Hi,

>if there is no profit involved and the copying is for private use
>i cannot see that there would be a problem

Unfortunately, this is not the case. It is illegal to forward something
from a wire service like Reuters to PARKINSN without getting permission
from them. This is one reason why I don't forward these very useful
articles to PDNEWS :-)

We (NIP) have a newsfeed from ClariNews, which carries material from a
whole load of wire services. It is expensive - and we are charged on a
per-user basis. There's a lot of money in this stuff.

One of the things that is starting to happen with PDNEWS
(http://james.parkinsons.org.uk/pdnews.htm) is organisations are sending
their press releases straight to me for redistribution, which means I can
send them to the list without a problem.

I could mail the wire services asking for permission do redistribute
relevant items, although I doubt they would let me do it for free. I
haven't done so yet because I might draw attention to PARKINSN, and I
didn't want to cause anyone a problem.

There was a thread on List-Managers (mailing list for people running
mailing lists) about this a while ago. The agreement was "don't do it,
don't allow it". I include some snips from that thread at the end of this
mail.

Sorry to be a spoil sport, but the law's the law.

For a brief introduction to the issue of copyrights, especially in cyberspace,
see http://www.clarinet.com/brad/copymyths.html.


Simon



From [log in to unmask]
>It is one thing to quote from the article but it is another thing to
>reproduce it without the permission of the copyright holder.  The
>wire services are adamant that reposting their news stories without
>permission is a violation of their copyright unless you first have
>permission. So I would not allow posting of copyrighted news stories
>on your mailing list unless you have permission from the copyright
>holder in hand.


From [log in to unmask]
>I (or my list subscribers) have on occasion sought permission from the
>copyright holder to repost copyrighted material, and I know of a few sports
>lists that have arrangements with the local media to do that on a regular
>basis.


From Chuq Von Rospach <[log in to unmask]> who runs all the Apple lists.
>We do not allow it. First time offenders get warned, multiple-offenders
>get nuked. It's not legal (it's always amusing to see the "do not
>redistribute...." footers show up on the mail), and I know of cases
>where lists have been shut down because they got nailed by the group
>the material's been grabbed from.


From [log in to unmask]
>All texts are copyrighted until they fall into the public domain, so I
>won't use the term "copyrighted" as you did to refer to published works
>owned by a news agency.
>
>It is definately breaking copyright laws for anyone to post something they
>didn't write without either the permission of the copyright holder (the
>author unless stated otherwise...in the case of the news orgs, they are the
>copyright holders) or reposting that falls under "fair use."  Fair use is
>often abused but generally means it's okay to quote small bits of
>something.
>
>There are other exceptions in common practice.  Like most people do not
>object if you repost something they've written elsewhere if it's not
>personal.  As long as you don't claim authorship.  And of course you can
>quote someone's post in full if you are responding to it.  The law here is
>somewhat uncertain (and my knowledge of it even more uncertain).
>
>What is clear, however, is that news agencies get pretty pissed off if
>their articles are republished (taht includes usenet groups and mailing
>lists) without express permission.  And the law is in their favor.
>
>The rule on my mailing list is no reprints of articles you didn't write,
>unless you get permission from the copyright holder (exceptions for things
>that are clearly announments, like info on conferences or new lists, or
>messages that say, "please distribute this").  They must then state that
>permission in the first line of the post.  When a message that violates
>this rule comes through anyway, I don't put it in the archives and I
>contact the poster.
>
>I tell people they should summerize the article (and/or provide short
>quotes) and then give a full reference to it.  An on-line ref is even
>better. Frankly, I don't worry about the "articles" that are only a
>paragraph or so long and have even sent some of those myself on occaision.
>
>Everysoften you will get someone who constantly forwards posts from other
>mailing lists as well as news agency items.  That's when I really crack
>down.  I read them the riot act for copyright (and privacy, when it
>concerns people's personal posts to other lists) infringement.  I don't
>think I've ever failed to get someone to stop.
>
>I think it does enrich a list to have occainsional full reprints of
>articles so this strict policy of mine can put a damper on it.  But I think
>about how much I'd hate it if *my* work got sent places without my
>permission.  There are times when bending (or breaking) the law is a
>reasonable thing...this is not one of them.

--------- My opinions are my own, NIP's opinions are theirs ----------
Simon J. Coles                                 Email: [log in to unmask]
New Information Paradigms                  Work Phone: +44 1344 778783
http://www.nipltd.com/                     Work Fax:   +44 1344 772510
=============== Life is too precious to take seriously ===============