Re-publishing internet content in print
Discussion
If some sort of literary material is published online - like an anecdote, factoid, joke rather than an original short story/article by an author - could it be reproduced in print, in some sort of paid for title, without risk of copyright breach?
it seems that some of the mainstream media regularly take info which is either directly copied, or clearly used as a basis for a not-very-original article, which then generates money.
Is there a risk of copyright breach to the re-publisher and how likely or large is the possible penalty?
it seems that some of the mainstream media regularly take info which is either directly copied, or clearly used as a basis for a not-very-original article, which then generates money.
Is there a risk of copyright breach to the re-publisher and how likely or large is the possible penalty?
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyrigh...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes...
Might contain useful information for you.
There's exceptions to copyright, but I do not see how any of the exceptions would apply to your hypothetical publisher.
IANAL, and they should hire a one if they if they're even thinking of proceeding with this. Breadvan might be along if your lucky to give you some better advice.
The fact your publisher would be re-publishing internet content into print would have no bearing on copyright.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes...
Might contain useful information for you.
There's exceptions to copyright, but I do not see how any of the exceptions would apply to your hypothetical publisher.
IANAL, and they should hire a one if they if they're even thinking of proceeding with this. Breadvan might be along if your lucky to give you some better advice.
The fact your publisher would be re-publishing internet content into print would have no bearing on copyright.
Edited by Rivenink on Friday 2nd October 03:03
As noted above, some websites may stipulate that the author of content posted on the site either transfers the copyright in such content to the site owner, or licenses the use of the content. There could be arguments as to whether that stipulation is supported by consideration, but it probably is: "I let you post blah on my site, you agree that I can use the blah".
It's worth remembering that copyright protects content in a particular form, but does not protect ideas. Straight lifting of text infringes copyright. Adapting text may or may not infringe copyright, depending on how much alteration is made to the text.
When is being influenced, or being derivative, actionable plagiarism? Discuss!
TS Eliot: "Immature poets borrow. Mature poets steal."
Mr Harry Potter of Hogwarts, please meet Ged Sparrowhawk, a Wizard of Earthsea. NB: that is an example of influence or derivation, not of plagiarism. BTW, JK Rowling swiped the name Hogwarts from one of the Molesworth books, in which "The Hogwarts" is the name of a fake Plautus comedy dreamed up by Nigel Molesworth, "the goriller of 3b" during his Latin Prep at St Custard's, as any fule kno. BTW also, A Wizard of Earthsea is approximately 97 billion times better than Harry Potter.
Remedies for infringement of copyright include -
1. an injunction to stop further infringement.
2. delivery up of infringing copies.
3. an account of the profits made by the infringer from the infringement.
4. as an alternative (the injured party has to choose) damages based on provable loss to the injured party.
5. additional damages for "flagrant" infringement.
Damages can be hard to calculate, and claimants often elect for the account of profits - thus depriving the wrongdoer of the fruits of the wrongdoing.
Damages can sometimes take the form of an enforced royalty. What would the injured party have charged as a commercial rate for use of the copyright, if he or she or it had been selling or licensing it?
It's worth remembering that copyright protects content in a particular form, but does not protect ideas. Straight lifting of text infringes copyright. Adapting text may or may not infringe copyright, depending on how much alteration is made to the text.
When is being influenced, or being derivative, actionable plagiarism? Discuss!
TS Eliot: "Immature poets borrow. Mature poets steal."
Mr Harry Potter of Hogwarts, please meet Ged Sparrowhawk, a Wizard of Earthsea. NB: that is an example of influence or derivation, not of plagiarism. BTW, JK Rowling swiped the name Hogwarts from one of the Molesworth books, in which "The Hogwarts" is the name of a fake Plautus comedy dreamed up by Nigel Molesworth, "the goriller of 3b" during his Latin Prep at St Custard's, as any fule kno. BTW also, A Wizard of Earthsea is approximately 97 billion times better than Harry Potter.
Remedies for infringement of copyright include -
1. an injunction to stop further infringement.
2. delivery up of infringing copies.
3. an account of the profits made by the infringer from the infringement.
4. as an alternative (the injured party has to choose) damages based on provable loss to the injured party.
5. additional damages for "flagrant" infringement.
Damages can be hard to calculate, and claimants often elect for the account of profits - thus depriving the wrongdoer of the fruits of the wrongdoing.
Damages can sometimes take the form of an enforced royalty. What would the injured party have charged as a commercial rate for use of the copyright, if he or she or it had been selling or licensing it?
Breadvan72 said:
Mr Harry Potter of Hogwarts, please meet Ged Sparrowhawk, a Wizard of Earthsea. ....BTW also, A Wizard of Earthsea is approximately 97 billion times better than Harry Potter.
OT, but worryingly I am agreeing with Breadvan again!
Edited by Johnnytheboy on Friday 2nd October 12:12
Johnnytheboy said:
Breadvan72 said:
Mr Harry Potter of Hogwarts, please meet Ged Sparrowhawk, a Wizard of Earthsea. ....BTW also, A Wizard of Earthsea is approximately 97 billion times better than Harry Potter.
OT, bu worryingly I am agreeing with Breadvan again!Oakey said:
I've seen some people taking Wikipedia articles wholesale and compiling them into a 'book' and selling them on Amazon Kindle! Amazon do not give a s
t.
Neither do Wikipedia - it's free to use/republish/resell, so long as you attribute them:t. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Buying_Wik...
"Wikipedia articles may be freely copied and sold commercially so long as publishers adhere to the terms of the copyright license under which the content is made available.
Publishers are allowed to sell copies of Wikipedia, and consumers, if they so choose, are allowed to pay for what they could get at no charge through the Wikimedia Foundation's websites.
[...]
They are not obliged to actively inform purchasers beforehand that the content of these books has been taken from Wikipedia, or to inform contributors that their work is being used.
"
I wrote an article for a website publisher and within a month it was on over 24 other websites. Second serial rights are there with dinosaurs.
TV and published media have almost a carte blanche to use images taken from various online sources without payment if, in their opinion, it is in the public interest. That said, many of the MSM, including terrestrial TV, are quite happy to pay their normal sum on request.
I wanted an image of top hat liners. There were a number online and I contacted one company, asking permission to use the image. They replied with a request for source to be included, and a hires image. As the chap said in his email, it's a waste of time chasing those who've taken the image without permission. On the other hand, I was quite friendly on a professional level with a chap who is ultra rich. He used one of my images on his website and I asked for source to be included. No threat, just a bald request. I had no reply. The image remained. I took a video of a car. I then had the joy of watching it during the opening ceremony of a showroom. The request to have source included was treated with disdain and their, rather weird, PR chap then published it himself on YouTube.
Ask permission. You never know. I would have been happy with source and a link to my website in both the above instances.
TV and published media have almost a carte blanche to use images taken from various online sources without payment if, in their opinion, it is in the public interest. That said, many of the MSM, including terrestrial TV, are quite happy to pay their normal sum on request.
I wanted an image of top hat liners. There were a number online and I contacted one company, asking permission to use the image. They replied with a request for source to be included, and a hires image. As the chap said in his email, it's a waste of time chasing those who've taken the image without permission. On the other hand, I was quite friendly on a professional level with a chap who is ultra rich. He used one of my images on his website and I asked for source to be included. No threat, just a bald request. I had no reply. The image remained. I took a video of a car. I then had the joy of watching it during the opening ceremony of a showroom. The request to have source included was treated with disdain and their, rather weird, PR chap then published it himself on YouTube.
Ask permission. You never know. I would have been happy with source and a link to my website in both the above instances.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff