 |
 |
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 ===============