Clarification on Rule 16
Discussion
I'll make it official then...
Bill said:
How is that not a breach of copyright? The uni has paid for the journals (I'm guessing) and given you access for personal research. You taking a screenshot and giving everyone access online is a breach of copyright (and presumably would land you in hit water with the uni.)
You've clarified some points about what you link to but it's not entirely clear what you mean. Have you got an example of something that has been removed?b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: 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.
Some indovodials don't want credible information from research, which runs contrary to their belief in a particular worldview, to be disseminated - this is as old as the hills and I believe you do get it. It's otherwise known as censorship, stifling debate, take your pick.bhstewie said:
hstewie said: 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? 
Whose shoes? PH Rule 16 is rightly about copyright law and imo it needs to be updated beyond what's not allowed to show, clearly, what is allowed. It would take one sentence as per my previous posts. If Rule 16 is being abused for vexatious purposes then PH needs to know the score to get their judgements right.I've had to spend time working out copyright law before complaining, rather than after making a baseless complaint. Copyright material can be reproduced without permission for setting exam questions, again with an unambiguous citation, as I know from use of my own published and copyright material.
Edited to add that I haven't just clarified some points, I also made it clear that the entire 'you taking screenshot and giving everyone access online' of/to a paper is simply wrong. Giving access to a paper via a link is what the complainant(s) want and I don't do it! It wouldn't work anyway for reasons given.
There's no answer to your question as it's not clear. I messaged PH management several days ago to ask for details but have had no reply to date. I'm not going to pre-empt their reply if it comes.
This thread is about Rule 16 clarification and if you / other PH mods / PH management would consider clarification then I suggest the following brief but arguably helpful revision is considered. As advertised, it involves only one more sentence and a word or three extra in the old first sentence. Saying what is allowed would be useful in helping mods reach sound decisions, would it not?
16. Do not copy and paste content from books, newspapers, magazines, journals, news sites or other websites. This is a breach of their copyright and any such threads / posts will be deleted. Copyright law does however allow for short quotations to be used with unambiguous citation, also use of content for the purposes of news reporting or review, and for caricature, parody or pastiche, without obtaining prior permission.
Formal guidance on the updated law was the source for my suggested update, and says (my quote is brief with citation) "You may benefit from this law if you are an author, academic, or even just a casual blogger."
Intellectual Property Office, Exceptions to copyright: Guidance for consumers (2014).
As per the 2014 date, it's not new news.
Bill said:
I'll make it official then...
/Thanks for posting, Bill.Bill said:
How is that not a breach of copyright? The uni has paid for the journals (I'm guessing) and given you access for personal research. You taking a screenshot and giving everyone access online is a breach of copyright (and presumably would land you in hit water with the uni.)
You've clarified some points about what you link to but it's not entirely clear what you mean. Have you got an example of something that has been removed?There's no answer to your question as it's not clear. I messaged PH management several days ago to ask for details but have had no reply to date. I'm not going to pre-empt their reply if it comes.
This thread is about Rule 16 clarification and if you / other PH mods / PH management would consider clarification then I suggest the following brief but arguably helpful revision is considered. As advertised, it involves only one more sentence and a word or three extra in the old first sentence. Saying what is allowed would be useful in helping mods reach sound decisions, would it not?
16. Do not copy and paste content from books, newspapers, magazines, journals, news sites or other websites. This is a breach of their copyright and any such threads / posts will be deleted. Copyright law does however allow for short quotations to be used with unambiguous citation, also use of content for the purposes of news reporting or review, and for caricature, parody or pastiche, without obtaining prior permission.
Formal guidance on the updated law was the source for my suggested update, and says (my quote is brief with citation) "You may benefit from this law if you are an author, academic, or even just a casual blogger."
Intellectual Property Office, Exceptions to copyright: Guidance for consumers (2014).
As per the 2014 date, it's not new news.
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 20th March 21:00
These are examples of the attempts to block legitimate post content in the context of PH rules and Rule 16 in particular (as it stands).
Then there are news items. MSM and blogs often feature images of the headline/date/author(s) of stories being run elsewhere (with citation of course if the image lacks this). This use of a small amount of content is also within copyright rules. PH news items may well do it from tume to time. In most cases a link is possible, in some of my instances it isn't - in order to comply with the law it isn't.
The shenanigans above has its own reasons unrelated to actual copyright rules or imaginary PH rules.
PHer said:
All I am asking for is links to the article as per PH rules
There is no such PH rule, and the idea proposed isn't supportable. The 'demand' for a link is in effect asking for something that should not and cannot occur in such situations and it's not in PH rules.the same PHer said:
Are you posting from copyrighted research papers again?
There was no copy and paste, so yes as I use a short quotation with citation as allowed by copyright rules and which should imo be specified as allowed by PH Rule 16. It would be correct to do so and it would work to prevent vexatious/tactical reporting.Then there are news items. MSM and blogs often feature images of the headline/date/author(s) of stories being run elsewhere (with citation of course if the image lacks this). This use of a small amount of content is also within copyright rules. PH news items may well do it from tume to time. In most cases a link is possible, in some of my instances it isn't - in order to comply with the law it isn't.
The shenanigans above has its own reasons unrelated to actual copyright rules or imaginary PH rules.
Surely rule 16 doesn't prevent one from providing a hyperlink to the journal page where the article can be found?
After all there seems to be no issue with providing hyperlinks to other articles from news site, articles on blogs, etc. If there were an issue with such a link, then providing the DOI for an article simply as text without a hyperlink would surely be OK wouldn't it? (even articles published long before the internet became a thing have DOIs.)
With either a link to the journal page for the article or a DOI, everyone can find the article in question easily and unambiguously but only access the full content if they're entitled to (e.g. by having a subscription through an employer, or simply by getting out their credit card and paying the fee for access, etc.) - much like some newspaper articles...
After all there seems to be no issue with providing hyperlinks to other articles from news site, articles on blogs, etc. If there were an issue with such a link, then providing the DOI for an article simply as text without a hyperlink would surely be OK wouldn't it? (even articles published long before the internet became a thing have DOIs.)
With either a link to the journal page for the article or a DOI, everyone can find the article in question easily and unambiguously but only access the full content if they're entitled to (e.g. by having a subscription through an employer, or simply by getting out their credit card and paying the fee for access, etc.) - much like some newspaper articles...
Isotopologue said:
Surely rule 16 doesn't prevent one from providing a hyperlink to the journal page where the article can be found?
It does if the person posting gets a PDF to an article which isn't open access, but is still able lawfully to take a short quote with attribution. Some people rely on google and assume others do the same...google is good but there are other routes.Isotopologue said:
After all there seems to be no issue with providing hyperlinks to other articles from news site, articles on blogs, etc.
That's a completely differenty situation. News sites are (still, in many cases) both open access and free.Isotopologue said:
- much like some newspaper articles...
Again, totally different - of various articles referred to, the specific artices in question can be viewed (by me) legitimately via a link to a uni web resource, or as a PDF file from a librarian. As per previous posts not long ago, this route isn't amenable to providing links, links that won't work without uni email log in ID PW for starters, and they're links that shouldn't be shared anyway. If those lacking full access by legitimate means want to see the full article they can use the citation to google an Abstract and then purchase time-limited access or a PDF from the same webpage, the latter is usually £40 to £50 in the cases I refer to. With such ardent interest it must be worth it...The entire point of the thread isn't links per se, it's that Rule 16 as it stands is open to abuse by people who don't understand copyright law and what it permits as well as what it doesn't, then use it to try to censor information and/or stifle debate, while potentially getting people barred from threads. Keeping Rule 16 as it is means it risks being abused for blocking legitimate actions, and that doesn't sit right with me, how about you? I suggested a change for consideration in a previous post, as a starting point, and will leave it there. Expectations are realistic, it's now wait and see.
turbobloke said:
Isotopologue said:
Surely rule 16 doesn't prevent one from providing a hyperlink to the journal page where the article can be found?
It does if the person posting gets a PDF to an article which isn't open access, but is still able lawfully to take a short quote with attribution. Some people rely on google and assume others do the same...google is good but there are other routes.Isotopologue said:
After all there seems to be no issue with providing hyperlinks to other articles from news site, articles on blogs, etc.
That's a completely differenty situation. News sites are (still, in many cases) both open access and free.Isotopologue said:
- much like some newspaper articles...
Again, totally different - of various articles referred to, the specific artices in question can be viewed (by me) legitimately via a link to a uni web resource, or as a PDF file from a librarian. As per previous posts not long ago, this route isn't amenable to providing links, links that won't work without uni email log in ID PW for starters, and they're links that shouldn't be shared anyway. If those lacking full access by legitimate means want to see the full article they can use the citation to google an Abstract and then purchase time-limited access or a PDF from the same webpage, the latter is usually £40 to £50 in the cases I refer to. With such ardent interest it must be worth it...The entire point of the thread isn't links per se, it's that Rule 16 as it stands is open to abuse by people who don't understand copyright law and what it permits as well as what it doesn't, then use it to try to censor information and/or stifle debate, while potentially getting people barred from threads. Keeping Rule 16 as it is means it risks being abused for blocking legitimate actions, and that doesn't sit right with me, how about you? I suggested a change for consideration in a previous post, as a starting point, and will leave it there. Expectations are realistic, it's now wait and see.
On the other hand, If it's a document that has no DOI or other website where it could be obtained then not providing a link is perfectly reasonable as there isn't one to give - I think we agree there.
Short extracts of content with correct attribution should be permissible - I also agree with you on this.
Presumably we also agree that copying and pasting content from elsewhere without attribution, citation or other recognition of the work of others is unacceptable?
I'm not convinced being an academic is the get out you seem to think as this is a forum and not an academic situation. More importantly we can't check people's qualifications if they claim to be an academic or blogger etc so the rules will stay the same for everyone. The rules allow for fair use for commentary, criticism, reporting, research and teaching which would seem to cover PH.
The rules allow for a short quotation accompanied by a reference. Plenty of academic sources aren't open access so we don't expect a link to the actual paper but a DOI number, reference (you can choose your own style...) or link to somewhere like pubmed is fine. As long as it can be found then that's the attribution bit satisfied.
If you posted a link with an image of a number of direct quotes from an article then that falls outside of the fair use short quote (singular) bit. Do a précis if more info is needed.
The "copy and paste" bit of the rule refers to C&Ping whole swathes of text rather than the method of reproducing your quote. You don't need to type the quote out word by word (How would we know anyway?) If you can post it as a linked to image without breaking the rules then you can post it direct to PH.
The rules allow for a short quotation accompanied by a reference. Plenty of academic sources aren't open access so we don't expect a link to the actual paper but a DOI number, reference (you can choose your own style...) or link to somewhere like pubmed is fine. As long as it can be found then that's the attribution bit satisfied.
If you posted a link with an image of a number of direct quotes from an article then that falls outside of the fair use short quote (singular) bit. Do a précis if more info is needed.
The "copy and paste" bit of the rule refers to C&Ping whole swathes of text rather than the method of reproducing your quote. You don't need to type the quote out word by word (How would we know anyway?) If you can post it as a linked to image without breaking the rules then you can post it direct to PH.
Bill said:
I'm not convinced being an academic is the get out you seem to think as this is a forum and not an academic situation.
It's not the main point, how you focused on that is very curious. I mentioned it in passing, as a remark against one of the statements in official guidance in the form of a Brucie Bonus.Also, no 'get out' is needed, as the law allows short quotations with citation, bingo.
Bill said:
More importantly we can't check people's qualifications if they claim to be an academic or blogger etc so the rules will stay the same for everyone. The rules allow for fair use for commentary, criticism, reporting, research and teaching which would seem to cover PH.
That's a minor point in what I posted!Fine, I haven't asked for different rules for anyone including me. What I said is in the formal guidance, it wasn't my viewpoint or wishes being aired.
Bill said:
The rules allow for a short quotation accompanied by a reference.
The copyright rules do that, explicitly, however PH Rule 16 doesn't do so explicitly. If your post is to say PH rules also allow it, there's no problem as the complainants don't have a leg to stand on.Blll said:
Plenty of academic sources aren't open access so we don't expect a link to the actual paper but a DOI number, reference (you can choose your own style...) or link to somewhere like pubmed is fine. As long as it can be found then that's the attribution bit satisfied.
That's what happens, but 'it' can't always be found beyond an Abstract because, as discussed, some journals don't publish openly any more than an abstract or the first page...however, once that's found from the citationn given with a brief quote, an ardent enquirer can buy the full paper for around fifty quid if they're that keen.Bill said:
If you posted a link with an image of a number of direct quotes from an article then that falls outside of the fair use short quote (singular) bit. Do a précis if more info is needed.
Agreed, but I don't do that. I post a link to an image I created containing very brief quotes - plenty short enough - from separate, referenced, papers. It's not even close to reacing the fair use limit.Bill said:
The "copy and paste" bit of the rule refers to C&Ping whole swathes of text rather than the method of reproducing your quote.
OK but the wording doesn't syt swathes at the moment. It could refer to any small amount of content...however, your clarification above sorted that. Hopefully the moderation team are all aware to give consistency the next time somebody is annoyed that research data kicks their sacred cow into the long grass and tries to use copyright as a censoring device and/or a thread ban device. You know what goes on I'm sure.Bill said:
You don't need to type the quote out word by word (How would we know anyway?) If you can post it as a linked to image without breaking the rules then you can post it direct to PH.
Thank you for the clarity here as to what's acceptable under PH rules. I'll be saving your reply to disk for sure. turbobloke said:
[Hopefully the moderation team are all aware to give consistency the next time somebody is annoyed that research data kicks their sacred cow into the long grass and tries to use copyright as a censoring device and/or a thread ban device. You know what goes on I'm sure.
[
Clarification 1: I’m not a mod (and frankly, thank god)[
Clarification 2: Just in case, no I have never reported any of your posts
The main one: The (snipped) quote from above - TB you are going wildly off topic here, can you stick to your original point, which may or may not be valid? Your message above is utterly irrelevant to your OP?
ChevronB19 said:
turbobloke said:
[Hopefully the moderation team are all aware to give consistency the next time somebody is annoyed that research data kicks their sacred cow into the long grass and tries to use copyright as a censoring device and/or a thread ban device. You know what goes on I'm sure.
[
Clarification 1: I’m not a mod (and frankly, thank god)[
Clarification 2: Just in case, no I have never reported any of your posts
The main one: The (snipped) quote from above - TB you are going wildly off topic here, can you stick to your original point, which may or may not be valid? Your message above is utterly irrelevant to your OP?
Thanks for the suggestion, curiously naive though it may be.
The clarification from Bill is welcome and /thread.
ChevronB19 said:
turbobloke said:
[Hopefully the moderation team are all aware to give consistency the next time somebody is annoyed that research data kicks their sacred cow into the long grass and tries to use copyright as a censoring device and/or a thread ban device. You know what goes on I'm sure.
[
Clarification 1: I’m not a mod (and frankly, thank god)[
Clarification 2: Just in case, no I have never reported any of your posts
The main one: The (snipped) quote from above - TB you are going wildly off topic here, can you stick to your original point, which may or may not be valid? Your message above is utterly irrelevant to your OP?
Which is why people have been asking him for links to back up his snippets.
Edited by AW111 on Friday 22 March 00:09
Baroque attacks said:
ChevronB19 said:
Clarification 1: I’m not a mod (and frankly, thank god)
The ban hammer would be worn down to a stump if I were a mod 
The underlying point though is this thread is basically asking the mods to have to do more work in policing a rule which would be made more fuzzy.
The mods will have no "more work to do" in the slightest as they can/will just carry on as usual and only react to the 'fringe idiots' that hit the report button out of malice. CarGurus are (and understandably) covering their arses in case of litigation - they have to be seen to be pro-active.
We all know that full and I mean full compliance to copyright law would make these forums a graveyard.
I'd like to point out this has been being asked since May 2020,
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
and been regularly promised some update or decision will happen - it's just that PH lawyers move slowly,
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
so slowly in fact nothing happens.
I tried asking regularly every years anniversary in May, but came to the conclusion that it was all just lip service with false promises. Nothing would be done, so we just had to run with the wooley rules, different interpretations from different mods, whilst some posts are allowed to quote, copy and paste. Articles with press release quotes included as an example, which strictly speaking break rule 16
As said - it's their playground we are using so we have to abide by their rules.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
and been regularly promised some update or decision will happen - it's just that PH lawyers move slowly,
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
so slowly in fact nothing happens.
I tried asking regularly every years anniversary in May, but came to the conclusion that it was all just lip service with false promises. Nothing would be done, so we just had to run with the wooley rules, different interpretations from different mods, whilst some posts are allowed to quote, copy and paste. Articles with press release quotes included as an example, which strictly speaking break rule 16
As said - it's their playground we are using so we have to abide by their rules.
Bill said:
I'll make it official then...
Hi Bill,Bill said:
How is that not a breach of copyright? The uni has paid for the journals (I'm guessing) and given you access for personal research. You taking a screenshot and giving everyone access online is a breach of copyright (and presumably would land you in hit water with the uni.)
You've clarified some points about what you link to but it's not entirely clear what you mean. Have you got an example of something that has been removed?The below linked post has not been removed, as I was unaware something had been removed. A couple of different examples.....
Just to clarify, I did not report any posts, but you probably knew that. I actually enjoy TBs posts, it does stimulate debate and makes me think about my understanding.
Here is an example of the links to jpegs posted. The screen shot approach, simply made it difficult for me to track down the real article so I could understand the full context. Plenty more examples, in the same thread.
I mistakenly said it breaches PH rules, but it was perhaps out of frustration that the source articles were not linked.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Edited by mike9009 on Friday 12th April 21:18
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff