PDA

View Full Version : Copyright and use of the work of others - all posters in this section please read



Kevin Bonham
07-11-2008, 07:30 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Basil
07-11-2008, 08:26 PM
I find the 1955 clause interesting. Is that the legislated line in the sand or perhaps a 50 year rule slightly out of date?

eclectic
07-11-2008, 08:29 PM
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

ER
07-11-2008, 08:52 PM
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? :P
CAGLES

Kevin Bonham
07-11-2008, 09:21 PM
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.

Aaron Guthrie
07-11-2008, 09:32 PM
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?

eclectic
07-11-2008, 09:39 PM
Quoting in full is OK in these instances?

i presume articles in full would be better served by a direct link where possible?

Igor_Goldenberg
07-11-2008, 09:46 PM
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.

Kevin Bonham
07-11-2008, 09:57 PM
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.

Kevin Bonham
07-11-2008, 10:04 PM
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.

Aaron Guthrie
07-11-2008, 10:06 PM
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?

Desmond
07-11-2008, 11:20 PM
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.

Kevin Bonham
07-11-2008, 11:53 PM
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.

Kevin Bonham
08-11-2008, 12:00 AM
Can I get a link?

http://www.copyright.org.au/information/introduction/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.

Aaron Guthrie
08-11-2008, 12:27 AM
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.

Kevin Bonham
08-11-2008, 12:29 AM
seems to indicate that the degree to which the work is quoted depends upon whether the use is fair.

Yes. That is the same conclusion I had reached as discussed above - whether it is fair in the case of extended quoting appears to depend on (a) whether it is really necessary for your purpose to quote that much of it and (b) whether the copyright owner is harmed by you doing so.

Aaron Guthrie
08-11-2008, 12:48 AM
Yes. That is the same conclusion I had reached as discussed above - whether it is fair in the case of extended quoting appears to depend on (a) whether it is really necessary for your purpose to quote that much of it and (b) whether the copyright owner is harmed by you doing so.Oh, indeed so.

Denis_Jessop
08-11-2008, 11:21 AM
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.

Did the USA adopt 70 years under pressure from the Republican evangelical born again religious right on the basis that it represents a second lifetime? :P

DJ

Basil
08-11-2008, 08:46 PM
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.
Thank you.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-10-2010, 01:45 PM
Did the USA adopt 70 years under pressure from the Republican evangelical born again religious right on the basis that it represents a second lifetime? :P

DJ
Actually it was mostly a pressure from Walt Disney (hence it was termed "Mickey Mouse Protection Act"). The campaign was led by Republican Sonny Bono, but I doubt he was from "evangelical born again religious right".
Sorry to ruin the story.

antichrist
28-11-2010, 01:59 AM
Actually it was mostly a pressure from Walt Disney (hence it was termed "Mickey Mouse Protection Act"). The campaign was led by Republican Sonny Bono, but I doubt he was from "evangelical born again religious right".
Sorry to ruin the story.

Well Disney loses out in 3rd world countries from day one, everything pirated can be bought for 1 buck on the main streets. Sydney for ages too had that facility but a lot closed down and prosecuted.

Desmond
15-08-2012, 11:03 PM
http://www.pedestrian.tv/entertainment/news/anti-piracy-movie-ads-caught-using-pirated-music/60075.htm


You wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a handbag...

We all know how the rest goes, because thanks to the Motion Picture Association Of America and their foreign associates, every time you hire a DVD, you have to sit through this ad before you get to the main menu. But in what must be the most delicious slice of irony served this year, it has just been discovered that that the music used to soundtrack this 50-second pain in the ass is actually stolen.

Netherlands composer Melchior Rietveldt composed that ominous techno tune for a local film festival after being asked by anti-piracy group BREIN, who are funded by Hollywood. A few years later, he got himself a copy of Harry Potter on DVD and noticed his music was suddenly being used for much wider use than he had originally agreed to in contract. Which essentially means that when they say 'you wouldn't steal a television', that doesn't quite extend to intellectual property.

Legal estimates put the amount of money Rietveldt is owed by pretty much every movie house on Earth at somewhere close to 1 million. Matters got even worse when the chairman of the board of the royalty collection agency in the Netherlands offered to help recoup the funds - but only if he could take a 33% cut. It's bad timing particularly for the US, where the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is currently a hot topic for its intended transferral of responsibility for pirated from individuals back to small businesses and web hosts. After all, if they can't even look after their own ads, how can they expect anybody else to abide by the law?

Excuse us, we're just going out to steal a handbag.

Kevin Bonham
15-08-2012, 11:48 PM
Awesome! :lol:

Mrs Jono
16-08-2012, 03:41 PM
You wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a handbag...

LOL. I hate that spiel. At least here we only have one of several silent but still obnoxious FBI warnings.


After all, if they can't even look after their own ads, how can they expect anybody else to abide by the law?
That's a riot! I wonder if he first laughed at the irony.

Kevin Bonham
14-09-2013, 04:05 PM
I saw a comment from antichrist about Jono posting chunks of an article from the IPA site.

However the IPA site has a copyright announcement that explicitly allows doing so:

http://ipa.org.au/help/copyright

Nonetheless verbatim dragging of whole articles or unnecessarily long portions of articles from the IPA site or any other will probably result in snipping or deletion, especially if no comment on the article's content is posted.

Kevin Bonham
26-07-2017, 05:15 PM
Again there has been a creep-up in posters (one especially) posting large chunks of copyrighted and paywalled material from media without injecting significant original comment in the process.

I've been lenient and just cut a few of these down to size but copyright breach is illegal and not conducive to good debate either so for the next month or so I'll be deleting posts that are severe copyright breaches without warning.

A reminder that just taking out the odd sentence here and there is completely inadequate under the law. As a general rule you should not quote more than three paragraphs unless you meet one of the requirements in post 1.