Do Copyright Laws Prohibit Cutting and Pasting Articles on the Internet?

[Dos Equis]

Nordic contends copyrighted articles cannot be posted on the board.  Could Nordic (or anyone) please post a reference to the specific law that deals with this issue?  I'd like any comments on this, particularly from Decker. 

Here is the exchange that prompted this thread:

Beach
What specific copyright law prohibits cutting and pasting articles on the internet? 

Nordic
Wait, you're joking right?

The internet is like any media outlet, just like traditional outlets like television and radio. Each is covered by copyright blanket laws.

Copyright and ownerships of original works such as the article in question are automatically designated as ownership to the author.

There are however "fair use" laws which dictates that a small snippet of text and image can be used for news outlets and the such. This is how Google News for example operates. 
 
Beach 
Thanks, but I'm asking for the specific law that prohibits cutting and pasting internet stories on the internet.  I'd like to read it.  I've probably done it more than a 100 times on this board.  In fact, I'll create a new thread, because you're making some pretty serious allegations.  I'd like to get input from others, particularly Decker, aka The Professor, since he is a lawyer.   
 
 

[MB_722]

as long as you provide a source what difference does it make? It isn't as if people are making it as their own.

[Nordic Superman]

Firstly, you're thinking of the internet using a too "specific" view.

Generally the interent is regarded as a media outlet such as traditional outlets: TV, radio etc, there are of course exceptions.

Depending how deep you wish to personally delve into this topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyright_Act_of_1976

Official documentation can be acquired by visiting the references noted in the Wikipedia entries.

[Dos Equis]

as long as you provide a source what difference does it make? It isn't as if people are making it as their own.

I agree.  That said, here are links provided by Nordic from another thread.  I'll read them and would appreciate feedback from others.  

See: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

[Nordic Superman]

I agree.  That said, here are links provided by Nordic from another thread.  I'll read them and would appreciate feedback from others. 

See: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

Also note, Terms & Conditions may be extended past that of the default laws by stating such, for example:

http://www.ap.org/pages/about/terms.html

An AP full article was recently posted by Jag. The article probably didn't come directly from the AP website, rather it was probably syndicated from AP under a contractual agreement by the parties.

4. All material ("Materials") displayed or transmitted on this site, including but not limited to text, photographs, images, illustrations, video clips, audio clips, and graphics are owned by AP or its members, and are protected by United States and international copyright, trademarks, service marks, and other proprietary rights, laws and treaties.

5. Except as provided in this agreement, you may not copy, reproduce, publish, transmit, transfer, sell, rent, modify, create derivative works from, distribute, repost, perform, display, or in any way commercially exploit the Materials carried on this site, nor may you infringe upon any of the copyrights or other intellectual property rights contained in the Materials. You may not remove or alter, nor cause to be removed or altered, any copyright, trademark, or other proprietary notices or visual marks and logos from the Materials.

6. You may make a single print copy of any of the Materials carried by AP on this Web site for personal, non-commercial use only, provide that you do not remove nor cause to be removed any copyright, trademarks, or other proprietary notices or visual marks or logos from the Material. You may not archive or retain any of the Materials accessed on this Web site without the express written permission of AP. All requests for archiving, republication or retention of any part of the Materials must be in writing to AP clearly stating the purpose and manner in which the Material will be used. Requests for permission to archive, retain, or republish any part of the Materials may be submitted to Copyright, The Associated Press, 450 W. 33rd Street, New York, New York 10001 or by fax to (212) 621-1567.

[Nordic Superman]

Additional note:
What's quite serious in Jags posts is that she has commercial interests in the topic and profiteering (probably just hopeful). An example again is: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=163883.0

[Al-Gebra]

My post applies only to articles cut and pasted in this forum.

Since Jag is the only one I know who uses news articles to try and obtain commercial gain for herself, she's probably the only one who could face any liability . . . there are several factors which a court would look at to determine whether fair use is being made.

(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.

[Hugo Chavez]

The proper way to do it is to post a portion and link to the rest of the article from the source.  There are also times it's ok or needed to post the whole article and can fall under "fair use" and there are several reasons this can happen.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

[Hugo Chavez]

This is true, where Jag is seeking to make money on her posts, fair use is probably out the window in posting the article.  This is where she would need to post a section and link to the rest.  But not spam as we don't want that here.

[24KT]

Additional note:
What's quite serious in Jags posts is that she has commercial interests in the topic and profiteering (probably just hopeful). An example again is: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=163883.0

Ohhhh very bad example Nordic, ...I do have full permission from the copyright owner to repost that in it's entirety.
Would you like a list of other notable's who have given me full permission to repost their articles?

[Hugo Chavez]

Ohhhh very bad example Nordic, ...I do have full permission from the copyright owner to repost that in it's entirety.
Would you like a list of other notable's who have given me full permission to repost their articles?

If you have permission then duh but you do not have permission to post it here anymore

[Nordic Superman]

Would you like a list of other notable's who have given me full permission to repost their articles?

Yes, I'm suprised the AP or one of its distributors or authors gives you permission.

So yeah, give me a list of notables madam.

My guess is it won't materialise?

STILL PATIENTLY WAITING!

[Al Doggity]

To answer your question, Beach Bum, no laws are being broken.

The internet is not exactly like old media in the way the fair use doctrine is applied.

I'm not going to post a long drawn out description as to why. Decker can probably give a more in-depth analysis, but here it is in a nutshell.

This forum is non-profit. Regardless of whether Jag has a financial interest in posting certain articles, the owners of the forum do not. That's stip #1 of fair trade.
 
This next one would actually be the most important in the eyes of a judge:
The forum is not going to impede the viability of any copyrighted articles in any significant way. A popular post receives a 2 or 300 views from a group of about 20 or 30 people.  The only time an internet forum has ever been sued in regards to copyright violation had to do with the fact that their  business model hurt the copyright holders' revenue streams.

[Dos Equis]

Thanks all for the input.  I will continue to cut and paste with impunity.