Electric Trees?

some ones editing my postings

WHY ?

Even though you gave a reference link to which the information was derived, it was still in violation of the Copyright Law.

please explain ?

Ah i see ok ? peterg7lyq not logged in at moment

Savvy,

Is my interpretation of Gizmag's policy wrong in post #6?

Just curious.

Of course, I think it's possible probable that I didn't see the OP until after it had been edited.

If starting a thread about an article on another web site, is it okay to start the thread and then provide a link to the article, followed by discussion here?

The original post was edited down to a paragraph. It was originally a copy/paste of the entire web page.

When using CR4 users must abide by CR4's site use policy. So while it's obviously not okay to violate copyright law, even if another site says it's okay to, we still don't want to see entire web page copy/pastes here.

That's understandable. Thanks.

I have approached Gizmag regarding copyright clarification. They have replied as under:-

Re: Article on windstalk energy...

Hi Suresh, Yes. You are welcome to reprint the article. We just require that gizmag.com is shown as the source and that a link back to our original article is included (http://www.gizmag.com/windstalk-concept/16647/). Also please send me the link to your blog when you post the story. Kind Regards, Noel McKeegan Editor

Gizmag.com

I hope that matter is very clear now.

Suresh Sharma.

It is. No postings of entire websites, with or without permission.

suresh, if you look at it from they're side, this is a door that they cannot afford to open, not even a little. They can't monitor every single post. If a member inadvertently posts an entire website without proper permission, it could open a messy can of legal worms.

They're position is clear. And quite understandable.

We can use links all day long, there's really no reason to copy and paste an entire website or page.

When I jumped on the backlash bandwagon, I wasn't aware that that's what had been done. They were right.

.. I guess I never saw the original post.. All I saw was the ..

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use

Hey Peter,

This is an interesting turn. Moderators interpreting copyright law.

I thought I had seen it all. Here is gizmag's policy. It looks to me like your thread should be fine. Since you provided the link to the website, I would say you copied it for the purpose of browsing the Gizmag Website. Or, I may be in trouble for copying their copyright and trademark policy. I'm quite sure that Gizmag would not have a problem with you directing hundreds, if not thousands of visitors to their website for informational purposes.

While I was writing this, you changed your avatar and message. What the heck is going on? I don't think Garrth has anything to do with this.

Copyright and Trademarks

Material on the Gizmag Website is © Gizmag Limited 2008. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated on the Gizmag Website, the material on the Gizmag Website is owned by or licensed to Gizmag and is subject to copyright ( the " Copyright Material"). You may:

• only copy or reproduce the Copyright Material for the purpose of browsing the Gizmag Website or making a copy for your own personal, private or research use, provided that such use constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act;
• not alter or modify the Copyright Material or remove any legal notice associated with it.

Gizmag and other names of Gizmag product and/or services referenced herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of Gizmag Pty Ltd. Other product and company names mentioned on the Gizmag Website may be the trademarks of their respective owners.

IVE REMOVED PERSONAL NAMES BUT IF EVERY THING IS GOING TO BE VETTED I WILL MOVE TO A SITE WHICH WILL LET ME BE ME FAULTS AND ALL.

BYE

No Peter, you are not "being censored because you offended some long standing members." You copied and pasted the entire article from the Gizmag site including images, links on the page...everything. From a legal standpoint that level of "borrowing" is completely unsupportable. We edited down your post to what has been defined for us as safely permissible. The only other option for us would have been to completely remove the post.

See Post 21 for further explanation. If you feel this is a reason to stop posting on CR4, then that's your choice. You'll likely encounter similar reaction on any other reputable site that you visit if you copy and paste complete, copyrighted articles from other sites.

Don't worry about it Peter - it is their pool or football so they make the rules.

At least you seem to have given all the mods a reason to jump up and down, act important - made their day.

Actually Russ, in this case, we don't make the rules. We are dealing with a legal situation that is not fully defined and as a result must act in ways that keep ourselves in the "safest" legal area.

Really Peter, it is just what is appropriate.

If you author something, you possess the rights to its distribution. If you wish to post their whole website here, you must get their written permission.

the golden rule...

Chris

chris,

You're a little late to the party dude, I think he got it. Chill out and have a beer.

I am

Just an interesting side note on why this worries them so.

If you read the CR4 rules, they become the owners of everything that's posted by anyone.

By default, if someone posts an entire website, CR4 is claiming ownership.

Lawsuit waiting to happen......you betcha! Hence the heebie jeebies on any posting of this nature. It could get ugly, quick.

Hi Kramarat,

Your statement here: "This is an interesting turn. Moderators interpreting copyright law" is unfortunately incorrect. The interpretation of "fair-use" that we use on CR4 was suggested by our lawyers. The "Fair Use Doctrine" is an extremely fluid and very unsettled "law." It varies from country to country, and in the US, from state to state and especially jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Talk to 15 people and you'll get 15 interpretations of what is safe to use. Talk to one lawyer and they'll tell you what the safest amount of material to allow is. When it's a legal question, we'll go with our lawyers interpretation over any other.

What is taken from another site, the reason the material was taken, the type of site on which the material is posted, the rules of the site from which it was taken, and the intrepreting judges view of the specific use case (among many other factors) determine what is considered "generally safe" to "likely copyright infringement" under the Fair-Use Doctrine.

Peter copied and pasted the entire article from the Gizmag site including images, links on the page...everything. From a legal standpoint that level of "borrowing" is completely unsupportable. We edited down his post to what has been defined for us as safely permissible.

Simply put, his claims that he is being "censored" because he offended some gurus carries no weight. His post was significantly edited to maintain what is likely legally supportable "Fair-Use." Our other option was to delete it completely.

Hey Chris,

My reaction was completely off base. I did not see the original post, containing an entire website. I am in complete agreement that this is inappropriate. A link to the web page, followed by discussion here, I assume would have been fine.

Usually moderators do a good job of including an explanation for any deletion/modification of posts. For example:

Posting of entire websites is not allowed, thread has been modified to an acceptable format.

That would have explained everything.

I was too quick to jump into the us vs. them mentality, my apologies.

No worries. I just want to make sure everyone understands that there are very real and very complex legal issues at play here.

My understanding is that you can use maybe 20% of the original article with no problem.

And depending on who you took it from, what material you took, how you're using it and the interpretations of the local magistrate, that assumption could put you in the crosshairs of a lawsuit.

It is not at all violation of copyright. Any material on display on company's web site is for free viewing by the public. Peter has only given link to this web site, so how you can consider it violation of copyright?. Please better take legal opinion from your legal experts and let us know if it is violation of copyright.

The original post was a direct copy and paste (reproduction) of the entire website. It was later changed to a single paragraph and link, as permissible by our site use policy.

They are all out to get me!

I know it- saw it in the tea leaves!

Put your tin foil hat back on and hide in the closet.(That's what I do)

My wife threw out my tinfoil hat and I am frantically making a replacement!

As well, I am throwing all the junk out of the closet so I can get in.

You may also want to line the closet with foil. It has a better protection factor than just the hat. But use a high quality foil.