Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26
  1. #1
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,722

    Copyright and use of the work of others - all posters in this section please read

    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Use of the work of others

    Some posters to this section enjoy using articles written by others to illustrate discussion or as a springboard for discussion. If doing so, because of the restrictions of Australian copyright law, there are many circumstances where it is better to link to an article you wish to mention than to copy and paste large sections of it.

    When you can quote an article in full

    An article written elsewhere can be quoted in full if it is at least mostly relevant to the thread and at least one of the following is true:

    * The article was not written with any expectation of profit and the author is not likely to make any money out of writing it.

    * The author or original publisher has given explicit written permission for the article to be reproduced and any conditions of that permission have been complied with.

    * The author died before 1955.

    (The onus is on the poster to demonstrate the above exceptions if required.)

    * The article is being quoted for the purposes of genuine critical review. This means that as well as quoting the article, the poster quoting it is, as part of the same post, or in an immediately (in both time and sequence) subsequent post, making an original and substantial discussion of the merits of the article. (It is not sufficient to quote an article and invite others to discuss it, and it is also not permitted to just include a token critical-review-like comment).

    * The article is being quoted for the purposes of critical review of something else appearing on the board (for instance, to refute a claim another poster has made.) In this case the poster must indicate some part of the previous discussion that the article is relevant to criticising.

    When you cannot quote in full

    If none of the above apply then you cannot quote from an article in full and it is also not permitted to quote most of it in chunks. You may quote a small minority (typically a few short paragraphs at most) with a link to the article, or you may paraphrase the article as much as you wish (giving credit to the source.)

    In particular, virtually everything published in any newspaper or its online equivalent, or on the website of a professional journalist, will be copyrighted material written with the expectation of profit. Such material can only be quoted with written permission or for critical review purposes.

    Moderation of quoting

    Quoting that is deemed excessive may result in:

    * editing of the post to replace quotes with a link or shorten the quoted text
    * deletion of the post without warning or logging of deletion
    * where a poster is persistently making little or no effort to comply, or reposting deleted material without even attempting to follow this policy, suspension from the board.

    The mods may also take action against cut-and-pastes that are extremely long, in large part off-topic, or apparently posted to divert discussion into matters best raised on a different thread.

    Kevin Bonham
    Moderator, Chesschat
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 18-10-2014 at 03:34 PM.

  2. #2
    CC Grandmaster Basil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Subtropical Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,237
    I find the 1955 clause interesting. Is that the legislated line in the sand or perhaps a 50 year rule slightly out of date?
    There is no cure for leftism. Its infestation of the host mostly diminishes with age except in the most rabid of specimens.

  3. #3
    . eclectic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,840
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunner Duggan
    I find the 1955 clause interesting. Is that the legislated line in the sand or perhaps a 50 year rule slightly out of date?
    i wondered that too as i thought copyright remained until 50 or even 75 years after the author died
    .

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster ER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne - Australia
    Posts
    11,710

    maybe?

    Quote Originally Posted by eclectic
    i wondered that too as i thought copyright remained until 50 or even 75 years after the author died
    Is it like the 50 move draw rule?
    CAGLES
    ACF 3118316
    FIDE 3201457

  5. #5
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunner Duggan
    I find the 1955 clause interesting. Is that the legislated line in the sand or perhaps a 50 year rule slightly out of date?
    The 50 year rule was replaced by a 70 year rule in 2005 but the change was not retrospective, so copyright has already expired for the work of anyone who died before 1955, but for those who died in 1955 and after the 70 year rule now applies.

  6. #6
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    When you can quote an article in full

    ...

    * The article is being quoted for the purposes of genuine critical review. This means that as well as quoting the article, the poster quoting it is, as part of the same post making an original and substantial discussion of the merits of the article. (It is not sufficient to quote an article and invite others to discuss it, and it is also not permitted to just include a token critical-review-like comment).

    * The article is being quoted for the purposes of critical review of something else appearing on the board (for instance, to refute a claim another poster has made.) In this case the poster must indicate some part of the previous discussion that the article is relevant to criticising.
    Quoting in full is OK in these instances?

  7. #7
    . eclectic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,840
    Quote Originally Posted by Mangafranga
    Quoting in full is OK in these instances?
    i presume articles in full would be better served by a direct link where possible?
    .

  8. #8
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,531
    Without taking copyright into the account, long articles copied from elsewhere are quite annoying. If you want to make a point, put a link and a small relevant excerpt.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  9. #9
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Mangafranga
    Quoting in full is OK in these instances?
    Under the law, apparently so. As far as I can determine from the ACC info sheets, there's no legal limit on how much of the work that is reviewed or used for review you quote if you really need all of it for that purpose and it is clear that that's why you're doing it. So, for instance, quoting a whole article and just critically reviewing one sentence out of it wouldn't be allowed.

    As Igor points out, excessive quoting is annoying and it is best to excerpt and link. And if quotes are far too long they may get moderated anyway.

  10. #10
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,722
    An addendum to the above: sometimes copying in full even for the purposes of criticism wouldn't be fair dealing even if it was done strictly for that purpose. So, for instance, if someone writes a short story and sells it, you might be denied the right to quote it all for critical review purposes if you caused the original author to be out of pocket in doing so. But that's not a scenario likely to apply here.

  11. #11
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Under the law, apparently so. As far as I can determine from the ACC info sheets, there's no legal limit on how much of the work that is reviewed or used for review you quote if you really need all of it for that purpose and it is clear that that's why you're doing it. So, for instance, quoting a whole article and just critically reviewing one sentence out of it wouldn't be allowed.
    Can I get a link?

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,482
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    The 50 year rule was replaced by a 70 year rule in 2005 but the change was not retrospective, so copyright has already expired for the work of anyone who died before 1955, but for those who died in 1955 and after the 70 year rule now applies.
    Wow. So some people actually sat down and argued the merits of having 50 years or whether to change it, and they came up with 70. I must remember that fact the next time someone tries to tell me that they have a meaningless existence. Really puts things into perspective.
    meep meep

  13. #13
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    Wow. So some people actually sat down and argued the merits of having 50 years or whether to change it, and they came up with 70.
    Actually, that's not how it happened. What happened was that Australia, which had a 50 year limit, signed a "Free Trade Agreement" with the United States, which had a longer limit, and as part of that agreement Australia was asked to extend the copyright expiry for the works of the deceased, and did so.

  14. #14
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Mangafranga
    Can I get a link?
    http://www.copyright.org.au/informat...n/intro-10.htm and click on "fair dealing" under "More".

    You'll see that while for research and study purposes there is a well-known limit on the portion of a work that may be copied to still qualify as "fair dealing", for critical review purposes there is no mention of such a limit.

  15. #15
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    You'll see that while for research and study purposes there is a well-known limit on the portion of a work that may be copied to still qualify as "fair dealing", for critical review purposes there is no mention of such a limit.
    I wouldn't take it that this means there is no limit, just that the research and study case is one where they made the limit clearly defined.

    Aside from this, the contexts seem rather different. Research and study means that those that are doing research and study can copy 1 chapter or 10%. The review and criticism exception is for published reviews.

    I had a look at the "Quotes and extracts" document, it isn't very clear. In the "Criticism and Review" section, they say, "You may use a work, or part of a work, for the purposes of criticism or review without the copyright owner’s permission." This looks fairly unrestricted, but then they end the section with
    This exception may allow you to reproduce an extract from a book, poem, compilation or other literary work in a newspaper review or critical biography or discussion paper, provided your use is fair, and genuinely for the purpose of criticism or review.
    This seems to indicate that the degree to which the work is quoted depends upon whether the use is fair.

    That is all I really have to say on the matter.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •