Jump to content

Reminder For All Users


editor

Recommended Posts

This is a reminder for all members of HAIF that when you signed up, you agreed not to post any copyrighted material to this web site that is not owned by you.

The Houston Chronicle has sent us a letter asking that we remove certain content that belongs to them that was posted to the forum by well-meaning members.

Please remember that if you'd like to discuss a newspaper or magazine article, summarize the article and provide a link to the original content. Doing much more could cause legal problems that could end up with this forum being shut down.

Thank you for your attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oops.... i've done this a time or two and did not even realize i was breaking the rules. i for one am flattered that the chron reads our forum - no wonder there's been such a dramatic improvement lately in the content of their stories! from now on i promise to quote'm right.

deb martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's one for the Chronicle way to increase the number of hits to its website and therefore increase ad revenue.

Exactly!! Someone at the Chronicle is overreacting here. The U.S. Copyright Laws do provide an exception for "fair use" of material. Someone at the Chronicle needs to get a grip. . .on the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly!!  Someone at the Chronicle is overreacting here.  The U.S. Copyright Laws do provide an exception for "fair use" of material.  Someone at the Chronicle needs to get a grip. . .on the law.

Yes, there is a "fair use" exception. But I don't think the copying of entire articles onto a website would qualify. And Tamganon's point is one of the reasons. The "effect of the use on the potential market" is one of the elements courts examine to determine whether there has been "fair use."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there is a "fair use" exception.  But I don't think the copying of entire articles onto a website would qualify.  And Tamganon's point is one of the reasons.  The "effect of the use on the potential market" is one of the elements courts examine to determine whether there has been "fair use."

I respect your opinion. I stand by my comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there is a "fair use" exception.  But I don't think the copying of entire articles onto a website would qualify.  And Tamganon's point is one of the reasons.  The "effect of the use on the potential market" is one of the elements courts examine to determine whether there has been "fair use."

"Fair Use" provisions usually apply to academic, personal, and educational use. While we may find reading the discussions here educational, I don't think a court of law would agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll agree to this but I have to ask - don't they have better things to do than to pick on us?

I'm cancelling my subscription.

They're probably cracking down on a bunch of web sites. If they let one get away with it, it opens the floodgates for others I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lord knows I'm quite guilty of doing this, but for a little clafification:

We can post a LINK to the refering Chronical story, but we can't copy and post the story AND provide a relative link, right?

Ricco

You can post a link.

You can post a summary.

You can post a link and a summary.

You cannot post the entire story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm tired of people replying with the entire quote anyways.

me too, in a threaded forum, like we have here, the original post exists up top... it is not necessary to quote an entire post, news story or photo spread just to reply with a small reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have done that on SSP (copy/paste entire article and provide link) but i think the "chomical" is over-reacting a bit.

I'm not sure why we caught their attention, as opposed to SkyscraperPage or SkyscraperCity. I guess because we're American. SSP is in Canada (small town on Vancouver Island), and SSC is in The Netherlands, I believe. We're probably easier to enforce.

Of course, it's not like there haven't been lawsuits that spanned countries. A group in Belgium threatened to sue this web site's parent web site by hiring lawyers in New York to file suit in a New York court. But I don't think the Chronicle cares enough to go after people in other countries.

Of course, I've considered blocking their computers from accessing the forum. All it takes is a few clicks. But restricting information is not really what we're about, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But restricting information is not really what we're about, anyway.

but it does seem like it is their motive. i for one am an online subscriber to the chronicle. however, not everyone is.

as i mentioned to you in another post, it seems that a link will force members to sign up (and login) to read the full content. not everyone wants to do this. i guess it is a way for the chronicle to:

  • pad its readership numbers
  • increase hits to their website
  • bully little people that are in all honesty just posting something of interest

they can claim copyright protections, but i think it is just intimidation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, too, am a subscriber to the Houston Chronicle and therefore have full access, which others do not. But, the reason we post full articles, with credit to both the paper and the writer, is that after a while, the links become obsolete and therefore no longer viewable. I don't get it. Rick Casey says subscribership is stale and stagnant, you'd think they'd want all the exposure they could get, not restrict it further. People constantly send me news articles and posts that they ask me to send on so that they get more exposure. I understand protecting their "intellectual property", but we're (the people posting articles) not making any money off this website. We're just commenting on local issues. The Chronicle already has so many upset subscribers, why are they courting for more? I just don't understand all this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think you quote partial paragraphs as part of our own summaries and such, cant we? As long as you credit the quotations, right? Its the copying of the entire COMPLETE article that is the problem.

???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's fine to include brief summaries and quotes. 

I've been editing out quoted articles as I run across them.  It helps if links to the source are included so people can still access the original source.

which leads to the other point...

sometimes you cannot ACCESS the other material (unless registered ... which can be a pain in the you-know-where).

i understand your point and respect and honor your decisions regarding this, but honestly, i think the chron has lost some points with me and others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think you quote partial paragraphs as part of our own summaries and such, cant we?  As long as you credit the quotations, right?  Its the copying of the entire COMPLETE article that is the problem.

???

I believe so. And they were more particularly unhappy with the linking to photographs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say linking to the photographs...do u mean the actual links posters posted...or posting pictures w/o them or proper credit?

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

It's OK to post a link to the image.

But don't post the actual image here, with or without credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...