Clarification on Rule 16
Discussion
PH posting Rule 16 says, quite rightly: "Do not copy and paste content from newspapers, news sites or other websites. This is a breach of their copyright and any such threads will be deleted."
To avoid breaching this rule I've been posting a link which goes to an image, as that is not copying and pasting the image. That is what the rule specifically proscribes. If anything the copyright to the link belongs to Thumbsnap, PH or me. IANAL.
In addition I've named an article source, and quoted from it. This is the procedure in academia when writing, to avoid a charge of plagiarism the source must be cited.
Having tried to find previous guidance on Rule 16 unsuccessfuily, could mods explain how the above approach breached copyright...if both approaches do so, then it's going to be very difficult if not impossible to communicate what an external source is saying. Or. does the rule need clarfying / changing?
Thanks.
To avoid breaching this rule I've been posting a link which goes to an image, as that is not copying and pasting the image. That is what the rule specifically proscribes. If anything the copyright to the link belongs to Thumbsnap, PH or me. IANAL.
In addition I've named an article source, and quoted from it. This is the procedure in academia when writing, to avoid a charge of plagiarism the source must be cited.
Having tried to find previous guidance on Rule 16 unsuccessfuily, could mods explain how the above approach breached copyright...if both approaches do so, then it's going to be very difficult if not impossible to communicate what an external source is saying. Or. does the rule need clarfying / changing?
Thanks.
bigandclever said:
Clarification? On Rule 16? Is this your first day? 
Clearly not!
Self-appointed censor(s) are complaining to mods, who appear to agree, that when something is <not> "copied and pasted" it still breaches Rule 16 if the wannabe censor doesn't approve of what's posted because it doesn't agree with their world view. PH Rule 16 may be used (abused?) to shut down debate even when nothing has been 'copied and pasted' into a thread.
Rule 16 again: Do not copy and paste content from newspapers, news sites or other websites.
Yet abiding by the rule is still wrong to some.
ETA I did think of adding (again) at the end thread title but that seemed a tad critical so chose not to.
Edited by turbobloke on Monday 18th March 15:14
Just for clarification, I have not reported any posts of TBs. HTH.
And I don't think the rule requires clarification.
I have appealed to TB to post links to the full article to provide full context.
However, posting screen shots of articles's headlines rather than links directly to the article does seem like the poster is trying to obstruct the meaning meant by the original article author. Especially when jpeg is accompanied by the poster's own narrative based purely on the headline, but I acknowledge the narrative is the individuals right.
Headlines in this day and age are driven by media to enrage and engage. But are frequently misleading.
I just think it is an odd way of posting when the full article is available.....
And I don't think the rule requires clarification.
I have appealed to TB to post links to the full article to provide full context.
However, posting screen shots of articles's headlines rather than links directly to the article does seem like the poster is trying to obstruct the meaning meant by the original article author. Especially when jpeg is accompanied by the poster's own narrative based purely on the headline, but I acknowledge the narrative is the individuals right.
Headlines in this day and age are driven by media to enrage and engage. But are frequently misleading.
I just think it is an odd way of posting when the full article is available.....
Edited by mike9009 on Tuesday 19th March 08:19
mike9009 said:
Just for clarification, I have not reported any posts of TBs. HTH.
And I don't think the rule requires clarification.
I have appealed to TB to post links to the full article to provide full context.
I'll make one reply to this, as it's diverting the thread.And I don't think the rule requires clarification.
I have appealed to TB to post links to the full article to provide full context.
The material I consult, giving the information relevant to some threads and the one mike9009 is referring to in particular, can arrive as pdf files from a university librarian. Others are online, and are not open access (the uni pays) and in any case mike9009 and others won't have access to the uni web platform. The assumption from mike9009 that I have a link to share is wrong - not everyone must google everything - but google is great. The above post reflects his experience, not mine. Another false assumption is that there's more to be seen in the context of a thread discussion which I must want to hide, a slur which is unfounded. People can make up their minds on what's posted, a rather silly assumption is that they won't (this is PH). PH Rule 16 is clear as it stands, do not copy and paste material from various websites, so I don't copy and paste any material yet complaints still arise. The implication, clear enough, is that some would prefer certain information remains largely hidden and whinge about it being aired using any feeble excuse available.
Enough said as far as a reply goes here, but if the rule can be clarified this time it would be very helpful. Not copying and not pasting should be allowed with the present Rule 16.
Baroque attacks said:
turbobloke said:
…can arrive as pdf files from a university librarian. Others are online, and are not open access (the uni pays)
Posting from articles which aren’t open access?Rule 16 forbids copy and paste, so I don't do that.
turbobloke said:
Baroque attacks said:
turbobloke said:
…can arrive as pdf files from a university librarian. Others are online, and are not open access (the uni pays)
Posting from articles which aren’t open access?Rule 16 forbids copy and paste, so I don't do that.
I didn’t write rule 16, but I don’t think you get the reason for it existing.
Baroque attacks said:
turbobloke said:
Baroque attacks said:
turbobloke said:
…can arrive as pdf files from a university librarian. Others are online, and are not open access (the uni pays)
Posting from articles which aren’t open access?Rule 16 forbids copy and paste, so I don't do that.
I didn’t write rule 16, but I don’t think you get the reason for it existing.
You've managed to get the wrong idea. The complainant(s) want a link to material which lacks open access. They don't understand what's going on either. I don't provide one, because it wouldn't work for them anyway, and they're not allowed access if it worked. You're confusing copyright law and the official secrets act in a bizarre manner. The contents of copyright works aren't secret. Information can be passed on without breaching copyright.
I get the reason for Rule 16, you're not getting the situation. The uni would have no cause for complaint as I'm not granting access to their site (I'd need to pass on my uni email address with log in details plus site ID plus site PW so dream on) and I'm not copying and pasting copyright works. Seriously, how difficult is this to get?
Baroque attacks said:
Tbf you’re the only one going on about the official secrets act, no idea why.
Doesn’t sound like a battle you’ll win - particularly with an admission.
Their playground, their rules etc.
FFSDoesn’t sound like a battle you’ll win - particularly with an admission.
Their playground, their rules etc.
I agree with Rule 16. I've been following Rule 16. Do you need it enlarged, in bold, underlined? Do you read posts you reply to?!
I'm referring to something not involving copy and paste, not in breach of Rule 16, hence the need for clarification.
Enough already have a good evening.
DanL said:
So, you don’t copy and paste, but you do take a screen grab and post a link to it?
I don't copy and paste into a thread, you got it right.I don't copy a screen grab of a published paper's content and paste it either as-is or using a link.
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 20th March 20:11
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: So for example if I took a capture from a PDF and I uploaded it to Imgur or Thumbsnap - you're doing that but with images from those papers and then pasting a link to the image?
No I'm not doing that. For papers in question, I quote from them with a citation and link to my own construction of several such quotes numbering from 2 to 12 using the SnapChat upload facility. No copying and pasting is involved. I can type, and I can create my own images in Paint, which don't reproduce the copyright material. The copyright for the link to this creation is either SnapChat's or PH's or possibly mine as I constructed the material. However I suspect that by joining the PH community I handed copyright to the owners of PH.
Copyright law now allows short quotations to be used without infringing copyright, usually given an unambiguous citation, which I give. My quotations are very short. Previously even this required permission, although even then there was a waiver for news reporting and interestingly use by an academic. Note the title of NP&E and my means of access. However the law is different now and short quotes are permitted without permission. If I presume PHers are familiar with copyright law, and I may be mistaken there but if some are, then they'll see why what I do is not breaching copyright or (therefore) Rule 16.
PS the update to copyright law also allows similar limited uses of copyright material for the purposes of caricature, parody or pastiche, without having to obtain permission. Overall I suspect PH Rule 16, which I agree with, needs to be updated to specify what the latest copyright law allows, as opposed to a very basic statement of what isn't allowed.
DanL said:
What do you do? 
See above.
I don't get why anyone would be bitter enough to report you for it but that does feel like it's pushing it a bit.
I'm guessing that the mods and forum owners don't want to be moonlighting as copyright lawyers and having to try to decide what is and isn't allowed under the law and tbh I can't say I blame them as it's a thankless task.
Put put yourself in their shoes how much time would you put into trying work out the law over whether what you've linked to is allowed if someone is reporting you for breaching copyright?
I'm guessing that the mods and forum owners don't want to be moonlighting as copyright lawyers and having to try to decide what is and isn't allowed under the law and tbh I can't say I blame them as it's a thankless task.
Put put yourself in their shoes how much time would you put into trying work out the law over whether what you've linked to is allowed if someone is reporting you for breaching copyright?
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff