about 'writers and online-
writing' say, and I did so without changing anything (ie. NO-editing). Since I wrote and
posted it, surely I can include it in that chapter as a "real-world" example of online-
communication. Would awwc object? Would you object? ... Would should you object? I am
not using your words, while at the same time claiming that they are mine. Your words are
clearly marked as yours. So not even the copyright laws should object!
.
> wp: Kindda hard to have a dialogue without someone else's input.
.
] Birol: No, it's not. If you want to be a writer, write. Invent. Create.
.
wurm: I do create. But you don't understand. It's just not that simple. I don't do fiction;
so it's not really a question of inventing dialogue for cheesy characters or anything.
.
> wp: And it's simply not feasible to get written-legal permission from all the participants
> (even if I could find them (which is doubtful))
.
] Birol: Then you have a problem.
.
wurm: That's not very helpful, herr birol. You make it sound like it's impossible to have
"real-world" dialogue in a non-fiction book. But actually, does it really matter if I get every-
one's personal permission? Isn't it the websites themselves that hold the rights to all
member contributions and submisions and postimgs? If *they* say it's okay to use their
forum-postings in a book, then there should be no problem. Right? I don't know about any
of this stuff, that's why I'm here asking about these things.
.

cybrwurm
04-15-2007, 11:59 PM
.
] On 15Apr Marlys say: When you mention using dialogue from forums, do you mean
] you based some passages on real online conversations you had?
.
wurm say: hey, marlys. in answer to your question --> NO!
.
] Marlys: Or that you're lifting other people's words verbatim?
.
w: verbatim. good word. yes indeed, verbatim; except that i snip out the parts i
don't need, or don't have any use for.
.
] Marlys: You can do the first, you can't do the second.
.
w: sure i can. it's called 'quoting'. non-fiction books do it all the time.
.
] Marlys: For instance, I could write a scene about someone flouncing off a message board
] in a huff, because it happens on forums all of the time. My flouncer's message could be
] similar to ones I've read over the years, and might incorporate elements from some of the
] most memorable ones I've seen. But I couldn't copy someone's post and paste it into a
] document I want to claim is my own work. Do you see the difference?
.
w: I see the difference IF you're writing fiction, sure. But what's that got to do with using
forum-postings in a non-fiction book?
.
] Marlys: It doesn't matter if the posts have been online for five years or more - copyright
] belongs to the original poster, and is covered for much longer than that (life plus 70 years
] if you know who the author is; 120 years from creation or 95 years from publication if you
] don't know who the author is).
.
w: Yeah, but if the original poster doesn't actually *claim* copyright legally and officially,
then all the rights default to the website itself, right? I think it does. I *hope* it does!
Somebody here MUST know awwc's position regarding these matters. . . . HELP!
.

LloydBrown
04-16-2007, 12:09 AM
Quoting accurately and attribution don't necessarily make your use of somebody else's copyrighted material legal.

But I'm sure you'll have that discussion with your publisher when it gets to that point.


Yeah, but if the original poster doesn't actually *claim* copyright legally and officially,
then all the rights default to the website itself, right? I think it does.

Not at all. Did you read the copyright laws at www.copyright.gov?

Maryn
04-16-2007, 12:32 AM
Uh-oh. I am not a copyright attorney (no kidding!), but I would say that by directly quoting others, you're pretty clearly in copyright hell.

There have been times I've talked at length in chat rooms or forums. If you lifted my words, attributed them to the site name and my user name, and quoted them in your work, you're still violating my copyright.

Why? Because copyright law specifically covers what quoting is fair use (comment and criticism, and parody). Everything that is not fair use is not permitted. There are four factors in the laws which determine what is fair use: the purpose and character of your use, the nature of the work, and amount you use, and what your use does to potential marketability of the work.

From Stanford's overview of copyright law:
What If You Acknowledge the Source Material?
Some people mistakenly believe it's permissible to use a work (or portion of it) if an acknowledgment is provided... This is not true. Acknowledgment of the source material (such as citing the photographer) may be a consideration in a fair use determination, but it will not protect against a claim of infringement. When in doubt as to the right to use or acknowledge a source, the most prudent course may be to seek permission of the copyright owner.

Your editor or publisher will know that, or should. I suspect that if your work contains a lot of it, it may not be publishable.

Maryn, bearer of bad tidings

Birol
04-16-2007, 12:33 AM
.
Take this post for example: Suppose I just yanked it right out of this thread, website, and internet-environment altogether, and put it straight into a chapter about 'writers and online-writing' say, and I did so without changing anything (ie. NO-editing). Since I wrote and posted it, surely I can include it in that chapter as a "real-world" example of online-communication. Would awwc object? Would you object? ... Would should you object? I am not using your words, while at the same time claiming that they are mine. Your words are clearly marked as yours. So not even the copyright laws should object!

It's quite possible I would object. My words belong to me, not AW, and not you, even if half of the conversation is yours. To use my words without my knowledge or consent, strikes me as sleazy, and it's quite possible it would be in violation of copyright law. How do you know I'm not working on my own non-fiction manuscript? Even newspaper reporters generally let someone know when they might be quoted or confirm the quote with them.

Do you believe that because you post in a thread, you are entitled to use any or all part of that thread in your own work because you were participating in it? By this logic, you could pull up threads on the forum that were years old, post something in them, then "claim" them for your manuscript.

Honestly, at this point, knowing your perspective, I'm leery about responding to you, since you might choose to use my words without my knowledge or approval.


wurm: I do create. But you don't understand. It's just not that simple. I don't do fiction; so it's not really a question of inventing dialogue for cheesy characters or anything.

The implication that all fiction characters are cheesy is a tad disrespectful to fiction writers. However, irregardless of that, it is still possible to invent conversation for a non-fiction book. Simply state "as an example" and use a made up example that is based on, but not direct quotes, of conversations you have observed or taken part in.



wurm: That's not very helpful, herr birol. You make it sound like it's impossible to have "real-world" dialogue in a non-fiction book. But actually, does it really matter if I get every-one's personal permission? Isn't it the websites themselves that hold the rights to all member contributions and submisions and postimgs? If *they* say it's okay to use their forum-postings in a book, then there should be no problem. Right? I don't know about any of this stuff, that's why I'm here asking about these things.

First, if you wish to sprechen Sie Deutsch, I am "Frau" not "Herr". The implied insult is also probably not the best approach to use when someone is taking the time to respond to you, either. Just because you do not like my response does not make it any less accurate or any less helpful.

Whether my copyright is registered or not, the words used to express the thoughts and ideas are still mine. Whether the words belong to me or the website in which I am posting is a matter of the Terms and Conditions of registration and use that I accepted when I registered my ID. Personally, I would not knowingly participate on a forum that attempted to claim the legal right to my words, to take the full rights to my words, just because I'd posted there. If you want to use my words, I strongly suggest you make every effort to track me down. Most forums, including this one, have a way to contact members. Doing so is not problematic. In cases where that is proving difficult, if you explained your reasons, the board owner or moderators might help put you in touch with the appropriate members, too, acting as middlemen until trust was established.

But just taking words because you had participated in the conversation and using them? Legal or not, it strikes me as unethical.

Medievalist
04-16-2007, 01:12 AM
I can certainly understand and appreciate why any publisher would want to
protect their highly-exposed buttocks, but how exactly can I "assert copyright"
when I use (mostly very short) quotes from a variety of authors, as well as
the words of others (made in their own postings to various online-forums)?
Kindda hard to have a dialogue without someone else's input. :(
And it's simply not feasible to get written-legal permission from all the
participants (even if I could find them (which is doubtful)).
.

You can't legally or ethically use that text then; you're not only violating statute in terms of Title 17, you are opening yourself up to a complaint based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.


If you don't get permission, you're really asking for problems.

cybrwurm
04-16-2007, 09:17 PM
.
] on 15Apr LloydBrown say: Quoting accurately and attribution don't necessarily make
] your use of somebody else's copyrighted material legal.
.
wurm say: hey LB. i heard something about if a quote is small (say less than 50-100 words;
depending on source), you can use it pretty much anywhere, and you don't even need to
ask them for permission prior to publication (as long as everything is well-cited, natch).
That's okay by me, because i mostlly use little snippits from published books (eg. as source
materials and illustrations and such); but then again there are bound to be dozens of
such little-critters scattered throughout the MS (... if and when it's ever complete).
.
hmmmm . . . problem maybe? is there a certain critical number that you can have for free,
beyond which you cannot go without running into red-tape? a dozen? a hundred? ... wtf?
.
But anyway, i have to wonder, LB. This statement of yours right here.
can i put it in my book? or put it on my website maybe?
do you consider this post of yours as containing "copyrighted material"?
would you object if i tried to make an example of you? ... why?
.
] LB: But I'm sure you'll have that discussion with your publisher when it gets to that point.
.
w: why, thx a bunch there, LB. yer a peach!
.
> wurm previously say: ... then all the rights default to the website itself, right?
.
] LB: Not at all. Did you read the copyright laws at [xyz] ?
.
w: heck no! what makes you think that the written-laws are made to be read? Laws are
deliberately designed to be *unreadable* so that only the lawyers and judges themselves
can make head-or-tail of them. where's the justice in that? sheer stupidity, if you ask me.
in any case, are these laws for the USA? Do they even apply here? ... I canuk.
.

cybrwurm
04-16-2007, 09:22 PM
.
] on 15Apr Maryn say: [snip] There have been times I've talked at length in chat rooms or
] forums. If you lifted my words, attributed them to the site name and my user name, and
] quoted them in your work, you're still violating my copyright.
.
wurm say: "violating my copyright"? VIOLATING? *violating*?!?! ... Why this is utter
nonsense! I am not "violating" anything, least of all your copyright. communication itself
is based upon the exchange and common-use of words and ideas. if the law "presumes"
that communication is a violation of something, then the law is an-ass. Figures that once
you admit the Law into any topic, it immediately decends into the very abyss of aburdity!
.
:(
.
] M: Why? Because copyright law specifically covers what quoting is fair use (comment and
] criticism, and parody). Everything that is not fair use is not permitted. There are four
] factors in the laws which determine what is fair use: the purpose and character of your
] use, the nature of the work, and amount you use, and what your use does to potential
] marketability of the work. [snip]
.
w: now this is what i call very useful information. perhaps the law is not so dum after
all. but it most certainly IS when and if it forbids my freedom of speech and expression!
"fair use" indeed! I don't use others words to insult or disparage anyone, or in any
*violate* their dignity as individual human persons. far from it. one of the chief
aims / goals of all my writings is education, edification, and illumination!
And, not incidently, this is precisely what philosophy is all about.
.
] M: Your editor or publisher will know that, or should. I suspect that if your work
] contains a lot of it, it may not be publishable.
.
w: would about 30%, say, be considered too much? just how much is too much?
dialogue is integral and essential to philosophy. dialogue is itself the purest expression of
philosophy in action! ask a question, then answer it. raise a topic, then discuss it. dialogue
is a living and dynamic process of communication and education. without it philosophy
withers and dies like an unwatered plant. check it out.
.
] M: -- Maryn, bearer of bad tidings
.
w: Yeah, well, maybe bad AND good tidings?
.
btw: & before we go any further ... i do, in fact, have a tendency to "port" some of my
better postings over to my website; and hence potentially into the MS (and even perhaps
to possible inclusion in the chapter entitled 'Why Teaching Philosophy to Writers is a Lot
Like Herding Cats!'). So if you don't wish to see your words spinning completely out of
your control forevermore and amen, then U might be-wise to think twice about committing
yourself to any kind of dialogue with a seriously strange-o philosopher! ... Beware U!
.
And so from now on I shall consider that *all* of you have been sufficently-warned . . .
.
... Fair-use *indeed*! :D
.
Nuff Said! -- your ever-dangerous newbie - cybrwurm ;>
.

Marlys
04-16-2007, 09:45 PM
In Canada, "fair use" is called "fair dealing (http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/copy_gd_protect-e.html#6)," and is roughly the same. From the Canadian Intellectual Property Office website:

The line between fair dealing and infringement is a thin one. There are no guidelines that define the number of words or passages that can be used without permission from the author.There are some differences in length of copyright: protection is for life-plus-fifty-years instead of the U.S. life-plus-seventy, and if the author is unknown protection extends for 50 years after publication or 75 years after creation (95 and 120 years in the U.S., as I mentioned above).

So, yeah, even under Canadian rules you'd still be in trouble. If you still don't understand and can't find the answers on the CIPO (http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/welcome/welcom-e.html) website, I suggest you talk to a copyright attorney.

LloydBrown
04-16-2007, 10:11 PM
You came here with questions. If you're going to argue with the answers and refuse to do research on your own, I'm done. Good luck with the book.

aka eraser
04-16-2007, 11:04 PM
wurm, get permission or change the quotes and change the nicks.

(If a philosopher/writer heeds only his own words, he should fall down in a forest already.)

cybrwurm
04-16-2007, 11:53 PM
.
> wurm previously say: [snip] I can certainly understand and appreciate why any publisher
> would want to protect their highly-exposed buttocks, but how exactly can I "assert
> copyright" when I use (mostly very short) quotes from a variety of authors, as well as the
> words of others (made in their own postings to various online-forums)? Kindda hard to
> have a dialogue without someone else's input. And it's simply not feasible to get written-
> legal permission from all the participants (even if I could find them (which is doubtful)).
.
] on 15Apr Medievalist answers: You can't legally or ethically use that text then;
.
wurm say: what about fair-use? dialogue is *necessary* to philosophy! The very fact that
someone engages in a serious dialogue (whether verbally or in text) can be presumed to
involve a willingness to communicate one's words and ideas to others. Since I am in no
way misrepresenting others views, or otherwise violating their "rights", how then can it
be unethical to put them in book form? All it really amounts to in the end is a simple
change in storage methods; storing information on paper instead of digital-data on disks!
That's not all it is, of course; but that's really *what* it is: a change of format.
.
] M: you're not only violating statute in terms of Title 17
] and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
.
w: grammAr please! (thx cc)
.
] M: If you don't get permission, you're really asking for problems.
.
w: well that's just great. just dandy. just peachy.
thx a bunch there, Medievalist.
.
you just chopped my MS in half!
.
:cry:
.

James D. Macdonald
04-17-2007, 12:26 AM
And so from now on I shall consider that *all* of you have been sufficently-warned . . .

On the contrary. Consider yourself sufficiently warned.

blacbird
04-17-2007, 12:33 AM
you just chopped my MS in half!


No. Your manuscript is exactly as long as it was. What is being chopped is other peoples' work.

And your title for this thread is incorrect. There is no contradiction involved. Only a misunderstanding, compounded by a resistance to accepting answers from knowledgeable people.

caw

ChunkyC
04-17-2007, 12:45 AM
grammer please!
Kelsey Grammer is the guy who played Frasier on TV. Grammar is how you spell the word describing the rules of sentence structure. If you are going to criticize someone for their grammar, especially a writer, the least you can do is spell it properly.

cybrwurm, you are wrong about copyright, plain and simple. Just because you want something to be a certain way, doesn't make it so no matter how hard you stamp your feet. Time to move on.

PS -- you do not have my permission to use any part of this post, or any other post I have made here or anywhere else on the Internet for any purpose whatsoever.

KCH
04-17-2007, 03:38 AM
(If a philosopher/writer heeds only his own words, he should fall down in a forest already.)

Perfect.
;)

--KCH

cybrwurm
04-17-2007, 05:26 AM
.
] on 16Apr LloydBrown say: You came here with questions.
.
wurm say: yes?
.
] LB: If you're going to argue with the answers and refuse to do research on your own,
.
w: dialogue is *more* than mere argument, and there is *more* at stake here than
mere research. besides, i'm more of a scholar than a researcher. so get with the
program, dude, or get thee hence.
.
] LB: I'm done.
.
w: sheesh, watta grouch!
.
... guess that's why they call me the offensive-one, eh hoserz? :)
.
] LD: Good luck with the book.
.
w: sincerity please! ... Anyway, there's not much chance mr brown will ever get into the
final MS, but I can't help noticing that he said nothing about NOT using his words in my
posts. I take this to imply a tacit consent to do so. and not ony that, i will surely include
this (and the other) post whenever i actually get around to porting this thread over to my
site. And if any of you think i am treating LB "unethically", i would sure appreciate it if
you would kindly deign to explain to all of us exactly *why*!
.
Listen. I have been doing this for over a decade now. i have never kept the nature of my
site a secret. no one - and i mean no one - has ever complained, or asked me to remove
anything off of the site. nor should they even worry about it, since no one actually visits
my site anyway. much ado about nothing here, if you ask me.
.

veinglory
04-17-2007, 05:29 AM
Don't take that as tacit consent, from anyone. Assume lack of consent in all settings all of the time unless proven otherwise.

cybrwurm
04-17-2007, 05:30 AM
.
] on 16Apr aka eraser say: wurm,
.
wurm say: hey, eraser, nice to see you joining us. and thx for the input.
.
] eraser: get permission or change the quotes and change the nicks.
.
w: But this would involve introducing an element of fiction into what is fundamentally
and essentially a non-fiction book. I would, in effect, be asking my readers to "pretend"
that these dialogues are real, when in fact they are NOT! I would, in fact, be LYING to
my readers! Is this the sort of "ethical-behavior" that the Law encourages?!
.
:(
.
] eraser: (If a philosopher/writer heeds only his own words,
] he should fall down in a forest already.)
.
w: well golly gee, i totally agree. in fact, this little axiom only demonstrates the urgent
need that philosophy has for real and genuine dialogue. Thus in one breath you urge
me to cast aside all dialogue, and then in the next berate me for doing just that!
.
logic please!
.
P.S. next up --> Birol !!!
.

aka eraser
04-17-2007, 05:41 AM
There may not not be too many "next ups" in your AW future.

CheshireCat
04-17-2007, 05:45 AM
What irritates me most about this joker are the messy posts with brackets everywhere and the lack (except when he's in lecture mode) of complete, grown-up words and sentences.

On a writer's forum.

Sheesh.

And, no, Wurm, you do not have my permission to copy, port, paste, or in any way, shape, or form duplicate any part of any of my posts here or anywhere else for your own use.

Clear enough?

And I got your dialogue right here.

:e2brows:

LloydBrown
04-17-2007, 05:49 AM
I take this to imply a tacit consent to do so. and not ony that, i will surely include this (and the other) post whenever i actually get around to porting this thread over to my site.

You're not getting the whole "that's illegal" thing, are you? I strongly advise you not to violate any law that involves me or my rights.

Cath
04-17-2007, 06:12 AM
.w: But this would involve introducing an element of fiction into what is fundamentally and essentially a non-fiction book. I would, in effect, be asking my readers to "pretend" that these dialogues are real, when in fact they are NOT! I would, in fact, be LYING to my readers! Is this the sort of "ethical-behavior" that the Law encourages?!.

You can believe whatever you like. What you're being told is the law. Abide by it, or risk reprisal.

And as for lying to your readers, all the law asks is that you get permission to use other peoples' words before you use them, not that you cannot under any circumstances use them. It requires a little work on your part.

Since you bring up ethics, it is absolutely not ethical to quote another person without their permission. Nor is it ethical to record their conversations without their knowledge or permission.

The only person you're harming here is yourself. Take the advice you've been given.

And, as others have said - I do not give you permission to quote all or any part of this or any other post I have made on this forum (or elsewhere for that matter) for your own use.

KCH
04-17-2007, 06:47 AM
no one actually visits my site anyway.

NO! You're kidding?! Whoulda thunk it? I mean, there's such a market for, for...whatever it is. That no one understands it is proof--PROOF, I tell you!--of something or other.

-KCH, thinking this thread's more about a change of pace for some guy tired of making potholders in the activity room

WarrenP
04-17-2007, 01:01 PM
Would you be allowed to go to the Louvre, take a photo of every piece of art, then publish that book of photos? No? Why not?

Copyright law can be complex, and Internet Copyright law even moreso at times, but copying and pasting other folks words is pretty clear. There is no ambiguity there, doing that is a no-no.

NTG
04-17-2007, 07:29 PM
logic please!


We'll get back to logic in a moment.

CW, if you click on the Quote button of a post, it pulls all the text from that post and puts it inside the blue Quote screen (when you post it, not while you're editing). You can delete any text you don't want, as I did here. (Don't touch the <quote> and </quote> commands and brackets or it won't show onscreen properly.) If you want to quote from multiple people, just click on the " symbol for each person you want to quote, and use the Quote button for the final one. The end result is much easier to read than using hand-drawn brackets.

As far as logic, let's back up a little. You posted a fair question to begin this thread. There's no such thing as a dumb question. However, as others have pointed out, the answer you got back apparently wasn't what you thought it would be. You had a different impression of copyright law. As it turns out, you were mistaken. Now, there's no shame in being mistaken. Even annoyed, if you really think it ought to be different.

But you can't change reality.

I had an occasion recently to quote a couple of written remarks from a friend in a query letter I sent to a potential agent for my first MS. One remark came from a private e-mail, and one from a post on this Bboard. To me it was just a matter of common courtesy to contact the friend and ask if I could have permission to quote his remarks to me. He agreed, of course, but the point is that it is not only law, it is courtesy, to ask before you quote anybody.

That rule may not be what you expected, or what you wish, but it's something you need to learn and get used to. Not only will it keep you out of legal trouble, it will help you get along better with people who are in a position to help and encourage you, such as agents and publishers. And even potential new friends, such as the people on this Bboard.

Capiche?

Nathanael (a potential new friend)

Mac H.
04-17-2007, 09:18 PM
It's not the ethics of this that I find confusing. It's the pointlessness of it.

You port a conversation from a website. The conversation is widely available, as it is on a site with over 10,000 members.

You port it to a website, which by your own statement, has almost NO visitors! WHY? How is that providing a service to ANYONE !!!? It isn't making it more available.

It's the web. Just give a link to the original thread, and everyone will be happy again.

Mac

blacbird
04-17-2007, 09:27 PM
.nor should they even worry about it, since no one actually visits
my site anyway. much ado about nothing here, if you ask me.
.

Then why in hell did you bring it up?

caw

Medievalist
04-18-2007, 12:24 AM
Listen. I have been doing this for over a decade now. i have never kept the nature of my
site a secret. no one - and i mean no one - has ever complained, or asked me to remove
anything off of the site. nor should they even worry about it, since no one actually visits
my site anyway. much ado about nothing here, if you ask me.
.

You've been both unethical and lucky then. When you get a chance, you ought to research the phrase "notice of takedown."