Weblogs and Fair Use? 22
CBNobi asks: "Most large news distribution sites do not archive news articles after a certain period of time. Being a weblog 'author', I sometimes write editorials in response to the articles. It is difficult for my rants to stay relevant when I end up linking to a dead page. I've read the fair use laws, but is vague on digital storage. So, my question is - how do fair use laws apply to the digital setting, where it is non-profit, but can be seen by others? (Or alternatively - is there a public, digital archive of news stories?) I find it odd that it is [usually] fine to link to news stories, but it becomes copyright infringement once it becomes impossible."
Re:Thank you (Score:1)
'blog' sounds like some sort of unpleasant bowel movement. It has to be one of the most horrible abbreviations I've ever heard.
Weblog is a much better choice, and also makes a lot more sense to those who aren't familiar with 'blogging' (once again, doesn't that sound like something you'd do on the toilet?).
Ugh.
Sort of like abandonware (Score:1)
It should be a part of your fair use rights, but IANAL, so you should probably check with one.
Re:Sort of like abandonware (Score:1)
I think you might be missing a distinction (Score:3, Insightful)
Digital archive? (Score:1)
Have you tried the Google Cache [google.com] to find what your looking for? Or, alternatively, the Wayback Machine [archive.org]? I'm sure you'll be able to find what you're looking for between those two sites.
Re:Digital archive? (Score:3, Interesting)
As someone who spent 8 years as a programmer in a library, I too am confused by the double standard - we paid a small fee for NY Times microfiche/microfilm, but let our patrons view it for free.
That is basicly what some news sites do now: for a small fee, you can access their archives. However, because you, the payer of this service, are not considered a library, you aren't given rights to freely make available that which you pay for.
This is a case where the traditional ways to make archives available for free [via a library] will hopefully change to take advantage of the digital life we all live in now. Someone, wayback machine, google cache, etc, should be able to purchase archives of news articles for the express purpose of making them freely available to folks on the 'net.
Don't get in the way of their $$$ (Score:3, Interesting)
If you start interfering with their cash flow, you might be hearing from them.
Funny enough, this stuff is still free in a library.
Common Dreams (Score:2)
Alexa (and google?) (Score:1)
Quote relevant portions (Score:2, Insightful)
Usenet (Score:1, Interesting)
The laws (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL either, but I study this stuff in my spare time and try to read the law fairly, rather then twisting it around. Most notably, the rulings have been that all of the four guidelines must be met satisfactorily for a use to be considered fair use; it is not enough to claim that your use is non-commercial and try to ignore 2-4. The judge must take all factors into account.
The reason the law seems vague is because it is only saying what the guidelines consider. It has been left to the judicial system to nail down exact guidelines. To get a precise idea of what those guidelines are, you'd have to consult reams of case law and try to apply them to your situation.
However, in my non-lawyerly opinion, that is unnecessary in this case, because archiving the articles is quite clearly in the wrong. You are probably OK for the first guideline, because your weblog is probably non-commercial and might even be considered educational, depending on how you use it. Two is ambiguous in this situation, so we might as well throw it out... because guidelines three and four finish it for you.
By saving a copy of the work, you are "using" the whole work, which is the worst sort of infringement possible. And I think most judges would rule that you are adversely affecting the commercial value of the work, since people will choose to read your copy rather then paying the newspaper a fee for archive retrieval. Combine those two factors together, and you are on the wrong end of the exact thing that copyright law is meant to protect, which is the value of the work. (I emphasize "law" because in theory, we are trying to maximize the value to society. The law practically accomplishes this (or not, depending on your opinion) by trying to protect the work's value to the copyright holder.)
Basically, it's not even close to fair use.
Now, let me tell you what is fair use. In a weblog, it is rare for you to really respond to the whole article. Typically, a paragraph or two adequately captures the point you wish to make. . . it may not cover it completely, but it should do. You can take a paragraph or two (assuming that the article is not merely a paragraph or two!) and copy that into your post, which I frequently do myself. To ensure my protection, plus as a service to my readers, I frequently will even cut the paragraph down until it says just what I want to respond to, frequently chopping more then half the paragraph out. The less you use, the safer you are.
Here's a recent example [jerf.org] in my weblog; just a single paragraph that allows me to make my points without grabbing the whole article.
This is, by the way, the "canonical" fair use example, which is quoting a small (!) snippet for the purpose of editorial comment or review. Again, IANAL, but I feel quite confident that nobody can sue me because of my weblog. (And it IS an IP weblog, of sorts...)
I strongly recommend this practice, instead of trying to save the whole article. I also recommend learning how to correctly quote parts of articles by using ellipses and square brackets (as seen in that example).
Re:The laws (Score:1)
Interesting. I have another example: I try to link to articles related to roller skating on my site, Roller-Skate.org [roller-skate.org].
I have one article listed now that was run by the Washington Post several months ago. It just gives a little information about skating in the DC area, and I'd like to copy the article and put it on the site. I'm not replying to it in any way, just pointing it out for others to see. Unfortunately, the way the Washington Post's rules read, I can't get permission to copy it and put it on my site. (I e-mailed them and asked, but I never got a response back.)
I'm not trying to make money on the article or anything like that. I just want to have it available to others. Guess I'm out of luck once they remove the link (which reminds me, I should check whether it still works).
--RJ
Re:The laws (Score:3, Informative)
Under the law, yes.
I forgot to add my caveat that I don't necessarily like or believe that law is the best possible law. I think it's badly broken. But when trying to avoid being sued, it's best to read the law correctly, even if you don't like it.
Re:The laws (Score:2)
you're copacetic. Just use the text in chunks,
one smidgen at a time. For example, by using a
Javascript pop-up to quote the pertinent passage
in every instance. In this way, it's not usable
as an alternative source of the original for
general readership, and by segmentation each
relevant reference is reduced to an appropriately
small part of the original -- however, I tend to
think that the original is not the article to which
you are responding, but rather the whole of the
website, which gives you a lot more slack.
You have fair use when... (Score:3, Informative)
Just include the vital quotes in your article. As long as you are not ripping the whole article you will be fine. So says...
Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
Just paraphrase. (Score:1)