Comments regarding copyrighted material policy
Close
Login to Your Account
Likes Likes:  0
Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    8,201
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    746
    Likes (Received)
    1103

    Exclamation Comments regarding copyrighted material policy

    The following policy is effective immediately:

    The posting of copyrighted material from other sites is a problem because it has the potential to create an unwanted liability for the owner of Practical Machinist. In plain terms, it's illegal.

    Post links to the sites where the original material appears if you wish to reference some news article or other publication. That way, anyone who cares to can read it legally. If you post a link, please click on it once your post is up and make sure the link is valid.

    This includes not only current news such as the New York Times article on debt interest, but material from ALL copyrighted books, magazines, and newspapers. ALL works created after the DMCA became law in 1998 are copyrighted, no exceptions. No copyright notice or © is required.

    You may summarize or paraphrase a published work, but don't quote verbatim. Any such quotes will be deleted.

    An exception exists if permission to quote is obtained from the copyright holder in advance, and that fact is noted in the post.

    Everyone's cooperation is appreciated, and this policy will be enforced without exception.

    Information regarding copyright is available at the US Copyright Office website www.copyright.gov

    - Leigh
    Last edited by The real Leigh; 12-03-2009 at 04:55 PM. Reason: Clarifications - highlighted in red

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    5,458
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The real Leigh View Post
    , but don't quote verbatim. Any such quotes will be deleted.
    Only problem I see with that, is that you just broke the rule. I think you have infringed on Metlmunchr’s copy write, by plagiarizing him directly, and not providing the source reference.
    http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/showthread.php/copyrighted-material-policy-192977.html

    I believe you said so, yourself, in the above link.
    I just posted the same policy almost verbatim

    Looks pretty verbatim to me. Feel free to delete yourself.

    Don’t have a cow, I’m just kidding with you. (note the triple smilies)

    Personally, I think it’s a good policy. If I don’t have to read the entire library of congress dumped in here by Machine Head61, and the like. Or what ever took the fancy of Dr. Stan, TMT etc, whilst they waited for their coffee to cool each morning, and thought it would be mandatory reading for the rest of us. That will be a good thing.

    Regards Phil.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    8,201
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    746
    Likes (Received)
    1103

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by machtool View Post
    Only problem I see with that, is that you just broke the rule. I think you have infringed on Metlmunchr’s copy write, by plagiarizing him directly, and not providing the source reference.
    Nice try, but... no

    In this case copyright vests in the site, not in the individual author, so this was just a copy from one section of the copyright holder's compendium to another.

    - Leigh

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    5,458
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The real Leigh View Post
    In this case the copyright is vested in the site, not in the individual author, so this was just a copy from one section to another of the copyright holder's compendium.

    Now I’m more confused than ever.

    I read this some place on the internet, so I know it must be true.
    ALL works are copyright to the author/publisher at the time the work is created.

    I wont bother quoting the reference, because you know you wrote it. Its in the link above. According to your own statement, wouldn’t Metl, as the author own the copyright, not the Site as you just alleged?

    Regards Phil.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    8,201
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    746
    Likes (Received)
    1103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machtool View Post
    According to your own statement, wouldn’t Metl, as the author own the copyright, not the Site as you just alleged?
    The site is the "publisher".

    Posts in a forum are conceptually the same as articles in a magazine or letters to the editor. The magazine retains copyright to same in the absence of a statement to the contrary, such as "Author retains copyright to this material" or some such.

    There's also a statement somewhere in the membership agreement that copyright vests in the site. That's pretty standard boiler plate for websites.

    - Leigh

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Arizona
    Posts
    3,554
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    777
    Likes (Received)
    468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The real Leigh View Post
    The following policy is effective immediately:

    If I may ask, who's policy is this? If it is Milicron's policy, then it should probably be posted site-wide, rather than in one of the less frequently used forums.

    Quote Originally Posted by The real Leigh View Post
    The posting of copyrighted material from other sites is a problem because it has the potential to create an unwanted liability for the owner of Practical Machinist. In plain terms, it's illegal.
    While I applaud your concern about copyright liability, it seems to be based on a misunderstanding of copyright law, in particular fair use of copyrighted material. U.S. Copyright law specifically allows fair use of copyrighted material. Fair use is covered by 17 U.S.C. § 107. Here is the entirety of that section:
    § 107 · 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 by 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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
    1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
    3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

    http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf
    An excellent discussion of fair use can be found at the Stanford University Libraries Web site: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html

    The quote that JHOLLAND1 (JH) posted in this thread:
    http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/showthread.php/metrology-carrier-shaft-tapers-192143.html

    is a good example of fair use (which is exactly what the editor said when JH contacted him). Let’s analyze the post against the four fair use factors:
    1. The purpose and character of the use was to promote criticism of and comment on a metrology method. There is no question that the community here at PM benefited from the discussion of the method, that the discussion benefited from the limited use of the copyrighted material, and that the quoted work was enhanced by the commentary.
    2. As JH noted, the work was already fully available online. His use was consistent with the nature of the copyrighted work. Further, there was no easy way to point a reader directly to the portion of the on-line article JH wished to discuss; attempting to do so could have confused the discussion. (If you doubt this, try and find the quote using the link provided by JH.)
    3. JH quoted two paragraphs from a one page discussion, buried in the middle of a four page article. The heart of the discussion was the use of Faro Technologies’ Laser Tracker to perform the same inspection task. The method JH wished to discuss was mentioned in the article to introduce the Faro device and illustrate cost savings; it was not the focus of the article.
    4. The use made by JH in no way detracted from the potential market for or value of the copyrighted material. Quite the opposite: Publications like CTE derive much of their revenue from articles that promote items such as the Faro device and from the number of subscribers that can attract. JH’s use had the potential to attract new subscribers to CTE and potential customers to Faro. I think one would be hard pressed to argue that the limited use here deprived CTE of income or affected their ability to use their copyrighted material.
    Quote Originally Posted by The real Leigh View Post
    Post links to the sites where the original material appears if you wish to reference some news article or other publication. That way, anyone who cares to can read it legally. If you post a link, please click on it once your post is up and make sure the link is valid.

    This includes not only current news such as the New York Times article on debt interest, but material from ALL copyrighted books, magazines, and newspapers. ALL works are copyrighted, no exceptions. No copyright notice or © is required.
    While this is essentially correct for most new documents, it is not true in general. All works are NOT copyrighted. For example, copyright protection is not available for ANY work of the U.S. Government, by law (17 U.S.C. § 105). Under early U.S. copyright law, if a publisher did not do certain things, such as include required copyright notification within the document, copyright protection did not automatically exist, as it does now. Works published before March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice ARE NOT covered by copyright protection.

    All copyrights expire with time. Works with an expired copyright are “in the public domain” and may be used freely. Anything published in the U.S. prior to 1923 and some works published prior to 1964 (and later) are in the public domain and may legally be used freely by anyone, for any purpose. Many unpublished works became public domain on 1/1/2003 (17 U.S.C. § 105).

    Anyone here may legally quote, copy, reprint, and even sell any or all of the fifth edition of Machinery’s Handbook, published 1915, which is why Google Books can post it online, in it’s entirety: http://books.google.com/books?id=VkEYAAAAYAAJ

    Quote Originally Posted by The real Leigh View Post
    You may summarize or paraphrase a published work, but don't quote verbatim. Any such quotes will be deleted.
    Summarizing or paraphrasing a published work risks changing the meaning of the work. For example, if the purpose of the discussion is to gain understanding of some technical procedure, attempting to summarize or paraphrase it when you don’t understand it to begin with is likely to cause problems.

    As discussed above, there is NO legal requirement to summarize or paraphrase, so long as the fair use guidelines are met. And the fact that a published work has been paraphrased DOES NOT mean that copyright has not been infringed (Salinger v. Random House, 811 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1987).

    Quote Originally Posted by The real Leigh View Post
    Everyone's cooperation is appreciated, and this policy will be enforced without exception.

    Information regarding copyright is available at the US Copyright Office website www.copyright.gov

    - Leigh
    I certainly hope this ill-conceived policy will be revisited. If you have not already done so, please make sure that Milicron (or whoever the person is that is ultimately in charge of PM) feels that such a restrictive policy is necessary.

    Please take the time to review at least some of the 352 pages of Title 17 of the United States Code and other online sources, such as the Stanford Library guide on copyright and fair use.

    17 U.S.C. in PDF format: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf
    Stanford guide: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/index.html


    Respectfully,

    Cal

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    8,201
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    746
    Likes (Received)
    1103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cal Haines View Post
    I certainly hope this ill-conceived policy will be revisited.
    I'm quite familiar with copyright law, having investigated the subject in depth for another website which I run.

    As to works in the public domain...
    The policy explicitly pertains to "copyrighted works". Works in the public domain do not meet that definition, and are therefore not covered by the policy. You should have noted that distinction.

    The question of "fair use" is a matter for judicial review. You're obviously aware of this since you cited case law in your post. Such exercises are quite expensive, regardless of the outcome, so we make no exception under that principle.

    Milacron is aware of the policy, which is also posted in the Manufacturing forum. The whole purpose is to protect him from litigation.

    As to being a "site-wide" policy, there's no place to post such universal notices. I expect the other moderators will adopt it in their sections.

    I suggest you check the copyright policy on some of the source sites such as the NY Times. They universally reserve copyright in all media. Any exceptions require written permission.

    Thank you for your suggestions.

    The policy will be enforced as stated.

    - Leigh

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Arizona
    Posts
    3,554
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    777
    Likes (Received)
    468

    Default

    Sorry to be so slow to respond. I haven't had much time to get back here recently.

    From the tone of your response, it sounds like you are quite annoyed with me for daring to question your edict. If that's true, then please accept my humble apology; no offense was intended.

    If you look at my post, I think you will see that I do, in fact, address the issue of public domain vs. copyrighted material vs. copyrighted material that is now in the public domain. Something that your policy does not cover. When you make the statement:
    "This includes not only current news ... but material from ALL copyrighted books, magazines, and newspapers. ALL works are copyrighted, no exceptions. No copyright notice or © is required."
    It indicates either a lack of understanding of copyright law or a misstatement of thereof. Either way, the policy should be revised. All works are NOT copyrighted, there ARE exceptions, and anything published before 1989 DOES require a copyright notice or it IS NOT protected.

    You also appear to have missed or ignored another of my key concerns. You say that "You may summarize or paraphrase a published work, but don't quote verbatim." Not true. If you summarize or paraphrase a copyrighted work, your use must still fall within the fair use restrictions. So if you really want to ban all fair use, you need to revise that portion as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by The real Leigh View Post
    ...
    The policy will be enforced as stated.
    ...
    That is unfortunate. If Milicron is really serious about this issue, then he should have his copyright policy reviewed by an attorney who specializes in these matters. I doubt either of us is qualified to be drafting copyright policies. Be aware that a poorly written policy can cause more problems that it prevents.

    Cal

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    8,201
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    746
    Likes (Received)
    1103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cal Haines View Post
    If you look at my post, I think you will see that I do, in fact, address the issue of public domain vs. copyrighted material vs. copyrighted material that is now in the public domain. Something that your policy does not cover. When you make the statement:
    "This includes not only current news ... but material from ALL copyrighted books, magazines, and newspapers. ALL works are copyrighted, no exceptions. No copyright notice or © is required."
    The policy statement was incomplete. I intended it to refer only to modern work, created since the DMCA became law in 1998. I went back and revised the original policy statement to reflect that correction. Thanks for noting the error.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cal Haines View Post
    If Milicron is really serious about this issue, then he should have his copyright policy reviewed by an attorney who specializes in these matters.
    Why?

    The whole purpose of the policy is to remove attorneys and their outlandish fees from the overhead of running this board.

    And no, I did not "take offense" or object to your comments.

    Thanks for your input.

    - Leigh

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Oakland, California, USA
    Posts
    1,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    17
    Likes (Received)
    13

    Default

    As a creator of copyrighted material, I appreciate the effort to both raise awareness of copyright violation issues (which are rampant on the internet), and enforce copyright law. It's the right thing to do. Thanks!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Clearfield, PA
    Posts
    1,141
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Racer Al View Post
    As a creator of copyrighted material, I appreciate the effort to both raise awareness of copyright violation issues (which are rampant on the internet), and enforce copyright law. It's the right thing to do. Thanks!
    If people cared about the right thing to do we would all have jobs and live in a utopia. As much as I understand the policy effort and the input that addressed a few different issues I am another who doesn't necessarily agree with the totalitarian approach that such a rule is being posted.

    If I were Milacron I'd probably go with the same approach but at the same time it hurts objective discussion. I understand the cite your references, but I can't see trying to post an argument and posting a thread to a whole article.

    So in simple I agree with the intent but believe that it will make all discussion degrade to an even worse standard than what it is. The true intent of an author's work is best understood when it is read and interpreted first hand. Objective discussion vs Flat out poo flinging argument is the use of cited factual evidence.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •