Hi folks,

There's been some questions about posting copyrighted material on the site. We are in the process of getting clarification from an attorney on what is permissible and what is not.

In the mean time, we believe that it is NOT acceptable to post an entire copyrighted article into the forums. Posting a brief excerpt from an article for discussion purposes which includes a link to the main article would most likely be considered fair use and consequently is acceptable.

We are in the process of reflecting this in the rules, but for now, please adhere to the following rule:

No Copyrighted Material

Information copyrighted or owned by any individual or entity other than the member should not be posted on the discussion forums or software libraries without the consent of the owner. If such an event occurs, the individual posting the information shall be held solely responsible. JustSayHi, nor Next Dating LLC shall not be held responsible for member-posted information that may violate copyright law.

You cannot legally post entire articles or news in the forum without permission from the copyright holder. Even if you attribute the article correctly it's still copyright infringement. Copyright law does not care if you make any money off of the work or not. What matters is if you hurt the potential income of the copyright holder. In this case you would be depriving them of ad revenue and it is illegal. Under Fair Use provisions you can legally post a small abstract of an article - or perhaps the opening paragraph. So if you want to post an article you should do this and include a link, or just post the link. The exception to this rule is press releases; press releases are meant for distribution and can be copied and distributed as much as you want. If you are not sure if you can copy something then always err on the side of caution and simply post a link to the material.


Thanks everyone for your cooperation.

Mike

word for word is not, it's considered plagiarism. If you would like to post a joke/article, put it into your own words!

Plagarizing is claiming it as your own. Copying and pasting the whole article with authors name on it is not plagarizing. Copywrite laws do apply though.

Thanks Mike

for jokes, the author is not posted unless it is a private site, however, a copy write symbol is usually present at the bottom of the screen...i.e. - plagiarizing

Plagiarism is different from copyright infringement. While both terms may apply to a particular act, they emphasize different aspects of the transgression. Copyright infringement is a violation of the rights of the copyright holder, when material is used without the copyright holder's consent. On the other hand, plagiarism is concerned with the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation that is achieved through false claims of authorship.

ok...how about because they are the rules of the site??? copyright or not

Thanks for the information Mike. I will take sole responsability for anything I paste that is outside of"fair use"

There was a misunderstanding on what constitutes copywrite infringement, many on here were under the impression that as long as it was for discussion purposes and not altered or claimed as their own then the copywrite rules were being followed. Obviously, as I found out through research yesterday this is not true with some sites but posting excerpts and the link is clear on public blogs and forums. I believe it will also be found that some publications will be more lenient then others but best to be safe than sorry.

Again thanks Mike for all your time and consideration of this matter. We appreciate all the mods and your work to help us out.

the conservative mindset is one that is rigid in its thinking and a stickler for rules and regulations. Most progresive websites state they are "fair use" and activly promote this as long as you provide a link back to them. I am glad JSH is takeing that into consideration and am pleased at how professional the moderators are. thank you ladies and gentleman

The exception to this rule is press releases; press releases are meant for distribution and can be copied and distributed as much as you want.

Keyword, press release!!??

Every world news article out there that is of any account is released by the AP (associated Press)

Once bought by a TV network, cable, newspaper, etc. it is released free to the public! It should then be public domain, common knowledge! Therefore does it fall within legal boundries to post!! with links!!!

AP???

AP (Associated Press) articles are not press releases. You are not free to reprint them, so therefore, our rules on copyrighted materials applies to AP articles as well.

In all technicality acording to us copyright standards once a work has been created it is legally copyrighted. It there for makes it illegal to distribute, all or in part to a public venue. The technicaly means unless the auther has put in a disclaimer of rights, ie stating that the article can be distributed freely, even when you give the auther credit you are still breaking the copyright.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#501

I have e-mailed the AP asking them if I broke a law. I included a reprint of my post and I will let you know what they say!
According to this info from adj's post above I have violated no laws. What I did was completely legal!!


§ 506. Criminal offenses4
(a) Criminal Infringement. —

(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

(2) Evidence. — For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.

(3) Definition. — In this subsection, the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” means —

(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution —

(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and

(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or

(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture —

(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and

(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.

(b) Forfeiture and Destruction. — When any person is convicted of any violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of conviction shall, in addition to the penalty therein prescribed, order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all infringing copies or phonorecords and all implements, devices, or equipment used in the manufacture of such infringing copies or phonorecords.

(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(e) False Representation. — Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(f) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Nothing in this section applies to infringement of the rights conferred by section 106A(a).

It was not reprinted for commercial profit.
No profits were made and the article was far from being reprinted in its entirety.

well if ya want to get totally weird about it

then saying

coke pepsi chevy ford breyers tom and jerrys just say hi

are copyright violations according to some that have complianed in the threads

after all

http://www.justsayhi.com/topic/show/102169

those that do not own the copyright (do they have the right to say it is being infringed upon)

it sure would cut down on sales of things

Let's all just respect the word of Mike, who co founded this FREE site, & wait until he tells us the results of the legal consult, which, I am sure is NOT FREE. Thank you Mike.

Yup. He gets the final word. Thank you for addressing the matter.

I agree, looking forward to hear what mike says.

I hope no one thinks that just because they are "willing to take responsibility" for possible violations, that they can just keep on copy'n'pasting at will - they may draw fire to the site (ie lawsuit) despite their willingness to take responsibility.

thanks, some posts have been quite confusing, OP's post entire article without giving credit to writer or where the information comes from.

An excerpt of article, link and opinion should be posted instead of only cutting and pasting article.

jmo