Attention All Members,
As you know I was recently involved in a legal situation which could have gone very badly, as it is I had to pay $450.00 in attorney's fees. I wish to thank all those who helped to pay, I was only responsible for about 1/2 of that amount...
I had asked my attorney how I could protect myself in the future, and I have my long awaited reply...
Why don't you ask your attorney about the use of Creative Commons. Many conservative organizations rely on that to get their essays spread over the internet, ie, FEE.org and others. I use them on my site.
Thanks, for the info I will look into it...
Everything I send to your site I AM the author. so do I have to get my own permission? seriously, use anything you get from me for anything you like.
Thanks so much for your humor and your support... I appreciate it! It is refreshing to know that the authors in the Editorials are original and they are very intelligently thought out and presented. I am very proud to offer your quality of Articles...Thanks... Suzie
I think us stawart members will find this not a burden.
I can always count on you! I appreciate your support!
Drudge report told us ALL that this was coming down the pike. He said they were going to come at us with Copyright, proprietary rights, and intellectual rights. . . Which as far as I can see our freedom of speech. What they are trying to do is change the law to public domain without changing government statutes, ordinances, regulations, or judicial decisions by taking people to court first.
If they can install lawsuits over what was just a slap on the hand before, they're going to do it, because they know most if not all of us don't have the means to countersue. Right now Alex Jones is being slapped with laws suits of things these people KNOW they're going to lose and be countered sued over, but they have to money to blow on these law suits, where as the smaller person - not so much. What they are doing is criminal and we all know . . . My intellectual data & metadata belongs to me. However, I sign or waver my rights to that data anytime I sign up for a service, whether it's phone, internet game, cable, and yes even E-Mail service. And what these corporations are doing now is saying "what's mine is mine AND what's yours is mine"
Qanon, Jerome Corsi, and others are pushing for a "Internet Bill Of Rights" or IBOR and you'd be smart to get all members on board and get your list of rights ready to be submitted. Otherwise, we're all going to end up with a European Union type of rules and regulations . . . to include "Hate Speech" as a crime that can put you in jail . . .
George Soros PAID for his civil war . . . And he's damn pissed that he hasn't gotten it yet. So now they're moving to stifle our first amendment by law suits.
And for God sakes get a lawyer that's well versed in intellectual and copyright laws . . . If it's on the internet it's PUBLIC DOMAIN unless you have to sign in to or are a member of . . . AND THEY HAVE STATED OTHERWISE. Your case shouldn't have even gone to court . . . You didn't make any money off it and you didn't claim any material to be your own content.
Which if you remember we were able to record songs off the radio and beat that mean ol copyright . . .
I guess you were not around when I explained the circumstances a while back.
This was a threat to sue, a member had posted an article from the NY Post- there were 10 photos- 2 of the photos were copyrighted- with no marking and no mention- so my site and it is only my guess- but probably the other sites- FB and Buzzfeed- were sent these same 11 page documents! why would they single me out?
So I did hire a specialist in copyright law- this is her specialty. She informed me up front that these guys were bottom dwellers...
This threat was to pay $13,000 now or be taken to court for up to $150,000. So it is pretty scary thing- very real... And
If you check most news sites state very clearly not to copy their articles! You need to ask permission...
People are fooled by Fair use act- it is clearly within their rights to sue.... no such thing as public domain. if it is copyrighted- it should not be copied.
Check out the Terms of Service on any given site... it is eye opening..
I wonder . . . Just how much of their stuff was their "own" material
Writers . . . are notorious for stealing others work . . . and paraphrasing it
As I stated, this is how they were / or are planning to shut down Drudge Report. . .
As for WHY you were targeted I have my theories
By Brian Farkas
Writers, academics, and journalists frequently need to borrow the words of others. Sooner or later, almost all writers quote or closely paraphrase material that someone else has written. For example:
Assuming the material quoted in these examples is protected by copyright, do Andy, Phil, Regina, Sylvia, or Donnie need permission from the author or other copyright owner to use it? It may surprise you to learn that the answer is "not necessarily."
Say, for example, you own a restaurant and the three newspapers that cover your town each run positive reviews of your establishment. It’s certainly fair use to reproduce a brief quote from each – “Best prime rib in the city,” the Daily News says – on your website or in print advertisements. However, republishing the entire article could be trouble. The review as a whole is the intellectual property of the newspaper. The newspaper paid the writer to inform and entertain its readers, not to benefit your business.
On the other hand, if your business entails direct competition with the newspaper – you own a radio station, perhaps, or a website that covers news issues in the town – the U.S. Code considers not only how much content you’ve excerpted but the “effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” In other words, whether you are using the newspaper’s unique content parasitically rather than employing journalists to produce your own unique content.
Content from large organizations such as The Associated Press may seem ubiquitous news reporting that appears, at least to an amateur, part of the public domain. Well, the AP is owned collectively by the nation’s daily newspapers, who still pay AP for it as well as contribute content. And the AP and other syndicates have litigated against aggregators that they believe cross the line on “fair use.” If you provide enough rewrite about the article in question that the reader has little reason to follow your link to the original provider, it can lead to civil and, with repeat offenses, even criminal litigation. Get a lawyer’s advice.
A newspaper might sometimes label a specific important article as, say, “Copyright 2012 by The Arizona Republic.” Actually, all the newspaper’s original material is protected by copyright law, but the copyright credit line makes the article stand out. The AP, as a newspaper collective, has the right to distribute news content from member papers. The copyright designation tells the AP and member newspapers that the originating newspaper must be credited with breaking the news, even if your news entity competes against it and is likewise an AP member.
In practice, newspapers seldom make a legal issue out of a one-time, innocent infringement. The newspaper’s lawyer will send a cease-and-desist letter if someone in that market crosses the line. Civil action usually occurs only when persistent, parasitic theft occurs or when the offender refuses to remedy the offense. But with more newspapers putting online content behind paywalls, expect them to defend their content more vigorously.
Where does opinion repeated become plagiarism?
Well, I guess now. If one copies an editorial or opinion piece and if it is covered by copyright- copying it is illegal.
I'm so sorry you had to go through this.
Let me be sure I have this clear, you can post the headline and a link to the story, just do not post the actual story. Is this correct?