Copyright

On 31 Jan, 13:21, Els <els.aNOS....DeleteThis@tiscali.nl> wrote:
> Andy Dingley wrote:
> > If it's an advertised public RSS feed, it's "reasonable"
> > behaviour to assume an implicit licence to use this on your site.
>
> And by "advertised public RSS feed" you mean any and all feeds then? I
> mean, I have an RSS feed on my site, it's "advertised" by means of a
> button. Does that mean that in your opinion, unless I explicitly state
> otherwise in my feed, people can assume they can just publish my feed
> on their websites without asking me?

Why can't they? Construct a case _against_ this use, showing how in a
domain where RSS was constructed as a protocol _for_ free syndication
of content, and you have plenty of opportunity for guarding against or
_labelling_ this content as not being free, any casual consumer of
this unlabelled content couldn't consider free, credited use of it to
be a "reasonable" behaviour (i.e. one not attracting damages).

Nor is this a "fair use" defence (It could simultaneously be a "fair
use" use, but that's not the point). "Fair use" says that I still have
a right to lift your copyrighted, protected content even if I know I
have no licence to use it, _provided_that_ I stick within "minor" uses
of it, such as are covered by "fair use". I can always quote your
title (you can't copyright titles). I can always link to your site, so
long as I'm not passing off (lots of old case law, particularly around
frames, such as the Shetland news case). I can also quote a _small_
amount of your news article's content, under this "fair use"
condition.

It's quite possible that all of RSS 0.9* will automatically class as
fair use, on the grounds that the early versions of the protocol
couldn't do anything sophisticated enough to go beyond it. Later RSS
certainly can scrape whole pagefuls of a site, so it's no longer
supportable as a blanket defence.

If this is a proprietary feed that has somehow become unsecured, then
different rules might apply. You might apply some of the computer mis-
use laws, claiming that this _access_ was illegal (still not a
copyright issue though). This can get very complex and case-dependent,
depending on just how much effort was needed to "acccess" this feed
(did you guess at or manually edit a URL from an open feed to look for
other feeds?). If you're linking to it from a homepage button though,
this isn't a strong case.


Be warned though that major media organisations (the RIAA is the main
culprit) pay little attention to the actual law anyway and will simply
attempt to railroad you despite it.
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

djherring DeleteThis @btinternet.com wrote:
> Hi, I have started a new website called yachtsandboating.com. As
> part of this site I have a news puller that works on RSS feeds. My
> question is can I reproduce news from other sites without breaking
> copyright? Is news copyrighted or can anyone reporduce it? The main
> reason i ask is often get new articles from the news puller which just
> have one line and a link to another site for more detail, but i have
> sen many sites with the same news in the same format and wording.
>
> Looking forward to a reply
>
> Dan
>

News is copyrighted. Try just using stuff from the New York Times, for
instance, and see how far it gets you. Ziff-Davis would be another one.

The best way is to look at the site's T&C. If it's not specified, ask.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex DeleteThis @attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

What are the copyright ramifications of having an IFrame on my page linked
to another site's content, e.g., to show the other site's video?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

On 31 Jan, 15:35, Ed Jay <ed....RemoveThis@aes-intl.com> wrote:
> What are the copyright ramifications of having an IFrame on my page linked
> to another site's content, e.g., to show the other site's video?

Search for "Shetland News" if you want to see the UK legal precedent.
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

"djherring@btinternet.com" <djherring.DeleteThis@btinternet.com> wrote:

>Hi, I have started a new website called yachtsandboating.com. As
>part of this site I have a news puller that works on RSS feeds. My
>question is can I reproduce news from other sites without breaking
>copyright? Is news copyrighted or can anyone reporduce it?

I am aghast that you even ask!

Just for the record, EVERYTHING everybody writes is automatically
copyright. Whether it is a bus time table, a report of a missing cat
in Cheshire, a letter to their aunty or a block-buster novel.

Some copyright holders may license you permission to reproduce their
work, but get permission in signed writing, NOT an email, and if you
are concerned about litigation - and who shouldn't be these days? -
then get the agreement checked by a lawyer.

Matt


--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Andy Dingley wrote:

> If it's an advertised public RSS feed, it's "reasonable"
> behaviour to assume an implicit licence to use this on your site.

And by "advertised public RSS feed" you mean any and all feeds then? I
mean, I have an RSS feed on my site, it's "advertised" by means of a
button. Does that mean that in your opinion, unless I explicitly state
otherwise in my feed, people can assume they can just publish my feed
on their websites without asking me?

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Els wrote:
> Andy Dingley wrote:
>
>> If it's an advertised public RSS feed, it's "reasonable"
>> behaviour to assume an implicit licence to use this on your site.
>
> And by "advertised public RSS feed" you mean any and all feeds then? I
> mean, I have an RSS feed on my site, it's "advertised" by means of a
> button. Does that mean that in your opinion, unless I explicitly state
> otherwise in my feed, people can assume they can just publish my feed
> on their websites without asking me?
>

This falls under "fair use" guidelines. They could quote parts of your
articles, for instance. But without your permission they can't just
republish your feed.

There is no such thing as an "implicit license" in copyright law.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex RemoveThis @attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Andy Dingley scribed:

>On 31 Jan, 15:35, Ed Jay <ed....DeleteThis@aes-intl.com> wrote:
>> What are the copyright ramifications of having an IFrame on my page linked
>> to another site's content, e.g., to show the other site's video?
>
>Search for "Shetland News" if you want to see the UK legal precedent.

Thanks, Andy. That search led to some interesting and possibly useful
information. I say possibly useful, as it appears that all the cases revolve
around simple linking to another's site, and the courts seem to rule on a
situational basis. For example, in one case, DVD producers were able to
secure a court order forbidding links to a DVD cracking site. In another
case, though, the court ruled that linking doesn't violate copyrights. It
seems to me that we are free to link to another's site, but I'm still not
sure about using an IFrame to present someone else's content.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

On 31 Jan, 17:17, Els <els.aNOS....RemoveThis@tiscali.nl> wrote:
> Andy Dingley wrote:
> > On 31 Jan, 13:21, Els <els.aNOS....RemoveThis@tiscali.nl> wrote:
> >> Andy Dingley wrote:
> >>> If it's an advertised public RSS feed, it's "reasonable"
> >>> behaviour to assume an implicit licence to use this on your site.

> There you mentioned one caveat already: "credited". This is not the
> same as simply republishing the feed.

Deliberately so. It's a defence of reasonable behaviour to republish
it _with_ accreditation, but less defensible to do so whilst not
repeating accrediiation that was either supplied, or implicit in the
source. Most RSS feeds don't state restrictions of use, but they do
state authorship.

Here in the UK certainly, there's strong case law for "passing off"
actions. Removing accreditation of original authorship would expose
you to this.

> > Nor is this a "fair use" defence

> Which in my particular case, would not at all be the same as taking my
> feed and republish it,

Of course not, which is why I stated that it _wasn't_ a fair use
defence.

I merely described what a hypothetical fair use defence would have to
be, were one used, so as to illustrate the difference.

> Republish my RSS feed, is equal to republishing my entire blog.

So if you have problem with that, state it. Use Creative Commons
licensing if you wish: a by-nd-nc would seem suitable.

> Not what I would call fair use by any standard.

Who's claiming that it is?
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

In article <h0bckuig5hz$.d4ibpn1hvy8a.dlg@40tude.net>,
Els <els.aNOSPAM.RemoveThis@tiscali.nl> wrote:

> Andy Dingley wrote:
>
> > If it's an advertised public RSS feed, it's "reasonable"
> > behaviour to assume an implicit licence to use this on your site.
>
> And by "advertised public RSS feed" you mean any and all feeds then?

Not every feed is put on public display. It does, in fact, take more
than an FTP upload of an XML file to advertise a feed.

> I
> mean, I have an RSS feed on my site, it's "advertised" by means of a
> button. Does that mean that in your opinion, unless I explicitly state
> otherwise in my feed, people can assume they can just publish my feed
> on their websites without asking me?

Yes. The thing you're missing is that a web site displaying a feed
should be considered just another specialized browser or feed reader.
Like it or not, you have to accept that the user can choose *whatever*
template they like to view your XML. The only problem that comes into
play is if a site attempts to use your feed content without attribution
and/or pass it off as their own content.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Andy Dingley wrote:

> On 31 Jan, 13:21, Els <els.aNOS... DeleteThis @tiscali.nl> wrote:
>> Andy Dingley wrote:
>>> If it's an advertised public RSS feed, it's "reasonable"
>>> behaviour to assume an implicit licence to use this on your site.
>>
>> And by "advertised public RSS feed" you mean any and all feeds then? I
>> mean, I have an RSS feed on my site, it's "advertised" by means of a
>> button. Does that mean that in your opinion, unless I explicitly state
>> otherwise in my feed, people can assume they can just publish my feed
>> on their websites without asking me?
>
> Why can't they? Construct a case _against_ this use, showing how in a
> domain where RSS was constructed as a protocol _for_ free syndication
> of content, and you have plenty of opportunity for guarding against or
> _labelling_ this content as not being free, any casual consumer of
> this unlabelled content couldn't consider free, credited use of it to
> be a "reasonable" behaviour (i.e. one not attracting damages).

There you mentioned one caveat already: "credited". This is not the
same as simply republishing the feed. Plus:

> Nor is this a "fair use" defence (It could simultaneously be a "fair
> use" use, but that's not the point). "Fair use" says that I still have
> a right to lift your copyrighted, protected content even if I know I
> have no licence to use it, _provided_that_ I stick within "minor" uses
> of it, such as are covered by "fair use". I can always quote your
> title (you can't copyright titles). I can always link to your site, so
> long as I'm not passing off (lots of old case law, particularly around
> frames, such as the Shetland news case). I can also quote a _small_
> amount of your news article's content, under this "fair use"
> condition.

Which in my particular case, would not at all be the same as taking my
feed and republish it, being that for example my blog feed, does not
consist of short intros, but indeed entire pages full of content.
Republish my RSS feed, is equal to republishing my entire blog. Not
what I would call fair use by any standard.

Obviously, I can't hold anything against anyone who simply publishes a
piece of text on their site that says "This blog discusses that
subject" while quoting a piece of text from the feed. That's not the
same as republishing an entire feed though.

> It's quite possible that all of RSS 0.9* will automatically class as
> fair use, on the grounds that the early versions of the protocol
> couldn't do anything sophisticated enough to go beyond it. Later RSS
> certainly can scrape whole pagefuls of a site, so it's no longer
> supportable as a blanket defence.

It's the blanket statement that published RSS feeds imply license to
use on your own site that triggered my response.

> If this is a proprietary feed that has somehow become unsecured, then
> different rules might apply.

Of course, but that's not the case with most feeds. I'm still on the
subject of public feeds, that are intended to be read by anyone who so
pleases. In my opinion, republishing them on a website is not quite
the same as reading them in an (even if web based) RSS reader.

> You might apply some of the computer mis-
> use laws, claiming that this _access_ was illegal (still not a
> copyright issue though). This can get very complex and case-dependent,
> depending on just how much effort was needed to "acccess" this feed
> (did you guess at or manually edit a URL from an open feed to look for
> other feeds?). If you're linking to it from a homepage button though,
> this isn't a strong case.

Of course I'm linking to it from my pages. The feed is public. It's
meant as a means for people to subscribe without having to check the
site itself all the time. It's not meant as "here, come grab and
republish this". I think 99,99% of blogs link to their own feeds.

> Be warned though that major media organisations (the RIAA is the main
> culprit) pay little attention to the actual law anyway and will simply
> attempt to railroad you despite it.

You mean they'd be on my side then?

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Doc O'Leary wrote:

> In article <h0bckuig5hz$.d4ibpn1hvy8a.dlg@40tude.net>,
> Els <els.aNOSPAM RemoveThis @tiscali.nl> wrote:
>
>> I mean, I have an RSS feed on my site, it's "advertised" by means
>> of a button. Does that mean that in your opinion, unless I
>> explicitly state otherwise in my feed, people can assume they can
>> just publish my feed on their websites without asking me?
>
> Yes. The thing you're missing is that a web site displaying a feed
> should be considered just another specialized browser or feed reader.

Nope, can't agree with that. With that logic, you may just as well
copy my entire site, put a line above it that says "Els' site", and
republish it like that. Your web site would then just be another
specialized browser to read my site, right?

> Like it or not, you have to accept that the user can choose *whatever*
> template they like to view your XML.

One user, yes. Republish for the rest of the world, no.

> The only problem that comes into
> play is if a site attempts to use your feed content without attribution
> and/or pass it off as their own content.

So you just put a one-liner at the top: "disclaimer: the content below
is not mine, but a mirror of http://blog.locusmeus.com/ ".
According to you that solves the copyright issue? Wouldn't think so,
really.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet.RemoveThis@1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:

> Yes. The thing you're missing is that a web site displaying a feed
> should be considered just another specialized browser or feed reader.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

From the summary:

"Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and don't grant
you any permission to do further copying except perhaps the sort of
copying the poster might have expected in the ordinary flow of the net."

Law is not how you feel it should be. If in doubt, ask someone with
expertise (which I certainly don't claim to be). But your "a website is
just a specialized browser" certainly is flawed reasoning, and I have no
doubt about it that it doesn't hold in most courts.

--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright