answered question
8
Votes
Votes
8
Answers
Answers
M$2.30
Are Cut and Paste answers acceptable on Mahalo if you acknowledge where they came from? Isn't this still a form of plagiarism?
If an answer is is cut and pasted from another site (eg wikipedia or another answers site or even the Encyclopedia Britannica) and the answerer
A) includes the reference
And
B) uses ----quote---- before and after the quotation
But
C) adds no extra information of their own
Is this acceptable?
Personally I think its still plagiarism. If it isn't acceptable what should we do when we come across these sort of answers?
A) includes the reference
And
B) uses ----quote---- before and after the quotation
But
C) adds no extra information of their own
Is this acceptable?
Personally I think its still plagiarism. If it isn't acceptable what should we do when we come across these sort of answers?
voted interesting: buddawiggi M$0.25, doubleminaz M$0.10, jasoncalacanis M$0.25, spoon M$0.05, duenhsiyen M$0.05, socalsue M$0.25, michelleldevon M$0.25, shinju M$0.10
answers (8)
I am a paralegal, not currently practicing, but I was, and I specialized in contract law, and copyright infringement and plagiarism were two of the things I dealt with quite frequently. I am now a full time professional writer, freelance mostly, and so copyright infringement and plagiarism are very important to me.
I write for content websites, frequently, and I get paid for the page views or the ad revenue that is garnered on those sites. So do any of the page managers here on Mahalo. If you wrote a guide page, and on that page, you gave good, solid information, and people were coming to your page and reading and clicking on ads and you were making money... how would you feel is someone else came along and copied and pasted your entire guide or even significant portions of it, into an answer on Yahoo! Answers? Or what if they posted it on a forum in response to a question someone asked there?
Now, suddenly, that response is ranking as high or higher in the search engines rankings and people are going there instead of to your guide page.
You lose money.
Does it really matter whether that person put your name on the copy and paste (attribution/credit)? No. You're still losing money. Does it matter if they put a link to your Mahalo Guide page? Probably not. Why? Because if they can get the information they need from the copy and paste, why would they bother to click the link and go see the other site? Most people wouldn't. Remember, the attention span on the internet is about 12-15 seconds, maximum, to gain their attention and keep it.
So considering this scenario, wouldn't you be upset if your revenue went down because someone else copied and pasted you, in whole or in part?
yes! And you should be. Why? BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL!
Plagiarism is taking someone else's idea or concept and taking credit for it, without proper attribution, whether you put it in your own words or copy and paste it from their site.
Copyright infringement is taking their words, however short or long, and copying and pasting them with or without attribution and without permission.
The right way to do this is to provide a short snippet of the quoted information, the link to where you found the full information, and then a paraphrased answer that you write in your own words.
Anything else is actually illegal.
Copyright law says you own a copyright on your work (your writing or any other tangible work) the minute it is put into fixed form. For writing, that means the minute you tap it out on the keyboard, you own it, and that includes your writing here on Mahalo too - these answers are copyrighted, your guides are copyrighted, your tasks are copyrighted TO YOU and then you license the rights to publish, display and use them to Mahalo by agreeing to their terms of service. You still have every right to forbid others from copying and pasting you though, as does Mahalo because you share rights to the content on this site.
Additionally, you can get into legal trouble and be fined or sued, delisted in search engines and served with cease and desist orders by writers and other websites if you infringe on someone else's copyright or plagiarism someone else here on Mahalo.
This is a subject near and dear to my heart, and anyone who manages a page here on Mahalo should feel as strongly about it as I do. The internet is NOT public domain.
And to the person above who said that Wikipedia allows copying and pasting, that's not entirely true. Wikipedia grants a Creative Commons license to all of its content. Hopefully someone on Mahalo has made that page, or else, I'll be going and claiming it in a minute.
I write for content websites, frequently, and I get paid for the page views or the ad revenue that is garnered on those sites. So do any of the page managers here on Mahalo. If you wrote a guide page, and on that page, you gave good, solid information, and people were coming to your page and reading and clicking on ads and you were making money... how would you feel is someone else came along and copied and pasted your entire guide or even significant portions of it, into an answer on Yahoo! Answers? Or what if they posted it on a forum in response to a question someone asked there?
Now, suddenly, that response is ranking as high or higher in the search engines rankings and people are going there instead of to your guide page.
You lose money.
Does it really matter whether that person put your name on the copy and paste (attribution/credit)? No. You're still losing money. Does it matter if they put a link to your Mahalo Guide page? Probably not. Why? Because if they can get the information they need from the copy and paste, why would they bother to click the link and go see the other site? Most people wouldn't. Remember, the attention span on the internet is about 12-15 seconds, maximum, to gain their attention and keep it.
So considering this scenario, wouldn't you be upset if your revenue went down because someone else copied and pasted you, in whole or in part?
yes! And you should be. Why? BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL!
Plagiarism is taking someone else's idea or concept and taking credit for it, without proper attribution, whether you put it in your own words or copy and paste it from their site.
Copyright infringement is taking their words, however short or long, and copying and pasting them with or without attribution and without permission.
The right way to do this is to provide a short snippet of the quoted information, the link to where you found the full information, and then a paraphrased answer that you write in your own words.
Anything else is actually illegal.
Copyright law says you own a copyright on your work (your writing or any other tangible work) the minute it is put into fixed form. For writing, that means the minute you tap it out on the keyboard, you own it, and that includes your writing here on Mahalo too - these answers are copyrighted, your guides are copyrighted, your tasks are copyrighted TO YOU and then you license the rights to publish, display and use them to Mahalo by agreeing to their terms of service. You still have every right to forbid others from copying and pasting you though, as does Mahalo because you share rights to the content on this site.
Additionally, you can get into legal trouble and be fined or sued, delisted in search engines and served with cease and desist orders by writers and other websites if you infringe on someone else's copyright or plagiarism someone else here on Mahalo.
This is a subject near and dear to my heart, and anyone who manages a page here on Mahalo should feel as strongly about it as I do. The internet is NOT public domain.
And to the person above who said that Wikipedia allows copying and pasting, that's not entirely true. Wikipedia grants a Creative Commons license to all of its content. Hopefully someone on Mahalo has made that page, or else, I'll be going and claiming it in a minute.
voted helpful: buddawiggi, windowshopping, cheapgamer, livin, shadowbear, jeffhoard, chriswingate, socalsue, ghanan20003000, juanvasconez, twinpairs, psionandy, shinju
According to the guide that would still be incorrect.
Using the Copy and Pasting on Mahalo guide as a reference I can understand that the way to C/P would also have to include a reason why you cited that source and why you feel it is a trusted source. I trust this guide because it was written by Mahalo Staff as a guide for just these type of questions.
~quote
When you do rely on copying somebody else's information as your answer, you always want to provide some original text from yourself, on Mahalo Answers you can perhaps explain why you are using this source and maybe even explain why you trust it.
~~endquote
I agree with you @psionandy each answer has to have something to make it our own, some for of context to describe "our" answer and only relying on the quoted source as a an additional minor facet to the answer not the entire answer.
Using the Copy and Pasting on Mahalo guide as a reference I can understand that the way to C/P would also have to include a reason why you cited that source and why you feel it is a trusted source. I trust this guide because it was written by Mahalo Staff as a guide for just these type of questions.
~quote
When you do rely on copying somebody else's information as your answer, you always want to provide some original text from yourself, on Mahalo Answers you can perhaps explain why you are using this source and maybe even explain why you trust it.
~~endquote
I agree with you @psionandy each answer has to have something to make it our own, some for of context to describe "our" answer and only relying on the quoted source as a an additional minor facet to the answer not the entire answer.
tags: copyandpaste
voted helpful: psionandy, chriswingate, ssmacd, bunnyphuphu, spoon
It will be an honour for me sir :)
Don't forget this key paragraph too
--quote--
Only copy a portion of the text, no more than four paragraphs and never a full article. You want to make sure you are copying only a small portion of the article. You copy more then one paragraph it helps to separate the blocks of text with your own text analysis.
--/quote--
--quote--
Only copy a portion of the text, no more than four paragraphs and never a full article. You want to make sure you are copying only a small portion of the article. You copy more then one paragraph it helps to separate the blocks of text with your own text analysis.
--/quote--
Agreed, but it depends on the source whether it is plagiarism or not. Wikipedia allowes C/P'ing of texts.
However, mahalo prefers no C/P'ing at all, to avoid confusion.
Then again, there are levels of 'wrong'. If someone copy-pastes without reference to the source, I personally consider that worse than providing that source.. Even better would be:
I think you can find your answer here: http://blabla.com
It basically tells you that the answer to your question is...
I hope this makes sense.
However, mahalo prefers no C/P'ing at all, to avoid confusion.
Then again, there are levels of 'wrong'. If someone copy-pastes without reference to the source, I personally consider that worse than providing that source.. Even better would be:
I think you can find your answer here: http://blabla.com
It basically tells you that the answer to your question is...
I hope this makes sense.
voted helpful: psionandy
The answer to the question is a simple 'No'. It is not plagiarism.
Explanation:
According to the Merriam Webster dictionary the meaning of the word plagiarize is
: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source1
If someone mentions the source. It is not plagiarism.
Plagiarism is when someone professes someone else's work as his own without giving him the credits. Its also known as literary stealing.
Explanation:
According to the Merriam Webster dictionary the meaning of the word plagiarize is
: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source1
If someone mentions the source. It is not plagiarism.
Plagiarism is when someone professes someone else's work as his own without giving him the credits. Its also known as literary stealing.
tags: plagiarizism
voted helpful: philipy, wy, spoon, shadowbear, psionandy
voted unhelpful: michelleldevon
Moreover, it is internationally practiced to mention the sources. If not, only then material is marked as plagiarized and legal actions can be taken.
Otherwise, there is no harm in reproducing the Wikipedia's work.
Otherwise, there is no harm in reproducing the Wikipedia's work.
(edit--- this reply was being written during the time that was composing the earlier one, which explains why the conversation doesn't seem to follow chronologically)
The Cambridge English dictionary says....
plagiarize
/playjriz/ (also plagiarise)
• verb take (the work or idea of someone else) and pass it off as one’s own.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/plagiarize?view=uk
within the context of Mahalo, when you submit YOUR answer, you are claiming that answer as your own....
but even if we take the Merriam Webster definition as the definitive one, do you feel that a cut and paste answer as described in the original question is acceptable on Mahalo? If so why? If not why not?
The Cambridge English dictionary says....
plagiarize
/playjriz/ (also plagiarise)
• verb take (the work or idea of someone else) and pass it off as one’s own.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/plagiarize?view=uk
within the context of Mahalo, when you submit YOUR answer, you are claiming that answer as your own....
but even if we take the Merriam Webster definition as the definitive one, do you feel that a cut and paste answer as described in the original question is acceptable on Mahalo? If so why? If not why not?
"There is no harm in reproducing Wikipedia's work"
The issue I see with that is "We are Mahalo and not Wikipedia"
The internet would not be a better place with a duplicate of Wikipedia either in whole or part.
Mahalo and Mahalo Answers is all about the "original content" that is why in my opinion the Copy and Pasting on Mahalo guide was created, to help users in creating the precious item, original content.
The issue I see with that is "We are Mahalo and not Wikipedia"
The internet would not be a better place with a duplicate of Wikipedia either in whole or part.
Mahalo and Mahalo Answers is all about the "original content" that is why in my opinion the Copy and Pasting on Mahalo guide was created, to help users in creating the precious item, original content.
Look my dear friends ,, actually I am a bit focused on the question. I don't believe in beating about the bush. If a question is asked , one should be straight forward. I enlightened about an international practice.
According to my humble knowledge I do firmly believe in what I answered and I generously accept any debate or rebuttal till the time its healthy. I myself will love to be corrected if I am wrong.
@psionandy
No doubt what you said is totally true and I agree that when you submit the answer you claim it as yours. But according to an international convention, if you have to submit any form of content you can present someone else's idea by putting it in inverted commas and then mentioning its source. You can be held accountable if you do not mention the source.
Now it depends on the type of document that how much "citation" does it allow.
For example, I am recently done with my research paper and I was only allowed to cite max 15% of the whole research paper. Even if I had pasted 100% of the paper from some source. It would have been legal. But my research work wont be accepted. Since i have not put any effort.
Here at Mahalo people should use other websites to support their ideas. Not the whole text should be pasted. But on the contrary if ask you where is Jabal Al Laws? and you tell me that it is China.. Should I believe you when actually it is in RSA.. What proves the authority of an answer is a powerful source. Even renowned researchers cite sources.
@ Buddawiggi
With all due respect, I hope the above mentioned thread has cleared your misconception.
According to my humble knowledge I do firmly believe in what I answered and I generously accept any debate or rebuttal till the time its healthy. I myself will love to be corrected if I am wrong.
@psionandy
No doubt what you said is totally true and I agree that when you submit the answer you claim it as yours. But according to an international convention, if you have to submit any form of content you can present someone else's idea by putting it in inverted commas and then mentioning its source. You can be held accountable if you do not mention the source.
Now it depends on the type of document that how much "citation" does it allow.
For example, I am recently done with my research paper and I was only allowed to cite max 15% of the whole research paper. Even if I had pasted 100% of the paper from some source. It would have been legal. But my research work wont be accepted. Since i have not put any effort.
Here at Mahalo people should use other websites to support their ideas. Not the whole text should be pasted. But on the contrary if ask you where is Jabal Al Laws? and you tell me that it is China.. Should I believe you when actually it is in RSA.. What proves the authority of an answer is a powerful source. Even renowned researchers cite sources.
@ Buddawiggi
With all due respect, I hope the above mentioned thread has cleared your misconception.
@whiterock You sound like a smart guy so I would sincerely like to welcome to Mahalo and look forward to reading your answers and hopefully learning a bit from you as well.
@writerock
Thanks for that. I apologizes if in framing my question I have caused a misunderstanding. From reading your response it appears that I have.
Firstly I agree with your comment above wholeheartedly. Citing sources is very important for precisely the reasons that you gave.
Secondly, I really like your example talking about your research paper. Its an excellent point that quoting 100% from another source would be legal, but would not in this context be acceptable.
Perhaps my inappropriate and incorrect use of the word 'plagiarism' suggested that I was interested in the 'legality' of using articles copied in their entirety, that was not my intention. Instead I was interested in the 'acceptability' of such answers in Mahalo. Which we both agree can be very different things...
Thanks for that. I apologizes if in framing my question I have caused a misunderstanding. From reading your response it appears that I have.
Firstly I agree with your comment above wholeheartedly. Citing sources is very important for precisely the reasons that you gave.
Secondly, I really like your example talking about your research paper. Its an excellent point that quoting 100% from another source would be legal, but would not in this context be acceptable.
Perhaps my inappropriate and incorrect use of the word 'plagiarism' suggested that I was interested in the 'legality' of using articles copied in their entirety, that was not my intention. Instead I was interested in the 'acceptability' of such answers in Mahalo. Which we both agree can be very different things...
@writerock is 100% accurate. It might be undesirable for other reasons, but it is not what is meant by the term plagiarism.
It might not specifically be plagiarism but it is absolutely copyright infringement. The two usually work hand in hand. Plagiarism is copying and pasting without attribution and copyright infringement is copy and pasting with attribution but without permission and using more than about 40 words or so for the quoted part. (40 words is a freelance industry standard guideline, not a hard and fast rule).
As a freelance writer, I would be very upset if someone copied and pasted large sections of my writing on this site for an answer, but I have no problem with very short snippets as a quote and then a link to where I wrote the entire piece.
There are many reasons for this, but the biggest one is: it's ILLEGAL to copy and paste someone else's work without their express permission.
As a freelance writer, I would be very upset if someone copied and pasted large sections of my writing on this site for an answer, but I have no problem with very short snippets as a quote and then a link to where I wrote the entire piece.
There are many reasons for this, but the biggest one is: it's ILLEGAL to copy and paste someone else's work without their express permission.
> It might not specifically be plagiarism but it is absolutely copyright infringement.
It might or might not be copyright infrigement.
In the first place, we're talking about things that may be released with public domain licences like creative commons in the first place. A lot of the quotes are from Wikipedia for example.
In the second places, there are fair uses of copyright material.
It might or might not be copyright infrigement.
In the first place, we're talking about things that may be released with public domain licences like creative commons in the first place. A lot of the quotes are from Wikipedia for example.
In the second places, there are fair uses of copyright material.
Most examples I see of this kind of this are... well, let's say less than ideal.
But that is as much to do with the content of the quoted material not being a great answer to the question, or the source not being a convincing one.
I think there could be some cases when it is ok though.
As a hypothetical, if I asked: "What are Barack Obama's views on --whatever--?"
If someone then replied with something like this:
"The New York Times quotes President Obama thus:
-- quote
Couple of paras of highly relevant Obama speech
-- /quote"
Well, I would could consider that a helpful answer. Maybe not the very best answer possible on the topic, but certainly a useful one.
I wouldn't give anyone a heck of a lot of credit for just paraphrasing that info in their own words. Though if they compared various sources, and explained how different things he's said could be interpreted in different ways, I'd definitely give a lot of credit for that.
So to summarise... a straight copy-and-paste, with acknowledgement...
- In practice is usually a poor answer
- Sometimes could be acceptable and even good
- Rarely is going to be the best answer
But that is as much to do with the content of the quoted material not being a great answer to the question, or the source not being a convincing one.
I think there could be some cases when it is ok though.
As a hypothetical, if I asked: "What are Barack Obama's views on --whatever--?"
If someone then replied with something like this:
"The New York Times quotes President Obama thus:
-- quote
Couple of paras of highly relevant Obama speech
-- /quote"
Well, I would could consider that a helpful answer. Maybe not the very best answer possible on the topic, but certainly a useful one.
I wouldn't give anyone a heck of a lot of credit for just paraphrasing that info in their own words. Though if they compared various sources, and explained how different things he's said could be interpreted in different ways, I'd definitely give a lot of credit for that.
So to summarise... a straight copy-and-paste, with acknowledgement...
- In practice is usually a poor answer
- Sometimes could be acceptable and even good
- Rarely is going to be the best answer
voted helpful: psionandy
I see lots of long and detailed answers, so I think I will go with short and sweet.
No it is not plagerism if a source is given. An unsorced cut and paste is plagerism. I do believe an answer like this is a viable answer, however it is also a lazy one.
Personally if I am asking a question I would rather have a sorced & informative cut and paste then no answer at all, but I will give nearly any answer that put in a bit more thought the nod as a better answer.*
*Matthew AKA Cheapgamer 9/22/09 on Mahalo answers ^_^
No it is not plagerism if a source is given. An unsorced cut and paste is plagerism. I do believe an answer like this is a viable answer, however it is also a lazy one.
Personally if I am asking a question I would rather have a sorced & informative cut and paste then no answer at all, but I will give nearly any answer that put in a bit more thought the nod as a better answer.*
*Matthew AKA Cheapgamer 9/22/09 on Mahalo answers ^_^
It's not plagiarism if it's attributed (source is given) but it is still copyright infringement to copy and paste long answers of someone else's writing. Plagiarism and copyright infringement go hand in hand in the legal arena.
Except that copying and pasting Wikipedia text is not copyright infringement if the quote is attributed More details on the Wikipedia license terms are at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License
Thanks for the info, interesting stuff, I wasn't even looking at the Copyright aspect.
"Long" Is kinda subjective, isn't it? And that's one of the problems with Fair Use because nobody knows for sure how long 'long' is. There is no set answer. Industry standard says no more than about 40 lines in a novel-length manuscript and less than 40% in shorter works, but even that could get some folks in trouble if the original writer has issues with it.
Some say that the purpose or intended use makes a difference, whether it's being used commercially or not. Others say that has no bearing on it.
What it boils down to, for me, is this: If *I* as a writer would be upset that someone used it, I don't use it that way. If *I* as a writer would be happy that someone linked to me and used a snippet, I use it that way, and then hope no one gets upset with me. I do try to err on the side of caution though.
Fair use is tricky business... and in the end, sometimes it's left up to the courts to decide, and where copyright law is concerned, the courts have been a bit ambiguous too. (shaking head) No hard and fast 'right answer' for ya.
Thanks, though! I hope to do the page justice! Guess ya'll can tell this one is something I'm passionate about, eh? LOL
Some say that the purpose or intended use makes a difference, whether it's being used commercially or not. Others say that has no bearing on it.
What it boils down to, for me, is this: If *I* as a writer would be upset that someone used it, I don't use it that way. If *I* as a writer would be happy that someone linked to me and used a snippet, I use it that way, and then hope no one gets upset with me. I do try to err on the side of caution though.
Fair use is tricky business... and in the end, sometimes it's left up to the courts to decide, and where copyright law is concerned, the courts have been a bit ambiguous too. (shaking head) No hard and fast 'right answer' for ya.
Thanks, though! I hope to do the page justice! Guess ya'll can tell this one is something I'm passionate about, eh? LOL
Wikipedia and many other well-known and authentic sites offer licences such as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License for the TEXTUAL material. (In case of images you need to get the permission). This mean anyone anywhere can copy paste their data. I hope this is legal and not COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. Long story cut short.
ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Copyright
Lets see the ground realities and talk practical and logic.
Lets say I ask a question about Mt.Sanai
There are three options a person can repond in a fashion.
1) He copy paste the article from a source(e.g.Wikipedia) and cite the source.( The ones which allow to copy paste).
2) He rephrase the same data and present the same facts in his own words.
3) He conducts his own research by physically examining.
Which one you think will be the more crisp, authentic and desirable to read?
I am sure the majority will go with the first option. Why ? because it is an authentic source written and edited by highly qualified writers.
Where as 2nd option is desired when the content is not clear or too academic for a lame man to understand (which is a least expected condition).
Third is least desired, nor anybody will travel a thousand miles neither his research will be that much authentic. Thats why we need sources, that's why we cite.
I hope my points clear :)
ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Copyright
Lets see the ground realities and talk practical and logic.
Lets say I ask a question about Mt.Sanai
There are three options a person can repond in a fashion.
1) He copy paste the article from a source(e.g.Wikipedia) and cite the source.( The ones which allow to copy paste).
2) He rephrase the same data and present the same facts in his own words.
3) He conducts his own research by physically examining.
Which one you think will be the more crisp, authentic and desirable to read?
I am sure the majority will go with the first option. Why ? because it is an authentic source written and edited by highly qualified writers.
Where as 2nd option is desired when the content is not clear or too academic for a lame man to understand (which is a least expected condition).
Third is least desired, nor anybody will travel a thousand miles neither his research will be that much authentic. Thats why we need sources, that's why we cite.
I hope my points clear :)
I see no mention of 'fair use" doctrine mentioned in this thread. Just because you acknowledge the source of your quote does not mean you have permission to quote. According to US Code TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107 and I quote:
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, 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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
COMMENTARY (Quoted from FL-102; see list of circulars and scroll down to you see the one on fair use)
The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.
Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
FL-102, Revised May 2009
duenhsiyen
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, 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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
COMMENTARY (Quoted from FL-102; see list of circulars and scroll down to you see the one on fair use)
The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.
Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
FL-102, Revised May 2009
duenhsiyen
source(s):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/
Voted as best: bunnyphuphu
I find it very interesting that, an answer that addresses copying and pasting, is itself primarily copied and pasted, with or without attribution. A more effective answer would rely primarily upon analysis, with supporting attribution, rather than the other way around.
Ironic? A bit of a joke for myself. :)
This article might be helpful...
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/993410/united_states_copyright_law_fair_use.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/993410/united_states_copyright_law_fair_use.html
voted helpful: buddawiggi, psionandy
Seriously nice work @livin and well presented here.
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
I am glad you grabbed Creative Commons you are a good person for it ^_^
But I think learning this here on Mahalo will make everyone's answers better and more in line with the vision of what a human powered search engine and information should be! Mahalo has such potential!