TexasCHLforum.com

So now that we see individuals being sued for cross-posting copyrighted materials in their message board threads....
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=41186" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is there a recommended "clean" way to post reference material to avoid running into trouble like this as an individual poster?

I had always assumed that posting the link to the original article and stating "from xxxxx" was sufficient to give credit to the owner, but now it seems that "permission" is required from some sources..?

So I suppose that's 2 questions..
1. Is there a universal way to properly credit the original material copyright holder(s) and avoid any chance of infringement? or can we only post a link and refer to the original material only, without any copy/paste/quoting it?
2. If copyright holders cannot universally be satisfied by a generic cross-posting "credit", as some may reserve all rights, how do we tell which is which.?

Seems like "fair use" would protect an individual poster in most cases, but, not all?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#F ... States_law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RoyGBiv wrote:So now that we see individuals being sued for cross-posting copyrighted materials in their message board threads....

I don't think the problem is cross-posting. I think it's duplicating and distributing copyrighted material without permission. In essence, it's no different than posting a TV show to youtube or another online site without permission of the owner.

It looks like the defendants allegedly posted full articles so I don't think Fair Use applies. IANAIPL

This company recently had a case they filed dismissed based on Fair Use.

BNA* (Bureau of National Affairs) on of the largest (if not the largest) publisher of information appears to have a disdain for them as well:
http://ipcenter.bna.com/pic2/ip.nsf/id/ ... enDocument" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Back to the OP question, the only way to be safe is to not cross-post anything. However, if you do, (IMHO) insure you include the original source and only copy facts in the story not commentary.

*Disclaimer: BNA is a client.

Don't post the name of this company or a link to any of their websites!

I'm not about to offer legal advice on this issue, but here is what I would do. I will never post anything from this company or any of it's affiliates, whether in total or merely an excerpt. (Moderators will delete them if they are posted here on TexasCHLforum.) You can do a Google search and identify the companies "represented" by this entity. I will never link to any of those websites. I will never mention the names of any of the entities involved.

Chas.

I'll Post a related experience about [ IMG] picture from online somewhere [ / IMG]:
1
On a kayaking site I used that once, from a store, the store owner joined the forum and posted a complaint, I had him search on the forum for all the places I had directed people to buy products from him, even though on that one post I hadn't given a link to his site with his photo ... I agreed to edit my post, adding a link to his site, he saw how many customers he was getting that he just alienated, he posted a public apology, but requested that we link to his store site if we use his pictures..

Websites can see where their photos are being downloaded, but their page not getting a similar number of "hits"

I'm guessing that downloading the photo, and "attaching an upload" of THEIR image from your computer, OR downloading THEIR image and uploading it to your photobucket/tinypics etc and using [IMG } [ /IMG](either way) is also potentially a copyright violation redistributing (perhaps also easily caught if they Google and discover the same file names)

So, I'm unsure what proper protocol might be for using a commercial site's picture, say off of Cabeblas BassProp Academie etc, other than if a commercial site's image is used, to also link to their site

Just a thought.

2

If there is an Associated Press Release, which went to thousands of news sources, ... seems better to not link to an individual suit-happy newspaper ... maybe link to API? I mean it IS an API press release ... (so that suit happy newspaper gets fewer "hits" and less AD revenue)

By Sangria Angelo (fictitious name I made up, but you would credit the real authur)
The Associated Press
Posted: 05/7/1910 11:00:00 AM MDT
link to API instead of a suit generating newspaper

a tiny expert of text quoted so people go to that commercial site because they were interested ... creating more "hits" for their site and increasing ad revenue ...

advice? thoughts?

Here's something from 1996 about online pictures.
Background http://www.cs.rice.edu/~dwallach/dilbert/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Correspondence http://www.cs.rice.edu/~dwallach/dilber ... tters.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note: I'm not Dan but I have met Dan. He's well known in the computer security field and has been quoted by the Houston Chronicle and other media about electronic voting machines. AFAIK, he INAL.

As a blogger I never appreciated when folks linked to my images but not to my site. It is using my bandwidth, for which I don't score hits. At least when they download them and post the images they aren't using my bandwidth.

Liberty wrote:As a blogger I never appreciated when folks linked to my images but not to my site. It is using my bandwidth, for which I don't score hits. At least when they download them and post the images they aren't using my bandwidth.

That's one of the bigger issues.

Another is that for example I could give you a physical or electronic copy of a photo I took. That doesn't transfer copyright.

You cant make more copies of that image.
Here is another example

This is an image I took

Its also here
http://www.svtgalleries.net/gallery/sho ... -/cat/6166" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If you were to use that picture I would prefer that you use the second method. They both come from my server BUT the second one exposes you to banner ads that MIGHT earn me a penny or 2...

Im not saying that I agree with people using links and stealing Intellectual property or bandwidth. BUT
Im shocked that these days companies are wasting legal fees to track down links etc ...

RoyGBiv wrote:So now that we see individuals being sued for cross-posting copyrighted materials in their message board threads....
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=41186" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is there a recommended "clean" way to post reference material to avoid running into trouble like this as an individual poster?
.....

Well, for this forum there's rule #19. Those are good general guidelines for any forum.

As a side note, the Women & Guns message board has been down for some time.
"The message board is offline while we deal with some copyright issues. Sorry about the inconvenience."

One should always be careful when linking an image to a site you don't control. Years ago I found I was getting lots of hits off an image that I Posted on my site.. I changed the image to a crude discusting picture that would likely be offencive to any one. It took the bandwidth thief weeks and hundreds of hits before they deleted the link. They had the nerve to accuse to me illegally posting obcene material on their site ;)

A certain entity that will remain unnamed recently took one below the waterline when in one of their alleged copyright infringement lawsuits the federal judge not only tossed the suit, but ruled that a in certain cases a non-profit could post an entire article under the doctrine of "Fair Use," because doing so furthered the educational mission -- an argument that the defendents had not made themselves. I think the judge was trying to tell ...the entity... something.

If you are curious, searching on "Judge James Mahan" should bring up articles on the case. One commenter described this as an own goal by...er...that entity.

Very interesting.