FYI, the site does not allow us to cut and paste entire articles on S2Ki. This is copyright infringment, unless the autor has given express permission for you to post the article here, which you would have to establish to the satisfaction of the site admins.

The site allows us to post links to the material, and to copy a paragraph with commentary of equal or greater length, but the wholesale cut and paste of an article is forbidden.

I know we see this in other forums, but the COs and admins are supposed to monitor it and dump it when we find it. I thought it best to post this reminder for all of you. Feel free to ask any questiuons and I'll do my best to answer them.

 

In other words, the usual "fair use" rules?

 

I've been guilty of this one on occasion. Apparently, you can excerpt from an article, maybe a paragraph or something (with attribution, of course), but not copy it whole cloth into a post. A link would be fine.

 

Yes Mike, but even if we intend to repost for the pupose of educating each other, the authors of copyrighted works can complain that their material is being re-published in a for-profit forum without the payment of royalties. As long as the quote is just a part of the work, and is properly credited to the author, and is being used as a citation to support some point in the post we are probably ok. What we can't have his outright cut and paste of an entire article. It is especially egregious when the poster simply says "read this and tell me what you think."

 

I'm pinning this thread.

 

Copyrights are fascinating. So you can publish an excerpt with proper credits or place a link to what hopefully is a copyrighted site? If you place a link to copyrighted material placed upon an unauthorized site are you in violation?

OK now just because I want to learn something.

If xviper for example publishes a how to do it pictures and all on an S2k repair or modification here on S2ki and someone else takes it complete and republishes it. Who does the copyright if any belong to? xviper? S2ki? The new publisher? Or is it automatically open domain?


Thanks Legalbill

fltsfshr

 

No, everything is automatically copyrighted. Generally the copyright is owned by the author, not the publisher, unless the publisher has purchased to rights to the material. You would have to read the service agreement for s2ki.com to see if s2ki claims it owns the copyright for anything published on this website. However, even if they did claim that, I think they would have a hard time making it stick.

[QUOTE]CONTENT SUBMITTED OR MADE AVAILABLE FOR INCLUSION ON THE SERVICE

S2KI does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Service. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service, you grant S2KI the following world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable:

a.

 

I realize copywrites seem to be a really gray area on the internet. What happens if someone takes a publicly posted comment on the S2ki forum and reproduces it for exchange with others in a non-profit situation? Personnally I would see no harm in that.

 

Yikes. I havenm't been following my own thread. Sorry for all the unanswered questions.

Flts, if you republish something that was in violation of the copyright of another in the first place, you can still be liable. You will have some defenses and the right ot implead a third party. I'll get you more detail on this.

Dave, your general example sounds like fair use. A non profit using the material for education puposes. As I recall, the reproduction must be limited to the portion needed. Again, I'll follow up with better info.

 

That's right, you're not supposed to copy articles without the author's consent, even if you credit the author for his/her work.

This is tangential, but since I've spent the last few weeks buried in copyright hell, I thought I'd share. I gotta' tell you folks, in the computer biz this is a big deal. I am more than a little annoyed at my fellow software engineers who've created this mess.

A lot of the software that's been part of the open source revolution (Linux, etc.) uses what they call a "copyleft". If you make modifications to that source code and use it in a product, you're required to publish and make the source code available to everyone (just like it was made available to you). If you EVER try to port this code to a Microsoft environment, be prepared to go to court. Microsoft licenses software to you to use for Windows development, but their license forbids you to publish the resulting source under a copyleft. You can see where this is leading.

I'm pretty disgusted with the whole thing. In a sense, both forms of copyright are evil.

And, don't get me started about Berkeley Labs...

Jeez. Sorry, I just had to vent.