Copyright Regulations

This message has been deleted by the author.

 

[imported_Reservoir Dog]

I've often wondered the same thing Warlock.
But as far as I can see it, if it doesn't cost us anything to visit a free web site, than why should we be penalised for doing so and copying articles and photos?
Afterall, it's not like people only cut-n-paste articles and photosfrom these sites. How many actually print out these articles and photosfor different projects and the sought?
But I'd like to hear from someone who has a more educated reply than mine.

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

I have a little knowledge on the subject of copyright, having had to seek permission to publish copyright material in the past.
Basically, copyright is automaticly given to the writer of material for a period of their lifetime + fifty years after their death. A breach of copyright occurs when you publish a 'substantial' part of the work without the copyright owners permission. Some people claim that less than 10% of a work can be published, but the copyright authorities say there is no fixed percentage for quotations - just a stipulation that the quote should not be either a 'substantial' part of the original work or make up a 'substantial' part of the new work. A breach of copyright also occurs when you reproduce any part of a work of another person and claim it as your own i.e. if you cut and paste an article without stating where it comes from or claim it is your own work.
Because copyright is automatic, these rules also apply to all our posts. Anyone cutting and pasteing any post would technically be in breach of the copyright belonging to the original poster.
Many of our practices are technically in breach of copyright but I doubt anyone would care too much about it. Most photocopying of original material by students in universities is also in breach of copyright (copyright precludes you from publishing or reproducing material except for less than 10% copying for study or 'non-substantial' parts for publication). The copyright legislation also alludes to 'reproducing material for financial gain' which none of us do.
To sum up - Because we don't do any of this for financial gain I don't think there would be much point in sueing us - but we should be very careful to always state our sources and attribute our quotes to the original writers, even quotes from other posters.
A good way to avoid this problem is to post a link to the original article instead of reproducing it. This would be perfectly legal I'm sure.
The most important thing is to always say where things come from. I think most copyright owners such as newspapers etc. would see us discussing their articles as good advertising.

 

This message has been deleted by the author.

 

[G@v]

I think we are venturing into uncharted territory as far as copyright laws are concerened The law highlighted by Roopy doesn't relate to this media. Legislation and contracts specifically controlling or licensing all forms of electronic use do not exist in any satisfactory form yet, and until there is no-one can say for sure how far creative property rights go in global electronic publishing.
However, since this website is the property of someone else (NineMSN), we can't afford to have too cavalier an attitude in this respect.

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

To do the whole thing properly the only thing that should have been posted would be the URL to the page where the article could be viewed and a short explanation of why people should read it. I think some publications can't be viewed this way and the Telegraph might be one of those.

Like I said before, technically it would be a breach of copyright but I doubt anyone would care as long as they are acknowledged.

 

[ozbash]

gav, msn have a disclaimer on the bottom of the front page.
maybe a good idea ifL.W.O.S had one as well ??what do you think?

i get a lot of stuff of a website called nzoom.com. i know one of the journos quite well and he suggested asking nzoom for permission to use their stuff on these footy forums.they were only too pleased and i think the editor was quite chuffed someone asked.i just mention where it comes from.

i think there can be a overkill on this copyright thing although reprinting a chapter from someones book or something quite major could see a person in strife....

 

[G@v]

Tony, would a disclaimer of our own really protect us? I'm not even sure if someone would be in any strife if they did breach any normal copyright laws, but then I aint no legal boffin.

 

[imported_bronco]

Reprinting chapters ozbash? Who would do a thing like that?

.

Cheers
bronco

 

[pepe]

warlock

you raise a good point about copyright regulations,however many members on this forum have raised issues on league only to find there post have pretty much appeared word for word in one of the national newspapers,journalists must find there work a hell of a lot more easier with the creation of these forums.

i know i raised a point on worl a few months back and surprise surprise it was in the daily tele the following day with every point i raised,perhaps it was a coincidence but you never know.

we have quality posters on legends such as roopy,mfc,willow,bronco,studebaker,bomber,gavbt(apologies to anyone i've forgot)who in my opinion leave most journos for dead with there knowledge of the game.

perhaps we should should start a weekly magazine such as league week,all we need nowis the capital,''legends league week'' has a good ring to it,we can do what we love best, sitting around on the pc and getting paid for it,sounds good to me,i can be the tea boy!!!

cheers pepe

 

This message has been deleted by the author.

 

[imported_bronco]

Please don't shove me in the brainiacs section pepe, my knowledge is pittiful compared to some of the posters on here. Its great to just sit back and learn from you guys.

I know the magazine idea is just like a pipe dream but why don't the forum members get together and start and online league magazine. There are some great writers on this and the WORL forum, i think an online mag would be pretty successful. Posters could have their own special column. In the end it would fail though because everything on the net comes down to competition but if it was just a little project for forum members to have a look at it would survive. Once you hit the main stream every league site wants to bring you down.

Cheers
bronco

 

[legend]

My knowledge of this area is also close to nil but I always thought it was essentially o.k so long as there was no monetary gain from the reproduced information. Anyway, i'm off to wash the Ferrari.

 

[Willow]

A handy website to visit is the Australian Copyright website at:
http://www.copyright.org.au
It's interesting to note that anything we paste from any other website (without permission) is probably in violation of Australian Copyright Laws. I guess that includes the paste I'm about to do below.
I can tell you all now that many of us have already broken the rules in various forums already. Personally, I don't think it's a major concern as long as the poster is not reproducing for commercial gain.
I am only posting what I think to be the relevant part of the guideline but the whole pdf document is available from the above website for $5.50 AUD.
Here it is:

What does copyright protect? In Australia, copyright law is contained in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and court decisions. Copyright protects a range of material, including: • written material (such as novels, poems, song lyrics, reports, instruction manuals and newspaper articles); • artistic works (such as drawings, paintings, and graphic art, as well as more technical works such as industrial photographs, buildings, design drawings, maps and plans); • musical works; • dramatic works (such as screenplays and choreography); • computer programs; • compilations (such as anthologies, directories and databases); • cinematograph films (such as feature films, television programs, television commercials and music videos); and • sound recordings (such as music or voice recorded on audio cassette or compact disc). It is unclear whether a website as a whole will have a separate copyright status (for example, as a compilation). What does copyright mean? Owners of copyright have the exclusive right to do certain things with their material. This means that anyone who wants to use copyright material in any of these ways may need the copyright owner’s permission. Activities which may require a copyright owner’s permission are: • reproducing the material (for example, printing, uploading to a website, downloading to a hard disk or floppy disk, caching, keying into a computer, scanning); • making the material public for the first time (for example, by making a work available on the Internet); • communicating the material to the public (for example, by making it available from a website or from a bulletin board or chat room, or emailing to people other than family or friends). Who owns copyright in a website? As noted above, it is unclear that a website, as a whole, will be protected by copyright as, for example, a compilation. The component parts, however, may be protected, and there may be numerous people who are owners of copyright in those component parts. For example, one person may own copyright in the graphics, another person may own copyright in the text, another person may own copyright in the compilation of material on the site and yet another person may own copyright in the navigation software.

 

[Willow]

It's pretty boring, I know, but here is NineMsn's policy:

<table border=0 cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 width="100%"> <tbody> <tr> <td bgcolor=#ffffff>Intellectual property and restrictions on use of Content on the Network</td></tr> <tr> <td>All information, text, material, graphics, software and advertisements on the Network ("Content") are Copyright ©1997-2001 ninemsn, its suppliers and/or licensors unless expressly indicated otherwise on the Network. The Content is protected by Australian and international copyright and trademark laws. Content on the Network is published in real-time, and you must not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, frame, upload to a third party, post, transmit or distribute this Content in any way except as expressly provided for on the Network or expressly authorised in writing by ninemsn or its Affiliates. Strictly on the condition that you keep all Content intact and in the same form as presented on the Network (including without limitation all copyright, trademark and other proprietary notices and all advertisements), you may: a) using an industry-standard Web browser, download and view the Content for your personal, non-commercial use, or b) if you are an Internet service and/or access provider, supply the Content to your subscriber. You must not use the Network in any manner or for any purpose which is unlawful or in any manner which violates any right of ninemsn or an Affiliate or which is prohibited by the Terms of Use.</td></tr></tbody></table>
We would have to talk to a legal expert to be sure but it looks very much like we're all doing this for non-commercial reasons so I think it would be highly unlikely that any organisation would target us. No one gets paid here, and that's the bottom line. I hope that covers it and we never have to discuss such along winded subject again... while typing this, my champagne went flat and all the caviar was eaten by the guests.!!