Copying Content from other sources
-
@dustinb3403 said in Copying Content from other sources:
@penguinwrangler said in Copying Content from other sources:
Quoted from: https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use.
Which means, if we link to said insanity for our "I can't even" topic it's fair use since we are criticizing it. Which is protected under fair use!
Oh yes, and anything that is posted for review, to dispute, to record against abuse, all fair use for sure.
-
@penguinwrangler said in Copying Content from other sources:
Quoted from: https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use.
For copyright, material also has to be of significant creative work. Things like questions and simple answers are not copyrightable.
There is also a big legal grey area around conversations, if you are part of a conversation, it makes for a really weird copyright situation if you get to the point where copyright can be considered viable at all.
-
This bit right here on the fairuse link from above:
Nature of the copyrighted work: This factor analyzes the degree to which the work that was used relates to copyright’s purpose of encouraging creative expression. Thus, using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support a claim of a fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item). In addition, use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair.Literally states, anything factual in nature is often found as fair use when being "copied" compared to say, copying the Harry Potter books and posting them online as a PDF for everyone to read.
-
@penguinwrangler said in Copying Content from other sources:
@rojoloco said in Copying Content from other sources:
@penguinwrangler said in Copying Content from other sources:
Quoted from: https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use.
Golly, that sure sounds like the way we were "using" content from [the site that shall not be named]. I'd go so far as to say I believe everything on ML qualifies as "fair use" under that definition.
That is true, but Mangolassi.it would most likely have to prove that in court. Which I don't think it is worth it. That site is junk anyway.
So it would seem that [the site that shall not be named] engages in legal bullying to cover the incompetence and irrelevance of all their posts and their disciples. Clearly the almighty dollar has spoken, and the voice of reason and integrity was trampled underfoot.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Copying Content from other sources:
This bit right here on the fairuse link from above:
Nature of the copyrighted work: This factor analyzes the degree to which the work that was used relates to copyright’s purpose of encouraging creative expression. Thus, using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support a claim of a fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item). In addition, use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair.Literally states, anything factual in nature is often found as fair use when being "copies" compared to say, copying the Harry Potter books and posting them online as a PDF for everyone to read.
Yes, hence why questions and answers can't be copyrighted, basically. It's just information being posted, not creative content.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Copying Content from other sources:
@dustinb3403 said in Copying Content from other sources:
@penguinwrangler said in Copying Content from other sources:
Quoted from: https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use.
Which means, if we link to said insanity for our "I can't even" topic it's fair use since we are criticizing it. Which is protected under fair use!
Oh yes, and anything that is posted for review, to dispute, to record against abuse, all fair use for sure.
The issue is, would it be worth the court fight. Mangolassi.it would have to make that decision. I have worked in Legal IT now for almost 8 years and what I have learned is that courts are for the rich people. I can't honestly afford an attorney and if one side has a lot more money than the other they will drag it out to cost the other side too much money. This happened in my divorce. My ex-mother-in-law worked for a divorce attorney. I was a prison guard making 27,000 a year. They bankrupted me. Then did it a second time a few years later when I bought a "new" car that was already four years old. The one I had replaced had over 300,000 miles on it. The thinking was that I had too much money and so they were trying to raise my child support. My child support was set at 783 a month. Made my yearly income 17604 before taxes, health insurance, etc. My take home pay for two weeks was $385.
-
Actually, everything and anything posted by members on there is completely okay to do with whatever you want... you can reproduce, distribute, copy, etc... however you want. THis goes for all user-submitted content (User Content). Everybody agrees to this by posting on there. Here are the actual terms:
-
@penguinwrangler Divorces are for rich people.
Everyone else just buys cement boots.
-
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
Actually, everything and anything posted by members on there is completely okay to do with whatever you want... you can reproduce, distribute, copy, etc... however you want. THis goes for all user-submitted content (User Content). Everybody agrees to this by posting on there. Here are the actual terms:
Where did that come from? They have to T&C on the community.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Copying Content from other sources:
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
Actually, everything and anything posted by members on there is completely okay to do with whatever you want... you can reproduce, distribute, copy, etc... however you want. THis goes for all user-submitted content (User Content). Everybody agrees to this by posting on there. Here are the actual terms:
Where did that come from? They have to T&C on the community.
-
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
@scottalanmiller said in Copying Content from other sources:
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
Actually, everything and anything posted by members on there is completely okay to do with whatever you want... you can reproduce, distribute, copy, etc... however you want. THis goes for all user-submitted content (User Content). Everybody agrees to this by posting on there. Here are the actual terms:
Where did that come from? They have to T&C on the community.
That's not the community, that's the wrong site.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Copying Content from other sources:
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
@scottalanmiller said in Copying Content from other sources:
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
Actually, everything and anything posted by members on there is completely okay to do with whatever you want... you can reproduce, distribute, copy, etc... however you want. THis goes for all user-submitted content (User Content). Everybody agrees to this by posting on there. Here are the actual terms:
Where did that come from? They have to T&C on the community.
That's not the community, that's the wrong site.
It specifies at the top that it applies to the community... the site and any subdomain.
-
Here's the whole thing: https://pastebin.com/pWmG6J8p
It says in the top paragraph what the terms apply to.
-
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
@scottalanmiller said in Copying Content from other sources:
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
@scottalanmiller said in Copying Content from other sources:
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
Actually, everything and anything posted by members on there is completely okay to do with whatever you want... you can reproduce, distribute, copy, etc... however you want. THis goes for all user-submitted content (User Content). Everybody agrees to this by posting on there. Here are the actual terms:
Where did that come from? They have to T&C on the community.
That's not the community, that's the wrong site.
It specifies at the top that it applies to the community... the site and any subdomain.
It can specify that, but it doesn't do it. The community is NOT a subdomain of www. anything, and the community would have to reference it. You can't just hide a T&C off somewhere and act like it applies. That's a totally different site, that doesn't apply to the community.
-
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
It says in the top paragraph what the terms apply to.
Why then don't we post a new T&C here on ML and claim that it applies to the SW community?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Copying Content from other sources:
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
It says in the top paragraph what the terms apply to.
Why then don't we post a new T&C here on ML and claim that it applies to the SW community?
Because you can't do that on behalf of an entity you don't own. As far as I know, SW owns the SW community.
Either way... it either applies or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then they have no ToS and the whole thing is up in the air.
But it specifies what it applies to.
-
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
Here's the whole thing: https://pastebin.com/pWmG6J8p
It says in the top paragraph what the terms apply to.
Also, at the time of the paperwork in question, the T&C that you provided specifically said that the current T&C could be found elsewhere... and the link went to a 404 page. It had been like that and continued to be for some time. So there was no T&C.
Given that the T&C was removed from the community by Tabrez and ownership of the community was given to the community members in 2009, SW doesn't have the authority to publish T&C anyway. There is nothing to prompt anyone to agree to T&C terms since we were relieved of them in 2009. On top of that, that there were none, enforces that none existed or apply.
-
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
@scottalanmiller said in Copying Content from other sources:
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
It says in the top paragraph what the terms apply to.
Why then don't we post a new T&C here on ML and claim that it applies to the SW community?
Because you can't do that on behalf of an entity you don't own. As far as I know, SW owns the SW community.
As far as you know. But it isn't on the website in question, and nothing makes you agree to it to use it or informs you about it. It's a random peer domain with no direct association with the community.
You can't just go to some OTHER website, and find a T&C, and use that. That was my point.
-
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
Either way... it either applies or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then they have no ToS and the whole thing is up in the air.
But it specifies what it applies to.
It can't apply to the community, as it doesn't even claim to. It only applies to subdomains under www, and then only if there is something that informs you of the T&C.
The community was given ownership of itself by SW so T&C cannot exist for it because of Tabrez' deal with the community. SW gave up any rights to having a T&C in 2009 - for the community. They can certainly have it for their corporate page or app, those are completely separate things. And that's the one you produced.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Copying Content from other sources:
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
@scottalanmiller said in Copying Content from other sources:
@tim_g said in Copying Content from other sources:
It says in the top paragraph what the terms apply to.
Why then don't we post a new T&C here on ML and claim that it applies to the SW community?
Because you can't do that on behalf of an entity you don't own. As far as I know, SW owns the SW community.
As far as you know. But it isn't on the website in question, and nothing makes you agree to it to use it or informs you about it. It's a random peer domain with no direct association with the community.
You can't just go to some OTHER website, and find a T&C, and use that. That was my point.
When you create an account on SW in order to post content, those are the terms listed that you agree to by creating an account.
THere is no other way around it, and no other place to get any Terms.
