Menopause Matters Forum
Forum Guide and News => Forum Guide => Topic started by: Hurdity on November 02, 2015, 08:19:29 AM
-
Hi Emma
Please could you give some clarification about copyright issues?
A member recently posted a complete article written by a journalist from a health website, inadvertently without including any quotes, nor a link, nor anything to indicate that it was not her own words. This was subsequently picked up by other members who provided the link and then pointed out the copyright issues – which then led to some er... discussion, but it looks like the issue was not resolved completely.
As I (and others) frequently post extracts from all sorts of sources (with links and quotes as well as chunks of the information) we need clarification please on the position with respect to press/journalist articles.
The Forum Registration agreement says this:
You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or you have consent from the owner of the copyrighted material.
The section of the Forum guidelines “Information for Members†states this:
Members are kindly requested to give references (eg links) to any health/medical information they provide, when it is not personal experience. Personal experience is anything the person has undergone himself/herself.
My understanding of this is pretty clear – we must credit any authors of anything that is reproduced from elsewhere and also give links (as long as it is not a commercial link) but what is not clear is how far we can actually reproduce articles (rather than just link to them).
I imagine that we can freely extract sections from scientific papers and abstracts etc, as well as public/charity scientific organisations such as BMS, or NHS etc provided that it is clear where it is from? However is it OK to reproduce press/journalist articles provided they are in quotes and a link given or does copyright preclude any reproduction? Perhaps this just applies to entire article eg we sometimes include quotes (ie reproduce whole sections) from relevant online newspaper article, rather than the whole article?
Your clarification of this would be appreciated as it would be helpful to many of us. Thanks.
Hurdity
-
Prajna - It should be clear from my post that I am not asking about that particular case nor Care2, but the general principle of what is permitted. It shouldn't be necessary to argue about this - I am just asking for general clarification re press articles for my own purposes in future - because it isn't clear to me, from the rules nor from the thread and this might be helpful to others.
Hurdity x
-
Come on Prajna....you should know full well what post Hurdity is referring to you were very involved in the discussion/arguement.....
-
I'm sure Prajna does.....
It was my post.....I messaged Emma and she hasn't replied leading me to think if it was urgent then she would have done by now.
This was no surprise to me when I logged on this morning ::)
-
Look, as a result of the other thread I deliberately posted a genuine general question on a new thread here because I did not want to add to the argument on that thread - because it's not to do with that, but arose as a result of that.
In this context, I don't give two hoots about Care2 nor the specific article about magnesium, nor the argument on that thread - that's finished and done with - but I would personally like clarification - because these issues were raised.
Hurdity
-
It would be good to know what types of copied/pasted elements we CAN include within our posts.
So far, sometimes I have;
- Put quotes around pasted sections
- Included a url link
Is this sufficient or is something else needed?
In particular, what is the situation with Wikipedia?
I had assumed that given it is "a free online encyclopaedia" there would be no problem in copying/pasting from it, is this correct?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/16612794
-
The problem I have is no one has to my knowledge has encountered problems before. The only time I've seen anything removed is if it has a direct link to buy.
Don't we think we are taking things just a little too seriously here. We are a little forum....who is really going to bother what a group of women are posting in an informal way.
I guess now there is going to have to be some clarification here but I think it's something and nothing to be honest......and I wish I had never copied and pasted the information that I did.....look at all the problems it has caused.
I really hope we don't put off more people due to being a bit pedantic.
Of course that is just my personal opinion.
I have asked my daughter for the name of the site she uses as a plagiarism checker.....think I might start running my posts through that ::) ;D
Honeybun
X
-
Sorry I thought Care 2was a separate posting altogether, oh sigh...all too much for a Monday morning, I agree with HB my gran would have called it splitting hairs....
-
It's really difficult to find out the legal position regarding this. I found a copy of one of my mum's poems on a website which didn't include her name. I contacted the owner of the site who was really apologetic and credited it to my mum. I found it to be upsetting that they had used her words but not mentioned her. With copy and paste I think that as long as you do mention that this article was written by.... then that is the polite thing to do. If you post a link then this should be fine as the name of the author should be there anyway. Tricky subject.
Taz x
-
Every piece of work has an author but down the years it is not possible to keep track of who wrote the piece, i.e. The Rainbow Bridge and If It Should Be as 'anon'.
In many books that I read the author will state that if anyone has a problem with quotes or photographs that it will be acknowledged when the book goes to the next Print Run. Can't be fairer than that.
-
The T&Cs of the use of that website
http://www.care2.com/help/general/tos.html
Point 6 - YOUR CONDUCT
6TH BULLET POINT DOWN
upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any party.
Copyright infringement is uploading, posting, emailing, transmitting anything which was written by someone else on the site which is not credited to the author.
The website belongs to and is edited by Melissa Beyer. That information is on the site as is this.
My initial post was mean to be helpful and I am sorry for hijacking Hurdity's genuine request for clarification.
The bullying on this forum is out of order. It's clear that most people here don't understand copyright and the way it works, it's not worth trying to explain it to people who just want to be unpleasant. I won't be posting again as I can't be arsed with the silly attitudes of some women here.
-
Regardless of the copyright debate, from reading your posts on that thread alone I speak only for myself when I say I am happy you wont be posting again.
I have been looking and posting on here for quite some time and have found it helpful and supportive and feel you werent being considerate to others views and the respectful culture on this forum.
Hurdity apologies if you dont find this relevant to your original post.
Linsey
-
Phew ;) ………. I don't know why that particular person thought she should contribute to MM but seemed to be pushing her views …...
-
A troll perhaps.
Have to admit I did wonder as she never introduced herself as most newbies do to let us know a bit about her.
Something was not right.
Oh well, it would seem I dodged the bullets......now can we please just resume normal sensible service in the way we have been doing for years.
Women having a chat in a friendly way and not getting bogged down.
Honeybun
X
-
:peace:
-
I was away last week and missed the fun over this - as someone who works in publications, I think the issue here was simply the lack of quote marks in the original magnesium posting, so that you might have thought it was the poster who had this level of knowledge/was making the recommendation.
But it was pretty clear that this was what had happened. Cock up rather than conspiracy! And of course it's always helpful to other users to say where something came from...
Personally, I'd say this was about clarity rather than copyright.
-
Thank you
Honeyb
x
-
;D
That's made my day...
After 30+ years in the trade I feel pretty bloody ancient.
-
Ooh that wasn't a gripe. Nice to be accused of wisdom! ;D
-
;D
-
Have you had any response to your question yet Hurdity.
My iPad is still playing up a bit so I wondered if I had missed any response.
Given the fact it was down to me that this issue was brought up I am interested to know if we have had any formal guidance or perhaps the replies have indicated we are sorting it out for ourselves.
Honeybun
-
Lack of response - silence can be deafening. We can sort this Girls ;)
-
CLKD - we can't necessarily sort out what's allowed or not.
Honeybun - Er... not yet.
I presume in the absence of advice to the contrary then whatever has been extracted from the forum rules, and what The Duchess and ancient runner said ie give the source of anything we quote, use quotes around the extract, credit the author and give a link if possilble - then that's OK.
The specific Q of whether it's OK (even when the above guidelines are adhered to) to actually reproduce part or all of press articles where the author is listed (in contrast to scientific studies, public info websites etc) - has not been clarified. I guess it means that those who write for a living don't get royalties if their work is reproduced even if they are credited, unlike with music, but probably difficult to determine this on the internet.
Therefore I will assume that it is OK (to reproduce part or all of articles) - but as above quotes, author and link.
Hurdity x
-
So as I thought...not a shooting offence.....whew.....I was getting worried there ;)
Honeybun
-
Obviously you are not going to get admonished for reproducing one article, and we have already established that the author should have been credited and the article put in quotes - which was the original point which led to the argument! It was the general principle I was seeking clarification about - since this has been raised.
All I said was in the absence of additional advice to the contrary we can assume that we can carry on - provided we use quotes, and credit an author. It doesn't mean that copyright has not been breached - because it clearly says we mustn't use copyrighted material in the forum rules and on most websites where articles appear these will be copyright either of the website or of the author: "You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or you have consent from the owner of the copyrighted material."
However I imagine that this forum along with some others ( although I have come across some where quoted stuff has been removed by mods) is turning a blind eye because in practice it would be a full-time job to police and no-one is using the material for personal gain - rather for education.
Ha! I've just found this which I think is self-explanatory - but implies that despite the copyright rule for this forum - such use of material can count as an exception - provided that the author and source is credited:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright
Non-commercial research and private study
You are allowed to copy limited extracts of works when the use is non-commercial research or private study, but you must be genuinely studying (like you would if you were taking a college course). Such use is only permitted when it is ‘fair dealing' and copying the whole work would not generally be considered fair dealing.
Criticism, review and reporting current events
Fair dealing for criticism, review or quotation is allowed for any type of copyright work. Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of reporting current events is allowed for any type of copyright work other than a photograph. In each of these cases, a sufficient acknowledgment will be required.
Sufficient acknowledgment
In relation to certain exceptions, if you are making use of that exception to copy someone else's work it is necessary for you to sufficiently acknowledge their work. For example, where you have copied all or a substantial part of a work for the purposes of criticism or review, or where the use was for the purposes of news reporting.
However such acknowledgment is not required where it is impossible for reasons of practicality.
Fair dealing
Certain exceptions only apply if the use of the work is a ‘fair dealing'. For example, the exceptions relating to research and private study, criticism or review, or news reporting.
‘Fair dealing' is a legal term used to establish whether a use of copyright material is lawful or whether it infringes copyright. There is no statutory definition of fair dealing - it will always be a matter of fact, degree and impression in each case. The question to be asked is: how would a fair-minded and honest person have dealt with the work?
Factors that have been identified by the courts as relevant in determining whether a particular dealing with a work is fair include:
does using the work affect the market for the original work? If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, causing the owner to lose revenue, then it is not likely to be fair
is the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate? Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? Usually only part of a work may be used
The relative importance of any one factor will vary according to the case in hand and the type of dealing in question.
Interestingly it is a situation that is not cut and dried and according to the above relies on the interpretation of "Fair-Dealing"! Having found this information I feel confident that I can continue as before - ie quoting extracts from articles and papers provided the source is credited.
Hurdity x
-
It would seem so.
I have to admit I did wonder how on earth the forum would cope if every little quote had go be checked......who has time for that.
So yes a bit of a fuss over not a lot and now back to normal. :)
Honeyb
x
-
It would be a bit pointless too - if you look at the stuff that is sent round on social media. It is impossible to police these days - all we can do is say where we saw the material we are quoting.