I know we post full-length articles and pictures here all the time and I was wondering if (a) that is a copyright violation, and (b) if it were a violation, has anyone on the internet EVER gotten in trouble over it. People post full-length articles all the time; they do it in their forums, on their personal websites, in their blogs, etc. What is the guideline for this type of thing. I'm interested not only in what is appilcable to our actions here on Clutch (which should be a softer standard b/c this is a non-profit site), but in what guidelines are in general for all websites (including for-profit sites).
Per most forums Terms of Service agreements (that think you don't read when you sign up, you just click the box and go on) it usually states that the user is responsible for what he or she posts, so the sites themselves are covered. However, I know many online publications love it when you post articles as long as you link back to the original, because it increases their traffic flow...
Yes, very true last line. That is the reason why magazine subscriptions are so cheap in comparison to shelf price,and why newspapers are given almost freely to sellers. It increases ad eyes.
That's cool. I love Clutch and xanga (a blogging community), so I would hate to get them into trouble. But does that mean if I posted something from New York Times and they get pissed, they can ask Clutch and Xanga for my personal info, and they will (or have to) comply? Sounds like posting articles is a win-win situation. But if we post the entire article, what is the incentive to click on the link to the original?
Most people click back to verify it's authenticity... if you browse these forums enough you'll run across people who post an article and mention the source but forget the link back, but the first couple of replies to it go "link?!" or something of that nature. With that said, no publication in their right mind would ever sue you for simply posting their article in it's entirety... especially when you aren't making a profit off of it and if you link back to them... many online publications embrace this fact with RSS (really simple syndication) feeds of their entire site... all major US news networks have RSS feeds.
I think the issue came up before in congress, and they had to decide if owners of written works should have control over where and how their work was distributed. They never added it to the copyright code so unless there is some type of agreement on distribution of a particular article, there is no infringement. I'm taking copyright now and this question came up a few weeks ago.
As much as I like to see my work being read by message board posters, and the subsequent "this queer's a moron" replies that follow, it's a real killer to see your entire article cut and pasted on a thread. All the work you put into it, all the work that follows by editors and design people, the ads the go up, the bylines, the photos/bylines that make the page worth looking at -- all for naught as your words get compressed into 8-point type, with a quote function. The reason that most sites don't charge for content, or newspapers that don't charge for articles, is because of ads. They pay our bills and make the venture possible. To see the message boards work around that sucks balls. Even worse is when the posters cut and paste the actual ads into their post, that just looks stupid. As someone who has seen his stuff get torn apart on boards and newsgroups since 1997, I've quite a bit more to say on the subject, but I'll let these poorly-written musings stand for now.
The main problem I see is the folks that post articles verbatim from sources like ESPN Insider. Posting those articles clearly violate the TOS.
