Fair Use Doctrine. Here's a link to the actual federal code. It doesn't seem clear to me from this.

Is there a case book too? ;)

Cool, we're on the same page again, even if we still disagree somewhat. I think the library analogy works if we look at, say, the NYT running an AP story. The times has an "AP Library Card." Anyone can go to times.com and read any AP stories that are run there. The Times pay a subscription to the AP to be allowed to run their content, thus fulfilling the requirements for the library card, and the Times then gets to manage their site however they please. But the Times then turns into its own sort of library. In other words, you can go "use" their stuff, but that doesn't mean you get to pass it around to non-members. (Of course the NYT isn't the only outfit with access to AP stories, but as I've tried to show, that's beside the point)

Since this site doesn't have an AP Library Card, it shouldn't be displaying full-text AP stories without permission. As Nevada's research reflects, the AP might indeed allow stories to be run here free of charge. But as you pointed out earlier, that should be the AP's call, and not be simply assumed to be okay by users or administrators of this site.

(Not directed to anyone in particular) It's really easy to talk about mountains and molehills here, but to my mind it's just as easy to simply post a link, maybe an excerpt, and a description, thus steering clear of even the appearance of impropriety. I've engaged discussions on this point on multiple boards, sometimes usefully, sometimes not. I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that since the denizens here make it a consistent practice to study fine print, and generally believe that it's not okay to pick and choose the rules one follows simply on the basis of convenience, that this would be an easy sell.

Nevada, I'm very sorry to have used the word "steal" in my earlier post. Though I didn't mean it as one, I realize that there was no way that my word choice wasn't going to be taken as a personal attack on you. I was irritated at another's complete dismissiveness of mty claim, and as I fired back you got hit in the cross-fire. I apologize for my careless aim. I greatly respect that you took the time to do the research you did on the issue, even if our interpretations of the relevant law/doctrine may differ. Cheers.

You tried selling it last year.
http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post597485

You just finished trying to sell it again this year.

Y'all come back next year, Dookie, and try selling it again. Hell, you might even have a brand new audience to preach to then(if you're lucky). Us old embittered caracitures can't live forever, you know. :D

Even Larry King has to retire eventually.

The issue with the AP is that they own the articles and define who can use them and when. The work is copyright protected even if it is owned by a not-for-profit cooperative. To reprint it without following their rules of use is a violation of the copyright.

It is likely that all members of the cooperative pay a fee to be part of the AP and with that they automatically get the rights to print the articles in their publications. Their business model is that they depend on each other to create news articles to sell to their patrons. Even if there is not a single writer that is listed on the byline, it is someone's work....and it is owned by someone (the AP).

Here's Bruce From Long Beach, What's You're Question ???
 

Yeah. He wants to spend more time with his wives.

Fixed it for ya. ;)

Many folks seem to think that "not for profit" means "free." It just means that their sales don't yield profits to distribute to shareholders (public or private) at the end of the fiscal year.

Agree with your fix...but quoting an entire article is not a "Fair Use".

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 could be argued Nevada's posting of the article was for comment and criticism, and to a lesser extent reporting, teaching, and/or research. 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. 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.

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.

This forum is no more a "free service" than your local broadcast radio or television. I've got a picture of a Gatorade bottle on top of this page reinforcing that assessment.

The difference is the local radio station is the one who chooses to put the content on the air. In this case, the site doesn't post the content, only the people participating in it. Also, the site only receives revenue for "clicks" on the ads, where the radio station directly charges the advertisers based on the number of eyes or ears - but that's probably an anciliary argument.

In any case, can you show who profited from the posting of the article, and how that profit would be different if the article was not posted? If there was ever some mention on the site's home page that readers should go to the discussion forum because there was a scintilating discussion going on about soccer violence, then yes, there's a possible direct link. But otherwise, just because money changes hands somewhere doesn't mean Fair Use has been violated, from what I can see.

What would you say about some parent printing off several copies of this article, taking them to the local park district soccer meeting, and passing it out to discuss the kids' safety? Surely the park district receives money from local businesses, heck, perhaps even state and federal money, so should they disallow this to happen? If they do allow it, under what law would they be liable to the AP for payment of some kind? Or would that simply be a Fair Use of the article?

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.

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.

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).

This site is commercial. The presence of content draws views and advertising dollars.
Whether it is stealing or not, it is certainly ethically questionable.

I suggest you check out YouTube. Individual people post there but that doesn't make it OK to post copyrighted stuff.

You don't have to profit for it to be a violation. In fact, the whole point about copyright is not about preventing you from making a profit but about allowing the rightful owner to control thier work and ability to make a profit off of it if they choose.