http://www.americanlegends.info

If you want to do this just go to my blog and in one of the comments just write your blog name and the URL and I will add it to my site.

Thanks,
David

We’ve broached the subject before, but this is the first time you gave your rationale for reprinting complete articles from other web sites. First, I find it intriguing because I sysop an online board where this kind of issue arises from time to time. And I find it intriguing the way digital content is somehowed viewed differently by people than printed content, though the copyright provisions may be identical. The fair use section of the copyright law, as you know, lists 4 factors to be considered, and whether you’re making money on it is but one. Obviously, your usage fits the bill in that regard. But it also considers how much of the content you use in relation to the whole (in your case, you printed it in full), and the effect of the market for or value of the work. In that latter case, I suppose CNET could argue that the news content they create draws people to their site, where their advertisers ads can be seen.

In any event, CNET, as do newspapers, expressly prohibits the public display of their content without permission. They seem willing to give permission for things like this, but not before you assure them you’ll use the specific credit line they designed for such a thing. They go so far as to say, “CNET Networks does not allow the reposting of its online content (including video, audio, text, graphics, layout, and code) on a Web site or public discussion board except in the case of a specific licensing agreement…”

Again, I know it’s moot since it’s a common practice, and rarely enforced, but I was genuinely curious to know how an attorney with an interest in copyright — and an oft-stated disdain for pirates like Google — justifies the wholesale reproduction of copyrighted material without permission.

As mentioned, run a discussion group (http://community.netscape.com/civilwar), where this issue comes into play sometimes. I have been quite strict with people about not reprinting news items in full, even if attributed to the source. I thought you might have some legal insight that would contradict the rule I’ve been enforcing all these years.

David

“They are demanding unbundled media, sold everywhere and in myriad assortments. Period. And if Viacom won’t provide it then some new media entrepreneurs will,” writes author Paul Kredosky. Maybe. But it’s the right of the Viacom’s of the world to determine how best to give THEIR customer what they want, and in a profitable manner. It is not the right of the YouTube’s to tell Viacom how the latter’s intellectual property will be disseminated.

From my little ACW author perspective, this is the equivalent of some guy offering up for free to the public a digital handful of key pages from an author’s latest work. Perhaps it’s the summary or a crucial part of the story that utilizes a lot of previously unseen ms. sources. In any event, he’s making money from the sidebar advertising and the creator/owner of the property gets squat. Not a good thing.

Paul

The answer is that what I do here constitutes fair use. This is not a commercial site, the use of the material has no commercial or profit motive, and it is used solely for purposes of education. As you will note, everything is fully and properly attributed.

The Google stuff, by comparison, is a for-profit venture that has no plausible argument that it falls into fair use. The book scanning project is more defensible, but there is no argument whatsoever that You Tube constitutes fair use.

This is not the first time we’ve had an exchange over this issue, and I’m really curious what it is about that you find so intriguing.

Eric

Please believe me, I’m not trying to be insulting or start an argument — the issue of intellectual property rights in the internet era fascinates me. What I’m curious about, from a legal, copyright standpoint, is what differentiates the Viacom/YouTube complaint from the very commonplace internet reproduction of copyrighted materials like the CNET article you reprinted in full in this particular blog entry.

In other words, is it a question of value that prompts enforcement — whether someone stands to profit from the infringement (which is one element of plagiarism law)? Is it the digital aspect? Obviously no one would take a report from magazine or newspaper and reproduce it in full in another print publication without permission.

This is a complicated, evolving period in the area of permissions. You being an attorney, with some focus on copyright law (I think I read somewhere), I am curious to know where you draw the line in this era of easy digital reproduction.

David