# Policy on posting of entire articles- EVERYONE PLEASE READ!!!



## DBA (30 Sep 2005)

I am starting to be uncomfortable with the practice of posting entire articles for comment sometimes without even a link to a source that paid for it. It looks to me that without the permission of the author or a publisher this practice isn't in compliance with copyright law. It's easier to follow comments when the entire article is included in the message thread but it can negatively effect those who produced and published the article we found interesting in the first place. Posts should probably be limited to a small excerpt with link to the full text along with mention of the author and publisher. You only need to look at the variety of blogs and how they handle this. If they get permission from the author or publisher they reproduce the article but if not it's an excerpt, link and comment about where it came from.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Sep 2005)

A very good point, especially with the rate we are growing here, that there are a lot more eyes on us than ever before. I believe one of our members well versed in these fields is working on a set of guidelines right now. [ between the thousand other things he is doing, right Whiskey? ;D]


----------



## winchable (30 Sep 2005)

I think we went through something similar to this a year ago, may be a good time to reiterate the point.
At the very least post links to where the article is originally from, preferably only posting a snippet of the whole thing here.
As Bruce has pointed out, because of recent events, one of our members with experience in the field is working on an update for the official guidelines.
Until then, heed the advice here.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Sep 2005)

Fair comment.

As a common violator I will make the necessary adjustments.  In most cases there are only one or two paragraphs or sentences that stand out.  The reason for posting the entire article is that I have noticed that over time some links disappear so the corroborating information is no longer available.

Cheers


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Sep 2005)

I THINK [ at least so far]that the whole article is OK as long as proper credit and the link is provided...as long as the article is not slanderous, etc.


----------



## winchable (30 Sep 2005)

> The reason for posting the entire article is that I have noticed that over time some links disappear so the corroborating information is no longer available



That's quite true actually, which is why I say at the very least post the link for the article.
I won't comment much further on this because it's outside of my arcs, the lawyer cometh.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Sep 2005)

> That's quite true actually, which is why I say at the very least post the link for the article.



That is my standard practice in any event Che.

Cheers.


----------



## Cloud Cover (30 Sep 2005)

You must cite the source and if possible the author, which are usually at the bottom of the article being copied. Often, I will add a small disclaimer at the bottom of the article: 

"Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act."   This is implied under a site like this, but it doesn't hurt to put it there. 

Bruce Monkouse is right- slanderous, libellous, offensive material gets yanked on sight.   If anybody spots material that falls into that category, hit the Report to Mod button.

As for the T & C's... still trying to get the time to finish them off. I'm also taking suggestions on them via PM.     


Here is the actual text of the relevant portion of the Copyright Act:

 Copyright Act
                  PART III INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT AND MORAL RIGHTS AND EXCEPTIONS TO INFRINGEMENT
                       Exceptions
                           Fair Dealing
Criticism or review
 29.1 Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:

(a) the source; and

(b) if given in the source, the name of the

(i) author, in the case of a work,

(ii) performer, in the case of a performer's performance,

(iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or

(iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.

1997, c. 24, s. 18.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Sep 2005)

Stickied for your reference.


----------



## thomastmcc (1 Oct 2005)

what about copyright law around the world is it all the same of different in other countires like the uk ,europe etc .

thomas


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (1 Oct 2005)

Thanks for the discussion, it's an important one. If you're unsure what to do, please just ask one of the Staff and we'd be glad to help out.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## muskrat89 (1 Oct 2005)

So, whiskey - 



> slanderous, libellous, offensive material gets yanked on sight



So, the safe approach would be no Op-Ed type pieces? If a columnist or editor is expressing an opinion that may cast another person or organization in a negative light at all, then it is dangerous - correct?

Also - in a news report - if we post it, we are making an assumption that the agency/reporter have verified facts, checked sources, etc. What happens if they didn't?


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Oct 2005)

Lets not be timid, but we should also not give trash journalism an opportunity to express itself here.   I wouldn't say no op-ed pieces, just the ones that are clearly aimed to viciously attack another person. 

The other "ban" [muskrat- you know the one] is still in place, and will be for quite sometime.

As for the laws of other countries, the governing law of this web site are the laws of the Province of Ontario and the laws of Canada.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (1 Oct 2005)

I am curious whiskey, if we post one viewpoint that might under the current climate be considered problematic for us and post another viewpoint that counters the negative viewpoint, would we be covered?


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Oct 2005)

Perhaps it is less the opinion of the piece posted that presents the problem than the nature of any commentary we make about the posting?


----------



## McG (2 Oct 2005)

For those who were not aware, it is also part of the site's guidelines that you will attribute quotes:
"You will properly attribute any quotes to the appropriate author or speaker."1



1. Army.ca Conduct Guidelines: MUST READ, http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jun 2008)

I know this is an old, old thread, but it remains important.



			
				whiskey601 said:
			
		

> You must cite the source and if possible the author, which are usually at the bottom of the article being copied. Often, I will add a small disclaimer at the bottom of the article:
> 
> "Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act."   This is implied under a site like this, but it doesn't hurt to put it there.
> 
> ...



For those of us who copy and post articles here on Army.ca: It looks like the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act are unaffected by Bill C-61.

*But:* Those of you who download lots of music and videos might want to take note of the proposed changes.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Jun 2008)

Thanks for that E.R....

In a similar vein, it appears Associated Press is seeking compensation for quotes as short as 5 words (here's the form they post to collect).  

And what if you're not sure if something is under "fair use"?  No problem - just ask the owner of the information!

I know I'LL be more careful re:  quoting AP, even here in Canada.


----------



## muskrat89 (17 Jun 2008)

More on the AP situation:  http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/17/associated-press-exp.html


----------



## Mike Baker (18 Jun 2008)

Question. Does one have to write "Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act." if they only post some of the article, but use the quote code for that little bit, and have a link to the rest of the original?

Or when ever you post any article you always have to have "Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act."?

Baker


----------

