Website Content and Copyright Issues

PhilC · 05-16-2004, 04:24 PM

Can you get into trouble for taking content from some other website?
Read on here :

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=299775

Gives you something to really think about ...

thebassman · 05-16-2004, 06:10 PM

Interesting read... thanks for the post!!! I've been paraphrasing articles on my photography site... but always provide links back to the original article... I can't imagine anyone getting upset about that...

Poor kid...

PhilC · 05-16-2004, 11:28 PM

thebassman, I hope you did ask for permission before posting those content even if you do link back to it ... or you could get into trouble ...

Johan007 · 05-17-2004, 02:52 AM

They can only charge you for how much damage it has done. Maybe $0.1 a user maybe $10 it just depends on the type of site. Same goes for pictures. Hes a bit anal but has point that you dont need © ot T&T info.

thebassman · 05-17-2004, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sfxmystica

thebassman, I hope you did ask for permission before posting those content even if you do link back to it ... or you could get into trouble ...

I'm just paraphrasing mostly... I'm not too worried about it... I make practically no money from the site... hehe.

Take a look at what I'm doing if you're curious: http://www.photographycorner.com/viewforum.php?f=21

Johan007 · 05-18-2004, 03:18 AM

erm actually I was thinking along the lines of UK Law and not US Law but if you are a UK site then you may only have to pay legal fee - maybe.

PhilC · 05-18-2004, 05:08 PM

Nopes, you will have to pay 'the loss the piracy caused to the owner of the copyrighted content' (if proved) ... Supposing that was in a reduction in adsense revenues ... A guy could claim he was getting so and so, but after the content was pirated, he got only so and so ... The court might ask the guilty party to shell out the lost revenue plus something in punitive damages (and perhaps the lawyers fees) ...

No expert here, but I guess thats how it would work ...

FGTH · 05-19-2004, 10:16 AM

In the U.S., the penalties of copyright infrigement are defined by the judge unless a settlement is made before the decision.

In the U.S., you can sue anyone and not have to worry about paying the other party's legal fees if you lose.

In Australia and other "loser pays" countries, you don't have many lawsuits.

Suing some kid who doesn't own anything is wasted time and energy for a company. The company ends up spending more money on lawyer fees than it would get from the offender.

Bottom line: get written consent before using other people's work.

In work-for-hire situations, copyright law is still the same but with a twist. Customers pay web design firms and photographers for the design including licensed stock photos, custom photos/images, etc... Under the law, work-for-hire contracts assume that the clients created the photographs or website.

The images used within the context of the website belong to the client (note: used within the context of the site). The client can apply for copyright ownership of the website even if they didn't author the site and content. That's work-for-hire.

PhilC · 05-20-2004, 10:31 PM

Thanks for that useful tidbit of information ... man, I already have grey hairs ... with all this law mumbo-jumbo to keep in mind, I think I'll go bald soon!

thebassman · 05-20-2004, 11:23 PM

Just posting a link to their article, and then a 1 paragraph summary of the news story certainly would be ok, though, wouldn't it?

FGTH · 05-21-2004, 04:20 AM

If you author a descriptive narrative of another person's work, that's OK.
It's not paraphrasing another person's work.

thebassman · 05-21-2004, 12:15 PM

Good, thanks.