Copyright on Boards

Corsendonk

Hi,

During a discussion on boards here I quoted extracts from 3 history journals available online, the mod removed the posts as he said they infringed copyright. Was he right? Or was I right because the authors have been dead greater than 70 years?

FreudianSlippers

No, he was incorrect.

OisinT

OisinT wrote: »

No, he was incorrect.

Online journals might have unique database rights no?

aidan_walsh

Where were the quotes sourced from?

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

Online journals might have unique database rights no?

It would still fall under fair dealing - e.g. used for criticism, review, research etc.
It's also questionable whether the right to quote exists in this jurisdiction, but it is likely that for any non-commercial use there is a right to quote.

I accept that but the right to quote requires attribution doesn't it? We don't know how he quoted them, were they properly attributed etc?

You are probably right I am just sort of shooting from the hip with what comes to mind.

Corsendonk

One of the extracts came from this site. The author died in 1938.

http://www.chaptersofdublin.com/books/Neighbourhood/contents.html

Did I break copyright?

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

I accept that but the right to quote requires attribution doesn't it? We don't know how he quoted them, were they properly attributed etc?

You are probably right I am just sort of shooting from the hip with what comes to mind.

I mean, technically there could be some protection if the author transferred it (the copyright) to the online database company. Copyright cannot exceed the term outlined by law (life +70 of the author/creator of the work), so once that has passed the work is in the public domain. Essentially the online database is just compiling information and while they may have copyright in the compilation (which is questionable) they usually do not hold copyright in the actual work itself. In fact, if they are using the work for profit (which it is almost certain they are) then they would be infringing the author's copyright.

Edit: now that I've seen the site, they probably aren't using it for profit but I'm not sure the publication would fall under fair dealing - irrelevant considering the life +70 has expired

Regardless of this, he wasn't using the material outside of the umbrella of fair dealing.

FreudianSlippers

Corsendonk wrote: »

One of the extracts came from this site. The author died in 1938.

http://www.chaptersofdublin.com/books/Neighbourhood/contents.html

Did I break copyright?

Definitely not for many reasons, the main one being that it is now public domain.

Corsendonk

I referenced the extract in italics and quoted the book title. I didn't claim as my own work as they were quite clearly observational works from the start of the century.

I'm now with Oisin on this one. Having seen the source I cannot see how you could possibly have infringed copyright.

FreudianSlippers

Corsendonk wrote: »

I referenced the extract in italics and quoted the book title. I didn't claim as my own work as they were quite clearly observational works from the start of the century.

Even if the work was protected by copyright still, you would not have been in breach of copyright.

For example, lets take a book that is in copyright.

From Digital Fortress by Dan Brown:

For two hours, Becker interpreted an endless stream of Mandarin symbols. But each time he gave them a translation, the cryptographers shook their heads in despair. Apparently the code was not making sense. Eager to help, Becker pointed out that all the characters they'd shown him had a common trait-they were also part of the Kanji language. Instantly the bustle in the room fell silent. The man in charge, a lanky chain-smoker named Morante, turned to Becker in disbelief.

"You mean these symbols have multiple meanings?"

Becker nodded. He explained that Kanji was a Japanese language based on modified Chinese characters. He'd been giving Mandarin translations because that's what they'd asked for.

"Jesus Christ." Morante coughed. "Let's try the Kanji."

Like magic, everything fell into place.

The cryptographers were duly impressed, but nonetheless, they still made Becker work on the characters out of sequence. "It's for your own safety" Morante said. "This way, you won't know what you're translating."

Becker laughed. Then he noticed nobody else was laughing.

Dan Brown is an awful writer and there are so many things wrong with what he has written in this excerpt alone that it is beyond belief that anyone would publish this stuff, let alone read it.


Now, according to the reasoning of the moderator on the forum, I have just broken copyright. I haven't - it falls under fair dealing that I can review and criticise Dan Brown's ability to write. Furthermore, I'm not attempting to pass this off as my own writing. Finally, the right to quote steps in here: say someone asked me to supply an example of poor linguistics and I posted only the quote, it still is not in breach of copyright.

Corsendonk

Thanks, I have directed the mod to this thread. Hopefully I may get my historical posts restored.

tricky D

I've quoted lots of content from this site on Boards before without issue with attribution and where threads have had other content which would be much more dubious copyright-wise. Some of the content is covered by Project Gutenberg which means that's fine, all the books are out of print and over 70 years. One of the primary purposes of the site is as a research resource.

FreudianSlippers

tricky D wrote: »

I've quoted lots of content from this site on Boards before without issue with attribution and where threads have had other content which would be much more dubious copyright-wise. Some of the content is covered by Project Gutenberg which means that's fine, all the books are out of print and over 70 years. One of the primary purposes of the site is as a research resource.

Research is one of the defences to infringement of copyrighted materials. There shouldn't even be a discussion of items in the public domain IMO.

The Hill Billy

You may get your posts restored depending on the advice I receive from the Admins.

FreudianSlippers

Hill Billy wrote: »

You may get your posts restored depending on the advice I receive from the Admins.

It's semi-irrelevant what advice admins give. The work is out of copyright, therefore copyright cannot be violated.
Further, even if the work was in copyright, quoting it on a forum is not in breach of said copyright.

Tom Young

OisinT wrote: »

Research is one of the defences to infringement of copyrighted materials. There shouldn't even be a discussion of items in the public domain IMO.

But republication may not be.

Edit: To clarify. Use of a database, containing a database! This is why we don't do legal advice! OisinT.

Edit 2: A website might also be/is generally, a database.

Tom Young

Corsendonk wrote: »

Hi,

During a discussion on boards here I quoted extracts from 3 history journals available online, the mod removed the posts as he said they infringed copyright. Was he right? Or was I right because the authors have been dead greater than 70 years?

The quotes you posted were not cited by source. Did someone go to cost, etc. creating a copyrightable database or work and you come along a cite in your own name here? Albeit it, cited in italics with no source. Is that right?

Not sure.

Tom

FreudianSlippers

Tom Young wrote: »

But republication may not be.

Edit: To clarify. Use of a database, containing a database! This is why we don't do legal advice! OisinT.

Edit 2: A website might also be/is generally, a database.

Article 10 of the Berne Convention would lead to a different conclusion.

Besides, it is clear from Directive 96/9/EC that database protection is separate from artistic/literary copyright protection and the copyright in that is in the database, completely separate from any copyright in the contents.

Thus, while the author of the website may certainly have a 15 year protection (base) it does not entitle him to claim copyright over the works it categorises.

I didn't see where anyone was giving legal advice, but perhaps I wasn't paying enough attention

Tom Young

OisinT wrote: »

Thus, while the author of the website may certainly have a 15 year protection (base) it does not entitle him to claim copyright over the works it categorises.

I didn't see where anyone was giving legal advice, but perhaps I wasn't paying enough attention

Yep:

Second point first. I didn't suggest you were I merely pointed out that this is why we don't give legal advice. Impossible to have full facts, etc.

In re. point one. I think it answers itself in relation to my previous post. Had the OP elected to quote his sources perhaps this thread could have been averted.

Tom

FreudianSlippers

Tom Young wrote: »

Yep:

Second point first. I didn't suggest you were I merely pointed out that this is why we don't give legal advice. Impossible to have full facts, etc.

In re. point one. I think it answers itself in relation to my previous post. Had the OP elected to quote his sources perhaps this thread could have been averted.

Tom

Ah I see what you're saying!

I was saying it is irrelevant anyway, because he is quoting the book (?) which happens to be on that website. The book is out of copyright, so not quoting the source doesn't matter. The website he got the quote from still doesn't own the words he is quoting. Regardless of all of that, there is no possible scenario where quoting an extract of a book on this website for research, criticism or review could be in breach of copyright (well unless they posted a substantial part of a protected book).

To put it simply, the website owner has protection for the method of compilation of the information, not on the information itself (unless there is some sort of agreement - impossible with works in the public domain as copyright has expired and is almost never granted a perpetual copyright... I think only 3 works have a perpetual copyright)

Tom Young

Precisely. The problem is that we have no means of knowing exactly whether or not some IP resides elsewhere ..... you're not wrong btw

FreudianSlippers

Tom Young wrote: »

Precisely. The problem is that we have no means of knowing exactly whether or not some IP resides elsewhere ..... you're not wrong btw

No, I totally agree with you. I certainly think OP should have quoted his source, but I'm of the opinion that even though he didn't, once he was not quoting a "substantial" part of the text it would fall under fair dealing - which is irrelevant on the facts at hand, since the work is public domain.

I hope I'm not wrong I'm planning on starting my PhD next year on an intellectual property topic! Would be hugely embarrassing to make a balls of an IP question :pac:

Corsendonk

Well boards legal expert advised against reinstating any of my posts, including the one I cited was from Porter 1912 and then proceeded to quote in Italics. So it seems carte blanc implies to all posts. It seems its easier to censure all rather than do it by a case by case basis. I rather think this is the easiest option took. It does set a worrying trend do that quoting history on boards may be censured. Its slighly unsettlling that access to our history might be restricted.

P.S does anyone actually know if they can reinstate posts that the mod has removed?

Tom Young

What was the source for Porter 1912 and was it online?

The posts can be restored but not until they are in the form that is correct for either correct citation or indeed hyperlinking to their source.

Corsendonk

Porter 1912, the link is below, my source was the link below. I did make a slight admendment to the list of towns people, I added notes in red font beside to indicate the present day pub names ran by the publicans in 1912. So any admendment to the original text was quite clear.


http://www.dublin1850.com/porter1912/page24.html

Did I break copyright on this Post?

FreudianSlippers

Who is the boards legal advisor? Do they actually retain a solicitor that does advice including legitimate IP advice?

Corsendonk

Mr T. Young was the name quoted to me as the name of the person who advises on these matters. I think there a tad cheap to pay!!

FreudianSlippers

Well Tom Young knows a lot about the law and his judgement was certainly based on all the evidence in front of him. As I cannot see the original posts and neither can other non-mods I cannot comment on whether I agree or disagree with his decision.

Basically quote what you want, but be sure to reference properly in the future.

Corsendonk

So whats the best way to reference? I seem to have ticked the required boxes in one post at least from what you said in previous posts and am still wrong . Slightly confused here, is the Harvard system of referencing a standard for this site??? I can include bibliography in my post if thats required. It might help if the legal expert can post a guideline example of what is best practice in referencing so others might not fall into the same pit fall. Or should I just post hyperlink to the external source at all times rather than quote?

While we are on this topic what is the guideline for information obtained from an open historical website in the format of this site? Should I quote the website as my source or the original source that the other poster used and if he failed to this what do I do?

FreudianSlippers

I'd imagine it's something like:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=67510716#post67510716 wrote:

Quote Goes Here

Tom Young

Corsendonk wrote: »

So whats the best way to reference? I seem to have ticked the required boxes in one post at least from what you said in previous posts and am still wrong . Slightly confused here, is the Harvard system of referencing a standard for this site??? I can include bibliography in my post if thats required. It might help if the legal expert can post a guideline example of what is best practice in referencing so others might not fall into the same pit fall. Or should I just post hyperlink to the external source at all times rather than quote?

While we are on this topic what is the guideline for information obtained from an open historical website in the format of this site? Should I quote the website as my source or the original source that the other poster used and if he failed to this what do I do?

From the forum charter written by a former Mod.

If any external sources of information are used in your posts, it is up to you to ensure that the proper sources are quoted and accredited. If you fail in this, it may be that your post is removed outright. If you fail on repeated occasions, you may be subject to a ban from the forum.

A proper citation for a newspaper article is e.g. "[author], Irish Times, 12th January, 200x".

Journal (legal or otherwise) should be referenced with their full citation.

The same applies to cases (to be clear: when you're quoting from a case, refer to the judge who said what you're quoting, and the case followed by the official citation).

Online media references should be submitted with a hyperlink to such resources.

General: please try to avoid posting articles and other references from non-legal sources unless it's very relevant to the discussion at hand. Media opinion pieces carry very limited weight as against a good legal argument. From the perspective of a legal discussion, there is nothing that will frustrate participents more than a solid legal argument countered with an opinion. It's like throwing rotten tomatoes at heavy artilery and then thinking you've won because no one is bothering to shoot back at you.

Also available here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054891512

The quote function works by typing the word quote between [] and to end it [/] is the mechanism including the world quote after the /.

Italics: [] with an i in between and to close [/] / followed by i.

Thanks,

Tom