Specific copyright/quoting question

I've read some of the threads concerning copyright issues and believe I am familiar with ATS' T&C in general and regarding them but am bringing forth a specific example regarding it. I was about to properly quote and link an article when I found the following from here.

© 2010 KXLY.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without prior permission.

The notice makes me question if I should be quoting this source. There's links to post the article to reddit, facebook, etc and an option to email it so I guess they qualify as prior permission, redistributed and published being granted. I'm just trying to respect everyone's rights and looking for clarification.

Don't quote the original in its entirety, link back to the original source, and you should be fine under basic "fair usage" interpretation.

reply to post by Three_moons


I believe that the copyright statement on the website suggests that it can not "wholly" be reproduced without prior permission. I am sure a small exert with appropriate attribution (i.e link, author) wouldn't be a problem.



[edit on 1-9-2010 by NeutronAvenger]

Thanks for the replies. A few more sets of eyes is always appreciated.

This is an area I know a lot about. You can use portions of it. What is a portion? Depends on which judge you ask. Generally it's agreed that it's less than one quarter.

You cannot make money off any reprints, republishing, etc. You can't, for example, place this article on your website and charge people to read it.

You must always quote the original source and, more importantly, the author.

As for the copyright notice, it is irrelevant. Whether it's there or not, the same rights and obligations apply.

Hope this helps. U2U me if you need more specific help.

HOWEVER - copyright notwithstanding -

FAIR USE is meant to protect citizens and and people who wish to dialogue openly about materials presented elsewhere....

without the FAIR USE doctrine no one could ever comment on ANYTHING without first engaging the author/legal owner of the material thus gagging constructive analytical dialogue or commentary to avoid becoming a criminal...

DO NOT LET THE COPYRIGHT MASTERS BRAINWASH YOU!

If you wanted to reproduce the work in it's entirety "as is" it would be one thing.... but we don't do that here... why would we?

We give credit where credit is due, we usually show only examples or portions of peoples work and link to the source to allow the owners to get their "hits" or whatever jollies they get from ego metrics, and we certainly do not impede or usurp access to their work.

Therefore in most case, you are not at risk unless some exceedingly obtuse technocrat needs to make a stink to justify his or her existence.

.... sorry ranting......

[The opinions expressed above do not constitute legal advice, nor do I intend to imply any legal credentials or authoritative standing. They are my own, and may not be in line with the Above Network Inc. protocol or policy ..... how's that for a disclaimer?]

You are fine if you quote (use the bb code tags) 15% or less and provide a link back to the source material.

If they object they should use a DMCA Take Down Notification informing us that they object to getting free traffic and revenue from the big ATS. At that point we will remove the post with no foul / no penalty to you.

Hope that clarifies it for you.

Springer...

Thanks to all for the advice and answers, especially from Springer, as a response from the owner has the most relevance for me.