Click and paste rules.

[Byker28i]

Because at the moment you can't copy and paste any part of an article - even if linked. You can't quote people and rule 16 says the content will be removed, yet there's an unknown Mod and Big Al who will issue bans for doing so...

The rules Ben posted in NP&E possible hint at this but it's a bit vague...

So we are asking for clarity and the possibility of quoting people and using a small summary part of the article with the link to it

[bitchstewie]

Quite.

2 weeks later and I don't know if I'll get banned for posting a tweet.

Those things that people put on Twitter so the world can see them.

[silentbrown]

Voldemort said:

What's the problem?

The problem is that rule 16 is so badly and vaguely worded that is can be weaponized to get pretty much any post that links, references, quotes or screenshots anything on the internet.

Want to tell people about a particular BBC news story? Well, you can't just paste the link you found on google, because that link was part of the content of an "other website" called google.com. Maybe you could copy/paste the story title from the BBC article? No, that's content too. How about a screenshot? Nay, nay, and thrice nay.

It just needs some sensible published guidelines (and examples!) that make sense for posters, readers, mods and content owners:

something like...?

• Respect content owner's copyright and licensing terms
• When quoting from external sources, keep your quotes short and succint.
• Add a link to the original source wherever possible, to drive traffic to the content owner
• Don't post website screenshots without linking to the original site.
• Infringing posts will be deleted by mods
• Three strikes leads to a week's ban
• Instant short-term ban for flagrant copyright breaches (eg posting an entire article with no 'fair use' defence)
• Moderators decisions are final!

[CloudStuff]

Their site, their rules. Sure.

But the rules are genuinely petty and slightly odd.

[APontus]

The URL might be indexed by Google, it doesn't belong to them (subject to the AMP portion of mobile URLs).

[silentbrown]

APontus said:

The URL might be indexed by Google, it doesn't belong to them (subject to the AMP portion of mobile URLs).

Rule16 doesn't care about ownership, just copying.
Until Rule 16's "content" is defined better it could still be considered content on Google's website.

[dickymint]

Question for "the team" - Has PH received 'cease and desist letters/orders' for copyright infringement? Is this really a problem for PH?

[vaud]

Here is a comparable example on the Guardian web site today:



An entire block of content copied - from behind a paywall and from a rival paper - but attributed and a direct link to the source provided.

[Byker28i]

PH lawyers move very slowly

[Big Al.]

Unfortunately they do, so until Ben gets some feedback from them I'll close this thread as the current situation regarding Rule of Posting No.16 may well change.