Quoting from Other Sources

[Guest fountainhall]

I have failed to find an old thread which related to how direct quotes from newspapers, magazines and other publications should be treated on this Board.

 

About year or more ago, one of GT's regular posters suggested that it was against copyright law to reprint complete articles and this could lay the Board owners open to legal action. Whilst unlikely in the case of international publications, it is less so when quoting complete articles from Thai newspapers and magazines.

 

If I remember correctly, it was agreed with the moderators at the time that -

 

- articles should never be quoted in their entirety;

- when making direct quotes from an article posters must use the 'quote' icon;

- a summary can be provided of that part of the article which is not quoted;

- a hyperlink be added at the end so that posters can read the complete article if they wish.

 

Personally, I hope the quote icon can always be used, as it makes the difference very clear between what is being quoted and the comments of a poster.

[Guest JamesBarnes]

Dear fountainhall,

 

I have no objection to articles from OUT iT appearing here as long as credit is given to the magazine and I agree that quotation marks are essential to establish what is and what is not part of the original material.

 

Best wishes,

 

James.

[Bob]

As long as the poster in whatever way makes it clear that an article (or part of an article) is not his own and clearly attributes the source, I really don't see any problem or issue here. The only issue I've seen regarding this is on a couple of other boards where the same poster would fail to attribute the source of his comments (it wasn't hard to tell he was doing that as his own spelling and grammar was atrocious).

[Guest]

As long as the poster in whatever way makes it clear that an article (or part of an article) is not his own and clearly attributes the source, I really don't see any problem or issue here. The only issue I've seen regarding this is on a couple of other boards where the same poster would fail to attribute the source of his comments (it wasn't hard to tell he was doing that as his own spelling and grammar was atrocious).

That's correct morally. However we also have to consider copyright law & some newspapers are very clear about discouraging reproduction of their articles. It is always possible they may prosecute, in cases where they are entitled to.

[Bob]

That's correct morally. However we also have to consider copyright law & some newspapers are very clear about discouraging reproduction of their articles. It is always possible they may prosecute, in cases where they are entitled to.

 

While we're at it, what particular "law" does anyone want to argue is applicable here? UK law, US law, Thai law, or what?

 

In the US we have what's called the Fair Use Doctrine and that basically provides that quoting parts of a work for a non-commerical purpose and/or for criticism is usually exempt from copyright infringment. There are four factors to consider and one of them is whether you've reproduced the entirety of an article (which, on it's face, indicates it always safer NOT to quote an entire article - but, given we can link articles here, there would be no good purpose in doing that here in the first place in my view).

 

Admittedly, there isn't enough space here to cover all the aspects of the doctrine and, if you're interested and think US law would apply in the first place, then maybe you should google it and review the topic at your leisure.

[Guest fountainhall]

That's correct morally. However we also have to consider copyright law & some newspapers are very clear about discouraging reproduction of their articles. It is always possible they may prosecute, in cases where they are entitled to.

Copying an excerpt from an article from the Financial Times this morning for another thread, for the first time ever I noticed this appear when I pasted the excerpt -

 

Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/29ed5658-6ab6-11e0-80a1-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1MZoctt2O

The key point here in respect of a site like Gay Thailand is, I suggest, the phrase "limited extracts." Whether the parent company of a newspaper like the Financial Times would even consider wasting time to even talk about legal action against the Board is probably immaterial. What is I think slightly more possible is a right-wing anti-gay organisation going to law 'to make an example'. We know there are crazies out there with loads of cash. However, improbable, I do suggest the Board reverts to the policy agreed some time last year that excerpts are always printed in quotation marks, never printed in full, and a hyperlink inserted for those who wish to read the entire article.

[bkkguy]

About year or more ago, one of GT's regular posters suggested that it was against copyright law to reprint complete articles and this could lay the Board owners open to legal action.

 

I know better than to go down that path again, the threads you refer to are:

 

Peace Talks

 

Posting of news articles

 

these posts include links to the Bangkok Post's Republishing Policy (and most news web sites have a similar policy posted) and the U.S. Copyright Office's definition of "Fair Use" along with a lot of other information and miss-information and as I have nothing new to add to the debate I will leave it to individual posters and the moderators to make their own decision on the topic

 

bkkguy

[TotallyOz]

BKKguy: A brilliant guy wrote this post there.

 

"There is a thread on the site that has ventured off subject into the area of Fair Use for posting newspaper articles. I have been reading the thread and stayed out of it until I spoke to my friends in NYC (where I just happen to know a lot of crooks and lawyers).

 

I just finished my conversation with a lawyer in USA. He said that few cases ever appear of Copyright Infringement where someone posts from a newspaper, but that it is possible and more papers are starting to pursue this. His firm deals with this on a regular basis and he said he has never seen a suit from a nNewspaper that would sue a site like ours as we are very small potatoes. That said, he did say that if they choose to sue, while they would not win, it would be very costly to pursue on our side and thus make the outcome irrelevant.

 

He said the appropriate way to make these posts are to take a segment (approximately half of an article or less) and post it with a link that says something like, For the remaining article see:

 

This creates incentive for users to go to the original source.

 

Lastly, he said that if the above is done and there are comments on the content of the article from the original poster, there is no court that would ever see this as infringing on their rights.

 

Naturally, he is referring to the laws in the USA and not Thailand."