| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Copyright Laws | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Tuesday, 17. July 2007, 12:09 (625 Views) | |
| Clare | Wednesday, 18. July 2007, 11:27 Post #16 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
And what if there's an interesting, news-worthy article on a site that the forum might not want to link to? Cyberforum might not want to direct people to some sites! Clare. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Wednesday, 18. July 2007, 12:21 Post #17 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Clare I can't be bothered with this. Its a matter of either using yer loaf or asking Mummy. :D We've explained the position. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Em. | Wednesday, 18. July 2007, 13:34 Post #18 |
|
If an article was written by a freelance he holds the copyright. If the paper bought the artivcle outright then the paper owns the copyright and the aughter have no saying. I have taken pictures in my time and released them to picture agencies, the copright remain ed mine. There were times that I sold that copyright (silly) and the copyright passed to the publisher an they owned the copyright. When I wascommissioned to take a picture, they copyright was not the photograper's but the magazine/paper/commissioner. |
|
Divine Mercy | |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Wednesday, 18. July 2007, 19:43 Post #19 |
|
Rose: I can appreciate and understand what you are saying on all the above. But still feel there is something not quite right here. Books and articles in the Press are different - aren't they. An author gets his reward by virtue of royalties in the case of a book. Whereas I would have thought an article writer in the Press gets his payment by way of a fee. If you don't agree with something - say heresy - how can you comment on it when your comment isn't necessarily published by the paper concerned. And can you really copyright opinion? And is there a difference between pasting on a photo-copy of the whole page from a paper, and that of re-typing the words out yourself? The whole thing seems very difficult and if you don't mind my saying it - orientated to money as usual. PJD |
![]() |
|
| Jamie | Wednesday, 18. July 2007, 21:29 Post #20 |
|
Perhaps as a professional journalist - and I have been a staffer, a freelance and a partner in an independent features agency - I can clarify things for you PJD. First of all it might be easier to think of an "article" as "property" - intellectual property certainly, but no less the result of a sweat, thought and creativity, for example, than a painting - or a brick wall. Labourers are all worthy of their hire. In the case of a staffer employed on a paper, he exchanges the security of a job and a weekly wage for his "copyright" which passes to the newspaper - while still retaining the moral right to claim the work as his own. Also staff journalists very often work to an editorial brief or commision from someone else, so cannot claim that their "idea" is entirely originated by them. In the case of a freelancer, he usually originates a story himself, and only assigns the right to the publisher of a particular article for a single use whilst retaining the copyright himself - usually hoping to sell it a second time, perhaps to another form of media (the web maybe) or perhaps to syndicate it abroad. So I have often been in the position where I have sold a piece to an editor, and then been able to claim a second bite at the same cherry when my work has appeared in a compilation for example. And for that reason if no other I'd be pretty fed up if my work appeared all over the place without my permission because it would devalue it. The reason papers may not allow articles to be published is partly to do with the fact that the paper does not own the copyright and therefore cannot give permission, and frankly doesn't have the time or interest in sorting out the necessary permissions. Also as Rose says editors want to direct people to their own websites to encourage advertising revenue etc It is always permitted in law for short extracts to be quoted for the purposes of criticism or discussion with the correct credits given - but it would make no difference whether you lifted the whole article from the web or simply re-typed it - you would in effect be stealing someone else's intellectual property. And you aren't allowed to do that, any more than you are allowed to steal milk from doorsteps - just because it is left lying around, it still belongs to someone..... But there is no copyright in ideas - only in the form of words used to express those ideas - so there is no reason why you shouldn't summarise an article "I saw a great piece to today's Times where the Pope spoke out against etc etc" and then direct readers to the piece. What you cannot legally do without permission is copy the lot...... And yes it is down to money - if papers didn't make any, they would cease to exist ...... |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Wednesday, 18. July 2007, 22:03 Post #21 |
|
I'm obliged to you Jamie for that information. Really I am. PJD |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Wednesday, 18. July 2007, 22:55 Post #22 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Thank you, Jamie. That clarifies matters. I personally cannot see a problem. I can post a small chunk of text, to draw members' attention to the complete article, say something about it, and give a link. Commenting on the article is discussion. Just copying it and saying nothing, is not (to me) discussion or conversation. Apart from the fact that they won't let me make the laws, it seems common sense to be fair on authors and publishers. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Wednesday, 18. July 2007, 23:26 Post #23 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
It isn't the same at all. On the internet, things are there to read for free already. I do not pay for each blog or newspaper website I look at! If I did, I could appreciate that I would be taking something that wasn't "up for grabs". What would count as stealing intellectual property, would be to quote someone else, and to pass his work off as your own. But to quote an article (even in full), that is freely available, and give it full credit, and a link to where you found it (which may not be where it originally came from anyway!) is not akin to stealing milk. Clare. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Eve | Thursday, 19. July 2007, 00:04 Post #24 |
|
Former Admin/Moderator
|
We have all had the opportunity to contribute to this discussion. I propose closing this thread tomorrow morning, so we can concentrate on Catholic discussion. |
| Howdy Folks. Has anybody seen my husband lately? | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Thursday, 19. July 2007, 01:06 Post #25 |
![]()
Administrator
|
We are talking about the law, and respects for the wishes of media website owners, not the Ten Commandments. That's my final word on the matter. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Jamie | Thursday, 19. July 2007, 08:37 Post #26 |
|
As Rose so rightly says Clare the law on copyright is the law and whether you agree with it or not is frankly immaterial....remind me who said something about "rendering to Caesar?...." You simply have no more right to post someone else's written work here, there and everywhere than you have to download their music for free, not least because by doing so you may be materially damaging their financial interest and that of their publishers...... However I think we must assume that this is just one of those times when you are being wilfully silly so I prescribe smacked legs and a period of silent reflection sitting on the naughty step...... And since there is nothing more to be said on the subject, I would also back Eve's suggestion that this particular discussion should close. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2





3:42 PM Jul 11