Copyright infringement

[john]

Hey

I have a question about copyright infringement...

Another site decided to add an extract of one of the Songstuff articles (about 3 large paragraphs) to their site without asking. They then added a link saying "if you want to read more visit Songstuff" with a link.

Ok this is a link to Songstuff, but there was no copyright notice, and no request to do this. My feeling is, this is copyright infringement. The site in question is more or less a blog that publishes the thoughts of one guy who quotes articles like this on a regular basis.

Content sites are really protective of their unique content, because it is what makes them unique. They normally have syndicated content, but not all, because it can depend on the arrangement with individual authors, or sites that have content sharing agreements.

Generally it's cool to quote articles (especially in print) like "according to", or "as found in", as long as you publish full article credit but I believe you still need approval for actual quotes, but I think the site owner in this case could get in trouble. I don't think he has intentionally set out to pinch content, but quoting whole sections without permission just seems wrong.

I contacted the guy to ask him to publish the full details for the extract that he had published including a copyright notice, and to warn him. I also asked him to let us know if he was planning on using an article in this way (which I think is reasonable, and legal). So now he removed the article completely and says he'll never refer to Songstuff again. Oh well. I didn't mean to offend the guy, and I thought what I asked was reasonable. Do you think I was wrong?

Cheers

John

[Steve]

It's a tough call! I think I would probably have been happy to have a link back to songstuff! If the article was only published in part, then the reader would have had to click the link. Not having seen the article, it's hard to say...

But you obviously blew it...

[ATom2]

Way to go John! The dude just contacted me and wants his 20 bucks back.

Sheesh!

[john]

[Lazz]

Interesting topic of debate.

Far as I know – not having specifically examined this kind of area – and not having seen the alleged offence in its context – this would seem prima facie to fall under the doctrine of ‘fair use’. This is a north american term, but there are euro-equivalents somewhere, somehow, I know. It means that literary reviewers, or those who submit scholarly papers before their peers, cultural pontificators (pop-reviewers) or the writer of any book of secondary commentary I guess, are allowed to quote from other sources.

How big a chunk are the allowed to quote? Buggered if I know. But there has to be some kind of legal rule of thumb governing the practice when it’s disputed. You say it was “3 large paragraphs”. Well, and with all due respect, guv’nah, I don’t recall an SS author who uses anything like large paragraphs. (Except maybe me. And of course if he’s quoting from my words all this changes and I’m sending him an invoice.) so maybe according to the operating conventions (of which I am ignorant) this is not such a big deal.

Do they have to ask permission? Again: I don’t know. It’s hard for me to imagine that this would be a requirement.. If it is, then we could both be in trouble: I used quotes in the articles I wrote here and never once sought permission. Never thought I had to. Honest. It was just “fair use”. If I had to write a letter everytime I wanted to lift a quote I would never find time to bring in the milk.

Should they notify you as a courtesy? There’s an argument for that, certainly. And yet again I have no idea what the governing conventions are in this regard. But, if my own failings are to be a guide, I’ll bet it’s observed more in the breach.

Do they have to give full article credit? Dunno. Expectations appear to vary. With scholarly papers and books, people have standard ways of listing everything down to specific page numbers for sources. And even then this data is stuffed up the back as notes or littered paranthetically through the text as footnotes. But if you’re trying to write a snappy zippy little article attempting to hold the attention of an illiterate rabble, then I think standards are applied less rigorously. (I mean, how many times a day have you seen quotations used in your regular newspaper without any reference at all to who they think they’re originally quoting?). In my own case, in the articles I wrote here, it is possible to figure out where my quotes came from if you’re really interested, but I sure don’t overtly identify the copyright holder in any fashion.

What I did where relevant was to link to my sources. Sometimes.

Evidently, this guy linked back to SongStuff.

Decent chap.

Do I think you were wrong?

Gee – there’s another stumper!

(Not being a lot of use to you tonight, am I?)

What do you think?

Was he over-reacting in throwing up his hands and saying “f*ck this for a game of soldiers, I’m not playing with you guys ever again”? – (a jocular figure of speech not intended as an actual quote) - or do you think you could have handled the encounter better?

Weird stuff – random rage on the internet high-way - a collision of doubts.

I've had a pile-up or two of my own - my sympathies.

[Didier]

Hi John,

I tend to agree mainly with Lazz.

One thing I can add is that "fair use" has specific rules on the Internet.

For instance you cannot, for instance copy and paste any picture from another website to your own web pages.

In a quick search, I couldn't find a good reference on these specific rules (which are often subject to controversy, anyway), but I did find a short introduction:

Copyright, plagiarism, security, netiquette

(Look at the bottom of the page)

You're not supposed to use somebody else's working without saying so (that is plagiarism).

This quote (and the one above) are from the source I mention.

Didier

[Nightwolf]

My thoughts:

I think the rule is as long as you don't post the whole thing and do include a link, it's cool. I consider that promotion, which is a good thing. It is a sticky wicket and I respect your decision.

[john]

Funnily enough the article quoted was the one about doing cover songs and what you are obliged to do by law.

I should also say that by "warn him" I meant that other sites he is doing this with might be less forgiving than to ask for a simple copyright statement and the addition of a mention for the author. Fair enough I thought.

I actually tend to agree with you all, or did until this happened. Once before someone reproduced a full article, with a small link to Songstuff placed amongst others at the bottom of the page. He hadn't asked for permission, and hadn't published any copyright notice, which just encourages people to pull the article from his site if they come upon it first.

There are other articles that have fairly long paragraphs. On this occasion I'd say it was about 10 - 12% of the article, filling half a page on his site. I asked him to either add a copyright notice, reduce it to a simple link, or he was unwilling to do this, remove it. I also asked that if he wanted to quote such large sections of an article in the future that he similarly publish the copyright notice, and drop us a line to let us know. He removed it.

I'm not hugely bothered. I think what I had asked for in the circumstances was pretty fair. I was pretty nice about it too. I thought you guys would have some interesting opinions.

I guess the post by Nigel about lyric sites being closed down, and they will be or they will come to a licensing agreement, made me think about it. Reproduction in full IS copyright infringement. Many authors on Songstuff insist on full copyright notices on their work. I am also aware of several sites currently being pursued by other sites for this very infringement. The trouble is search engines now devalue the uniqueness of sites if their content is duplicated, meaning lower listings in results.

Does taking a comma out of article then allow that article to reproduced without consideration for the copyright owner? Interesting one.

I guess the problem is exaserbated by sites like Songstuff that are content sites. We don't have a large income from multiple product lines, our uniqueness is in our content. If someone can just lift it, then they can rip the whole site like a CD. It has happened...

It is a difficult one. Several times similarish things have happened, and I've done nothing. For one reason or another I thought this one was worth tackling.

The trouble with this whole area is what "is acceptable" is a bit like "how long is a bit of string?". Look what happened when artists didn't credit the artists they sampled in the 80s and 90s. It's kind of the same neck of the woods. Remember Black Box "Ride on Time"? They lifted the entire song including the vocal performance, and gave zero credit to the original artist.

I do want promotion for Songstuff, but at what cost.

An interesting topic I think. A difficult one especially as it's not my area!

Cheers

John