Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
As I read it, that's not an entirely correct statement either.
"...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
I didn't see where it specifically says only part of the copyrighted work can be used.
|
It may not say it there but that is how it is generally applied. Take the NFHS for example. They have made no issue of the short rules quotes that show up everywhere....but they rightfully make a stink anytime someone posts the whole book. That is the essense of fair use.
The kind of place where a full copy might be permitted would not include discussion boards...which often resemble news/information sources. It would include something like a classroom handout in a class debating sports ethics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
It could be argued Nevada's posting of the article was for comment and criticism, and to a lesser extent reporting, teaching, and/or research.
|
Not really. It was an informational posting. I think the comment/criticism type of use would really only apply if the post included true comment/criticism, not use a repost with a couple words added at the end. That is not comment/criticism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
The nature of the copyrighted work is also taken into account, so since this was a news report of a public event, I wonder if there would be some allowance for that versus a completely original story, opinion piece, etc.
|
Public event, but a specific depiction of a public event. The facts are not protected, just the presentation of the facts. Otherwise, one TV station could just show the footage from another station (and not even PBS does that without explicit permission).
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
Another factor of Fair Use is whether the posting/copying is of a commercial nature. Since the forum is a free service, neither Nevada or the owners of the site gain financially from the posting of the article.
|
This site is commercial. The presence of content draws views and advertising dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
I would assume the owners of this site have already done a little research into what can and cannot be posted on the forum. I would also assume the rules would be a little different on the "paid" part of this site, due to the subscriptions being paid. So to simply say Nevada and Officiating.com are "stealing", or don't care about the rules, *might* fall under the category of hyperbole, without any firm reason otherwise.
|
Whether it is stealing or not, it is certainly ethically questionable.