Steve, or Moderators: A Question About Links

Post by **_Rick_C** » Sat May 31, 2008 3:59 pm

I posted a short interview from a Beliefnet interview with N.T. Wright.
(And also provided the (Beliefnet) link to it).

It's on the thread: Resurrection: Physical or Spiritual?

As far as I know, I haven't "stolen" Beliefnet's article or, otherwise, done anything untoward or unethical.

If I've done anything wrong, it was not intentional and I'll make corrections and/or amendments, as required.

Could someone please clarify this matter?
Thanks in advance,

Post by **_Michelle** » Sat May 31, 2008 4:56 pm

This isn't a question about links, it's about fair use of copyrighted materials. I said that it is wrong to reprint a whole article without the copyright holder's permission, even if you cite the author and link back to the website where it was found. Rick disagrees.

Just thought I'd clarify.

Post by **_Rick_C** » Sat May 31, 2008 5:48 pm

Michelle,

I posted the article on the internet and did not reprint it.

Should I want to reprint it, like say, to make copies for a Sunday School class or something like that; I would probably need to ask Beliefnet's permission.

People do this routinely (even though it may not be legal (?), technically speaking).
E.g., I was once given an article (free of charge) which was reprinted as a handout for a Bible study. They had the URL link and author at the top (acknowledging they did not write or own it). Strictly legally speaking, they probably broke the law, unless they did ask for permission (and did not tell us)....

Copyright laws are about people making false claims of ownership.
If someone reprinted the Beliefnet article I linked to and posted -- (not reprinted!) -- and tried to sell and/or claim it was theirs....

Now, that would be illegal.

gtg

Post by **_Michelle** » Sat May 31, 2008 6:18 pm

*silently shakes*

Post by **_darin-houston** » Sat May 31, 2008 7:44 pm

As an intellectual property attorney, (though not giving legal advice, etc...), I can tell you that the copyright laws are pretty fuzzy in this area -- in general, I'd say if you're just sharing it with people, providing a link to it would be best as it's technically the same as "printing" it to post it in its entirety.

However, if you're posting it for commentary and discussion, and do provide criticism or analysis, etc., (we can't help ourselves but to do so around here, right?) then it's almost certainly fair use and protected by the first amendment, though that's sometimes a fine line. On sum, with attribution, it's probably relatively safe to do so, as there is clearly a general practice surrounding cross-posting blogs like that (particularly if a link is provided to the original content owner).

Just the nickel tour to a complicated and fuzzy area of the law. Much depends on context and norms here.

Post by **_Michelle** » Sat May 31, 2008 8:51 pm

OK, I stand corrected and publicly apologize for privately calling Rick unethical for posting that entire article. I'm sorry, I was wrong to do that.

Post by **_Michelle** » Sat May 31, 2008 9:10 pm

Darin,

This is a last ditch effort to make my case against posting entire articles on this site:

If the line is so fuzzy, wouldn't it be better to steer well clear of it? Wouldn't it behoove us to hold ourselves to a stricter interpretation of fair use than what is "relatively safe" in order not to breach that impossible-to-define line? I would rather never receive a cease and desist request than to have to admit I came too close to crossing that line.

When it comes to sharing articles we find at other websites which may be of interest to the members here, a summary of what the articles says, a small excerpt to give the flavor of the piece, and the link where the rest of the material can be found would be the best practice, I think. It actually might be more interesting than just posting the article with minimal criticism or analysis hastily tacked on to make it "legal."

I've avoided using the words ethical or stealing and I only used legal in quotation marks, but, really, wouldn't we look better, to ourselves as well as outsiders, if we were more concerned about the other guy's rights?

There. I've said my piece. I will now return to shaking silently in my desk chair whenever this comes up.

Post by **_darin-houston** » Sat May 31, 2008 9:45 pm

Michelle wrote:Darin,

This is a last ditch effort to make my case against posting entire articles on this site:

If the line is so fuzzy, wouldn't it be better to steer well clear of it? Wouldn't it behoove us to hold ourselves to a stricter interpretation of fair use than what is "relatively safe" in order not to breach that impossible-to-define line? I would rather never receive a cease and desist request than to have to admit I came too close to crossing that line.

When it comes to sharing articles we find at other websites which may be of interest to the members here, a summary of what the articles says, a small excerpt to give the flavor of the piece, and the link where the rest of the material can be found would be the best practice, I think. It actually might be more interesting than just posting the article with minimal criticism or analysis hastily tacked on to make it "legal."

I've avoided using the words ethical or stealing and I only used legal in quotation marks, but, really, wouldn't we look better, to ourselves as well as outsiders, if we were more concerned about the other guy's rights?

There. I've said my piece. I will now return to shaking silently in my desk chair whenever this comes up.

I understand what you're saying -- the problem is that it's so fuzzy, we couldn't do much at all online if we avoided any risk whatever. All I can say is that I've pasted a few articles here to comment on them and have little hesitation doing so. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Post by **_mattrose** » Sat May 31, 2008 11:40 pm

I'm a member of some bigger forums and the standard etiquette for message boards seems to be to post a 'small portion' of the article and provide the link to it. Like this...

www.whatever.com
In a recent survey, it was discovered that there is not much clarity in regards to whether or not we're allowed to post entire articles on a message board. Dr. John speculates that....

MORE

My advice would be 'better safe than sorry'
Besides, it's actually less work to post just a snippet

Post by **_Rick_C** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 1:11 am

Michelle,

Your apology is accepted, thank you,

Matt, et al,

In recent years with the upswing of blogging, "snippets" are commonly used (we see it all the time). True, they are convenient, but it makes for a lot of surfing "back & forth."

In the example from my Post No. 1, I could have posted less or done a short "snippet." (NOTE: I've just edited out part of the (entire) article).

What about my Post No. 1 here (?):
N.T. Wright: So What?
I gave the link, the author (NTW), etc., and typed out part of one of his audio lectures (which is not available in text that I know of). I could have posted much less. But again, how would I know if anyone listened to the lecture? Or if they heard the part I liked? I suppose they could post back and say they liked it, and say from what minute into the lecture---to what minute. But to discuss any of it...especially the part I liked a lot...it really had to be posted.

Due to a computer crash, I lost an entire folder with articles about the legalities of copyright, fair use, "posting quotes," etc., and have been been going on memory as far as the length of what can be posted and have forgotten how many words are considered "okay." I've been going by 2,000 words or less and honestly can't recall if this is right or not (though up till now, this has been my assumption). This was why I didn't feel like it was wrong to post Wright's article from Beliefnet: it's about 900 words (yet I've gone ahead and edited some of it out just now).....

Since joining FBFF I've given many quotes from articles (and personally typed out audios by Steve and Wright). I don't recall ever missing giving the link and attributing it to whom it is due.

Not real long ago, Steve was looking for the NTW "So What?" quote I posted. Its considerable length, which may be more than 2,000 words, didn't seem to be a problem to Steve nor to anyone else on the forum. Also, my other quotes on other topics are often fairly long.

Does anyone know if the 2,000 words is the acceptable standard? It might actually have been only 500 words...I honestly can't remember!

Darin,
You've seen several long quotes I've posted from NTW. I've been "okay" on that, in your opinion, right? (When I used to @ Beliefnet we did this all the time, up to 2,000 words, if I'm not mistaken. But that's been about four years ago now. I don't know, "the word limit" may have been 500?!?!)....

Btw, I've noticed that not everyone who posts here post quotes from other sites/articles/links. I've thought it may have been because they didn't know how or were, otherwise, not interested in doing it, or didn't want to put the little bit of extra work involved into it.

At any rate, maybe I'm behind the times these days? or have the number of words allowed wrong? or both?
I started a new job a week ago and have been kinda worn out lately....
But if I'm messing up...please let me know!
Thanks,