Copyright issues - important

Post Reply New Topic

discussion on song lyrics and copyright:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.a ... /12/6/2017

article about same
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051209-5730.html

actual copyright information
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp

discussion of why posting lyrics is illegal, that it can't be stopped and why people who post lyrics aren't prosecuted (basically because they aren't making any money from it)
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum89/10886.htm

you can post parts of a song without violating copyright but if you post the whole song you are in violation. However, it is unlikely that anyone will come after you, especially if you give credit and are not making money.
there is also the ability to use a copy of something for educational purposes, but i am less clear about that aspect of the copyright law.

no chocolate please, hyper enough already

As far as I'm aware, the lack of a copyright notice doesn't mean the item isn't protected by copyright law. Normally, copyright stays with the author unless they specifically enter into some contract that states otherwise. Generally, you should assume that any material — images, text etc. — is protected under copyright, and not copy, disseminate, or act on information contained therein, unless you have specific permission or are quoting short properly attributed excerpts. I think there's an exception where material is considered to be "in the public domain". That would cover stuff like some poetry and song lyrics, which have been around for donkey's years, and most people know verbatim, anyway.

Last edited by ascan on 14 Jan 2006, 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hyperman and ascan - thanks much for that; it's really useful. (and saved me spending ages looking it all up). consider yourselves inundated with plentiful supplies of chocolate.

Vetivert -

It is quite permissible under US law to publish copyrighted work under very liberal "fair use" conditions, which include "news reporting" and "nonprofit educational purposes." Many established alternative news sites post complete articles including even material from paid subscription sites. However, they are careful to add a notice like this, which truthout.org prints under every copyright article: "In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes."

commondreams.org publishes this "Fair Use Notice" on every page: "This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner."

The phrase "distributed... to those who have expressed a prior interest" does not cover a requirement under the actual legal code, but results, as I understand it, from the law having been tested in court. Simply being on the site and clicking on the link is the expression of prior interest.

Here is the relevant section of US law, at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

U.S. Code TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

(end of § 107)

In the matter of song lyrics: hundreds of websites publish complete lyrics for tens of thousands of artists - you bet without paying copyright - and a handful who were making big bucks have been stopped. But that's entirely different from their use on a site such as WP, where members post them under the fair use of "criticism or comment" (just posting the song implies "I like it" = fair comment). IMHO it is absolutely out of the question that WP would suffer any legal comeback for such use - even the site ripping off both the copyright holders and iTunes cited by hyperman above was not sued, but served by Apple with a cease-and-desist (i.e. stop it) order.

I think members posting copyright material should be asked to include "(C) year, name of copyright holder" (although this is not a requirement of § 107). The following notice, adapted from that used by commondreams.org, should cover WP if posted fairly prominently on the home page (or in tiny print on every page, as commondreams.org does):

"This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in our efforts to advance understanding of Asperger's Syndrome, Autism, ADHD, and other PDDs. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner."

WrongPlanet.net being a US site, US law applies. Members elsewhere should remember that their own law may differ. For example, in the UK the law is broadly the same, but excludes the making of multiple copies for classroom use. Which doesn't stop it being done in every school every day.

Er... btw, I'm not a lawyer, merely an observer of standard internet practice.

Thank you, Vivi, for your work for Wrong Planet.
__________________________________________
Mr Bumble (in Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens): "The law is a ass - a idiot"
Mr Humble: "... but U.S.C. Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 107 seems sensible enough"

you're welcome.

and thank you for all that information - it's still sloshing around in my head at the moment, but i'll make sense of it soon enough (i hope).

Vivi

For what its worth, when I was teaching, I wasnt "allowed" because of copyright to play more than 30 seconds of a song to a class with out permission. However, at that time, I did find a loophole so I could use song lyrics in a poetry unit I was doing. As long as I wasnt making a profit, and I gave FULL credit to writers, and preformers, I could use the lyrics for EDUCATIONAL purposes. The biggest one that was not loophole avoidable, and it had something to do with trademarks, was any thing that Disney produced. I was not allowed to show, play or copy ANYTHING that disney had their hands on for more than 10 people, or for more than 2 thirty second clips in a school year. this was what they held us to for ALL things, and the libraryan was none too pleased when I produced a the documents that amounted to my loophole from above. It was no different than copying a poem and giving proper credit. Now had we been PREFORMING the songs, for profit or not, that would have been a very different ball game. With news related articles I was able to use copies again so long as I gave full credit to the writer AND to the paper from which I obtained it. You remember in school, the whole MLA documenting on the works cited page.... But mutliple pages in books had to be approved for multpile copies. I could also make ONE back-up disk of anything I owned so long as it wasnt for profit or distrabution.
I think "for profit" is often the key element. Because this site has ads there could come into play a legal question there.
But that aside, most companies arent going to come after you for posting something so long as you give full credit. I said MOST. the ones that do, like Disney, are vicious and have plenty of money and lawyers to do what ever they please.

Sorry Alex, but copying an entire article is not covered by fair use and is most certainly a copyright violation. Fair use only allows for small (and the emphasis is on small) extracts.

In the majority of western countries copyright automatically exists once a work is created. The only time you can be sure about using something off the net is if it categorically says it is public domain.

This is a big issue with journals, magazines and newspapers at the moment, and you should expect to see a crack down on this over the next few years similar to the file sharing cases that are happening with music right now. (I've been writing for newspapers and magazines for several years as a freelancer, and this is a common topic of conversation with publishing management.)

thanks for that, curiousprimate.

links only then please, folks.

I have just posted after a long while of silence (and not viziting the forum for a few months) a few news articals, but now, after reading this thread, you have my compliance, no more news articals from me unless its just a link.
good day.
and
good luck WP.

This was clearly designed with print media in mind, and not the internet - since, if something (such as the contents of many news websites, eg http://news.bbc.co.uk or www.guardian.co.uk (my 2 main news sources)) is freely available online (without requiring registration), then copying and pasting it in a forum isn't causing any loss to the publisher - in fact, arguably it's the opposite, since it's saving their bandwidth (and potentially also money, tho probably minuscule amounts) by having people read it here rather than go there...

I can't imagine a news site in those circumstances possibly objecting to or complaining about their (free) content being reproduced on forums...

On some other forums i post/have posted on there is actually a forum rule that, when posting threads to discuss news stories, you should post the whole story rather than just posting a link, since content on many news websites (altho i believe not the BBC and Guardian sites mentioned above) gets moved or deleted after a period of time... a notable example of a forum with this rule is www.forteantimes.com/forum , and as that site is owned by a major UK news/magazines publisher i would presume they don't see that as a problematic legal issue...

As a writer and journalist I can say, categorically, that there are at least two American newspapers with an online presence who actively pursue fora and web sites which re-use their material.

The BBC news site does have a copyright note at the bottom of every page and at the bottom of the printable pages. It is a clear violation of the copyright to re-use it without permission.

The Guardian runs ads on its pages, every time you take someone away from their site you are stealing potential page views, which is what the advertisers are paying the site for.

People, however, will always justify stealing other peoples material - hell, I've even had to have Wikipedia remove copies of my articles.

Anything posted on wikipedia is open. We are its contributers.

" Just re-write the term's and condition's to use the loop hole in law - of not been responsible for the content of this site yada yada yada term use... "

if they don't want it pasted they should lock it from been pasted....

Also is it ok to take a certain part of it and paste not the hole as people tend to, have to be given instructions on where to go in the article..