Clarification on Rule 16

[turbobloke]

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.

[turbobloke]

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

[turbobloke]

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.

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.

[turbobloke]

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?

Posting what? Information? They're not top secret ffs. My comment was about the futility of offering a link as 'requested' given that a) another PHer has no right to access for the reason stated namely not open access, and b) couldn't use the link I use anyway also for reasons stated (they would lack a valid uni ID and PW). The uni pays and is licensed for access by relevant persons, of which I'm one - as a member of the university, which conveys some entitlements of that nature.

Rule 16 forbids copy and paste, so I don't do that.

[turbobloke]

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?

Posting what? Information? They're not top secret ffs. My comment was about the futility of offering a link as 'requested' given that a) another PHer has no right to access for the reason stated namely not open access, and b) couldn't use the link I use anyway also for reasons stated (they would lack a valid uni ID and PW). The uni pays and is licensed for access by relevant persons, of which I'm one - as a member of the university, which conveys some entitlements of that nature.

Rule 16 forbids copy and paste, so I don't do that.

Best not read the terms of use/access from the uni as I doubt posting on a web forum is covered!

I didn’t write rule 16, but I don’t think you get the reason for it existing.

Did you miss the bit where I said I don't copy and paste? I get the reason for its existence, copyright law. I've got published works and own copyright, why would I disagree with Rule 16? Copyright law doesn't forbid passing on information, it forbids copy and paste and other unauthorised acts.

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?

[turbobloke]

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.

FFS

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.

[turbobloke]

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

[turbobloke]

bhstewie 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.

[turbobloke]

As above, my point in suggesting a review of Rule 16 is for it to include a sentence specifying what is now allowed under copyright law, namely short quotes with an unambiguous citation. If somebody from PH could respond to this it would be helpful. More so if the change is made.

[turbobloke]

bhstewie 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:

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.

[turbobloke]

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.

Bill said:

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?

/Thanks for posting, Bill.

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

[turbobloke]

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).

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.

[turbobloke]

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]

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]

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?

No because what I said is relevant, and you haven't been around for the worst/best of the fun to be able to say much.

Thanks for the suggestion, curiously naive though it may be.

The clarification from Bill is welcome and /thread.