Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**

page: 3
35
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Actually, I mean doing exactly what I did with summarizing SO's post. ALP dictates that three words constitutes a quote, and I used four from SO's post because there was, in my opinion, no better way to phrase that blurb. However, the rest of the sentence was my own. I'm talking about a 4 word quote mid sentance with a link afterwards, as I did, or even at the end of the post if there is only one source. I would expect it should be obvious if there's a link at the end of a post, quotation marks around a blurb, and the entire post generally summarized what you link to, that one would assume the information came from that link. However, with the ex tag instead of general quote tags being used for non-ATS content, another level is added.

So, I'm asking that, if I choose to "rage, rage against the dying of the light", am I going to have a problem.

to quote Bob Dylan...Wait! Dylan Thomas!!!

EDIT: And dang it...I didn't even think of it, but that link, geared to be an amusing cultural reference, comes straight from an episode of Family Guy...How do I handle that?

[edit on 1/2/06/02 by junglejake]




posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyberKat
[..................] the article clearly stated that the material was copywrited, and if anyone wanted to use any of it, to contact the owner of the copywrite. Well, I did, and immediately received back a response to my email saying, "I would be delighted!"[.........................]


First, thank you SO for clarifying my first question regarding "fair use". I take it that since the legislatures deliberately created the clause it in such a way that it could be very broadly interpreted, and if the owner of the copywrite had a problem, it could cause trouble for ATS, if a member were to use it. Therefore, I will forget that I ever saw the clause. It wouldn't be worth it to subject such a great site to legal trouble for something so unneccessary.

However, I have wondered for months (on and off) about my second question in same post, regarding using copywrited material with the consent of the copywrite holder. If it is not simply copying something that sounds good, but copying it for the reason of making a point. Is that O.K? If it is or if it isn't, I would be honored if someone were to give me an answer on this. I thank you very much.

On the subject, I have one last question, but first let me say that I will
sometimes deliberately quote someone who I think has made a good point, a stupid one, or whatever - but, I always put their name at the end, so it is clear that I did not make it up.

My question though, is: If, for instance my current signature (forget the "Happy New Year.......",) but regarding the sentance beneath. I truly believe that I made that one up, however, I can't be sure if I had read or heard it somewhere at an unconscious level, and that's why I wrote it. Or, what if I have never heard or read it at any level, but someone somewhere else did in fact write it before I did? (I only use my current signature for an example). Is that considered plaguerism? I didn't realize before this thread just how fine apparently that line can be.

Any input would be much appreciated.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   
USE THE "EX TAGS" FOR ALL QUOTES PERIOD.

As S.O. pointed out, ALL interpretations of fair use or ANY copyright issue will be/have been decided by the owners of ATS. Our decision is to use the ex tags on 100% of ALL quotes no matter the size, style, creed or origin of said quotes as has been outlined in this thread.

If you have written permission from a copyright holder WHY would you possibly think it's not okay to use it? OF COURSE it's okay to use something you have permission to use. If you beleive you made something up then DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. 99% of everything said in the universe has been said before let's NOT get caught up in the minutia of the meaningless...

Surely THIS is clear enough yes?

Springer...

[edit on 1-3-2006 by Springer]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Ok. This is absurd.

The guidelines cannot be any simpler or easier to understand, and I am the world's worst skimmer!


As it is not you guys who can get into legal trouble but the board and its owners, abide by the easy to follow directions.

If you have any doubt as to what to do, err on the side of caution. You cannot go wrong that way. We will not whack you for using it to cautiously.

Your loving administrator-type dude,

TC



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
Surely THIS is clear enough yes?


Yep. I suspect that ruling may be a possible problem in the debates, but not in day to day threads. The official debate tournaments was really why I was asking this, but come debate time I'll talk with Nyg and Amory in depth as to what constitutes a quote in that forum.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
Surely THIS is clear enough yes?

Springer


Of course is is. I appologize for getting so carried away. I guess that it is a topic that is easy to overanalyze (at least for me).

Besides, I KNOW that it wouldn't be me, but the owner's, etc. of ATS that would take the heat. That is what I was worried about. You are my family, like it or not.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Speaking Of Plagiarism

This is my own take on this, as a member.

Plagiarism is the presentation of the work of someone else as your own.

This has never been acceptable on ATS and has always carried a ban as a potential consequence, so there's nothing new about this policy, other than emphasis.

While I don't know one way or the other, I'm guessing the staff has been advised from one or more sources that it would be wise to ensure that ATS policy on the protection of intellectual property is as clear and unambiguous as possible.

Again, I don't see this announcement and the new “ex” tags as an actual change in policy. The staff has always been aggressive in dealing with cases of known plagiarism and copyright violations -- not to mention all those edits and excessive quote warns they have had to hand out over the years.

Rather, I see this as the staff going the extra mile to ensure that the growing membership of ATS is crystal clear on this matter.

Also, in legal terms, this represents a good faith effort and a way for the staff to gain the assistance of the members in performing due diligence to implement this policy throughout the vast store of intellectual property that ATS represents.

That's a good thing to do no matter what.


“Quote” Versus “Ex” Tags

My current understanding of the use of the “ex” tags versus “quote” tags is as follows.

“Quote” tags are used to quote the words of fellow members or other sources internal to ATS:


Originally posted by Springer
USE THE "EX TAGS" FOR ALL QUOTES PERIOD.

As S.O. pointed out, ALL interpretations of fair use or ANY copyright issue will be/have been decided by the owners of ATS. Our decision is to use the ex tags on 100% of ALL quotes no matter the size, style, creed or origin of said quotes as has been outlined in this thread.

Granted, Springer has said “All QUOTES” regardless of “size, style, creed or origin ”, so I may be inferring more than I should here.


However, I see this as referring to all quotations of external sources.

As an example:


From Dictionary.com:

pla·gia·rize
v. pla·gia·rized, pla·gia·riz·ing, pla·gia·riz·es
v. tr.

1. To use and pass off (the ideas or writings of another) as one's own.
2. To appropriate for use as one's own passages or ideas from (another).

In this case, I have been careful to give a link or citation to the external source and limit the amount of material quoted to a small, relevant sample. Additional information on the definition cited can be found by following the link.

The use of these new “ex” tags will help make it crystal clear when material from outside ATS is being included in an article here by explicitly labeling it as from an “External Source”, and in so doing help emphasize the extra care which must be taken when using such materials in our discussions.

Specifically, I caution members that the use of any material from a non-ATS source without the inclusion of a link or a clear citation (author, work, source, etc.) is something that will probably not be tolerated. And, as indicated, if you are found to have presented the work of someone else as your own, you can expect at least a temporary ban, if you're lucky.

So please, don't do that!


I urge any member who may feel uncertain about what the staff is saying here to not be shy about asking. The time to do this is before posting a lot of non-ATS material, not after.

Heck, I may be misinterpreting something myself here, in which case I'm sure a staff member will set me straight.


Why This Is Important

The staff of AboveTopSecret.com must, first and foremost, ensure that the site stays up and running and available for us ATS junkies to be able to get our fixes 24/7.

Anything which jeopardizes the continued operation of ATS will obviously inspire emphatic opposition not only from the staff, but from all members who love ATS, myself included.

Thus I encourage those of my fellow members who may feel put off or intimidated by what may seem at first to be a heavy-handed policy to consider what would happen if the staff was not so protective of the website that is the foundation of our community.

If the prospect of being deprived of ATS due to catastrophic legal action over copyright issues doesn't frighten and piss you off as much as it does me, then I recommend going without any ATS access whatsoever for a few months to get a real taste of what that would be like.

For me at least, no other example is needed.


I fully support the ATS staff in this, will do everything I can to comply and assist, and urge my fellow members to do likewise.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 05:13 AM
link   
This whole issue appears to be blown out of proportion. Just how many instances of plagiarism have there been on ATS lately? I've been here like a year or more and I've seen it happen...

TWICE.

Both times the perpetrator was called out immediately, well-beaten, publically humiliated, and forgotten.

So what's the deal, are people copy/pasting news articles with the obvious intent to claim authorship? I guess it wouldn't surprise me, but I haven't seen it happen yet. I have seen a few newbies learning the ropes, copy/pasting stories without any obvious malicious intent, and invariably Thomas Crowne shows up and sets them right.


It seems to me that the only reason this is such a pressing issue is because there are so many god-damned legal leeches in this world, who are sickeningly eager to parasitize any organism within reach.

Plagiarism is not, at least to me, about profits and property. It's about something most corporate lawyers couldn't grasp if you doubled their number of tentacles - integrity.

Anyway, I'm done..almost.

Jadette
Uhmmm..yeah, the rotting corpse of Walt Disney and his shambline team of lawmbies could certainly bring suit against me for the Mickey Mouse tattoo on my posterior. But, they can also kiss it.

If you're using an owned image with the intent to destroy the reputation of the liscense holder, I can understand a lawsuit. If you're using an owned image to increase your own profits by piggybacking on someone else's brand recognition, I can understand a lawsuit. If you're selling or leasing an owned image, and profiting, I can definitely understand a lawsuit.

But using someone else's art as an avatar in an online environment, without making claims to represent the liscense holder, is completely justifiable. It's comparable to sewing a corporate logo on a white t-shirt and wearing it around town. As long as you're not trying to sell the t-shirt or pass the art off as your own, there's no logical justification for legal action.

If there is no sinister motive on the part of the 'borrower', to steal profits or damage reputations, there is no crime! If there is no crime, there is no lawsuit, there are no damages! Why are we having a trial again? Oh yeah, to perpetuate this parody of a justice system we're burdened with, and to keep Wendy's nationwide from collapsing due to the volume of job applications that would almost certainly pour in from the millions of (otherwise unskilled) professional liars who would find themselves unemployed and unemployable if this nation and her people ever got wise.

Technically speaking you can sue anyone for anything, you can sue VP Cheney for being bald. Doesn't mean it will hold up in court. Same is true of the issue at hand. Could some artist sue me for using JAK's rendition of some original work? Sure. Would they win? Not a chance in Hell unless they could show evidence of damages, some logical basis for a ruling. But that doesn't stop the lawyers, oh no. They get paid by the hour, and like all hourly employees they seek to stretch their billable hours as far as possible. That's kind of besides the point, but in a way it's the whole issue neatly wrapped up.

Before I get too far from my point (HAHAHA), any artist who spends their time worrying about copyright and legal issues, instead of creating art..well, they're not an artist, they're a parasite on the engorged belly of our legal system. I can't respect artists who go down that road. It sickens me, in fact, and shames me.

I'm a writer, and so this is an issue I've thought a lot about. It's an issue that actually has something to do with my life and my future - it's not as though I'm a window washer who is just casually throwing around opinions. That being said, plagiarism is one thing: claiming someone else's work as your own, and/or making money off it. Fair use is another.

Some kid wants to post one of my short stories on their website so visitors can read? Fine. How does it hurt me? Some kid wants to copy my stories and sell manuscripts at school, that's quite obviously plagiarism, and I would take legal action to stop the little booger in his tracks. It's really not such a complicated issue if people relax, breathe, and use some common sense. Oh, and Walt can kiss it.

[edit on 3-1-2006 by WyrdeOne]

[edit on 3-1-2006 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Perspectives On Proportions


Originally posted by WyrdeOne
This whole issue appears to be blown out of proportion. Just how many instances of plagiarism have there been on ATS lately? I've been here like a year or more and I've seen it happen...

TWICE.

Both times the perpetrator was called out immediately, well-beaten, publically humiliated, and forgotten.

The number of times you've seen plagiarists publicly exposed and the number of times plagiarism has occurred on ATS are almost certainly not the same quantity.

Also, this isn't just about plagiarism, but about inappropriate posting of intellectual property on ATS and new procedures for posting material from external sources.

Finally, while I may not know the details of what has motivated the staff to bring this up now, I do know that they always have a reason, and that it's always a good reason. I see no reason to assume that this is an exception.

Thus I don't agree that this whole issue is blown out of proportion.

Rather, I think that depends on who's assessing the situation and what they know about it.


Robbin' Leech


Originally posted by WyrdeOne
It seems to me that the only reason this is such a pressing issue is because there are so many god-damned legal leeches in this world, who are sickeningly eager to parasitize any organism within reach.

I'm sure there are other reasons in addition to this one.

However, if there were not, would you prefer that the staff not take precautions against frivolous litigation?


While I think I understand the sentiments, I can't see how your arguments support your conclusions.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   


The number of times you've seen plagiarists publicly exposed and the number of times plagiarism has occurred on ATS are almost certainly not the same quantity.


Obviously. I don't know how many times it's happened, that's precisely why I asked the question - to get an answer. My slightly acidic tone is certainly not directed at the board admin, they can and should run this place however they like. It is, after all, their property. My caustic response to this topic was prompted by, and directed squarely at, the litigious leeches and their army of pinstripe apologists.



Also, this isn't just about plagiarism, but about inappropriate posting of intellectual property on ATS and new procedures for posting material from external sources.


Understood. It's a sore spot for me, so excuse the effluence. I'm sure there's a point in my earlier post somewhere, it's just surrounded by a great quantity of partially digested hatred.



Finally, while I may not know the details of what has motivated the staff to bring this up now, I do know that they always have a reason, and that it's always a good reason. I see no reason to assume that this is an exception.

Thus I don't agree that this whole issue is blown out of proportion.


The reason is quite clear, the three amigos are covering their collective behind and trying to keep ATS from being pulled down by the hellish denizens of the lower courts. I fully understand the practical reason behind the policy. My post was more a lamentation re: the necessity for such drastic damage prevention measures.



Rather, I think that depends on who's assessing the situation and what they know about it.


Dig! Burn! You quip so good Majic.


[edit on 3-1-2006 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:07 AM
link   
CyberKat...

Even if YOU have permission, the owner may not want the material on the web or ATS. We will be making a change to the terms and conditions to indicate that you must have permission specific to ATS befoe you can republish here.

Also, even in the case of permission, given a large piece of content, it will likely be more efficient to link to the online source (if there is one).

In the end, respect the content of another as if it were your own.


(and... Yes... I'm experimenting with a mobile version of ATS... More information coming soon in the next Skeptic Overview.)





Posted Via ATS Moblie Interface (BETA)



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The reason is quite clear, the three amigos are covering their collective behind and trying to keep ATS from being pulled down by the hellish denizens of the lower courts. I fully understand the practical reason behind the policy. My post was more a lamentation re: the necessity for such drastic damage prevention measures.

While this will always be an issue, it's simply not ethical to reproduce someone else's material without credit and path to the source.

There are certainly many websites (cough, IndyMedia, cough) that get away with republishing content without credit. Their policy seems to be to simply remove the material when/if they are asked. While it seems to be working (so far), it's not ethical.

To be very crystal clear: There has been no threat of legal action against ATS for any plagiarized content contained in our domains. This thread and policy is driven by our desire to operate under a high standard of ethics.

Some members may not share our thoughts along these lines, so now we need to impose new guidelines to ensure they agree with us.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
ALL of the "quoted content" addressed in this thread is from OUTSIDE ATS. Obviously, when posting on ATS you may quote ANYTHING found on ATS using the quantity limits set forth in SO's previous post. (15% or 3 paragraphs/the least of the two)

I also want to concur with my Partner, SkepticOverlord, there is NO current or past legal threat against us, we simply want an intellectually HONEST and ETHICAL board. It's that simple, just like the rules.


Springer...



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   


To be very crystal clear: There has been no threat of legal action against ATS for any plagiarized content contained in our domains. This thread and policy is driven by our desire to operate under a high standard of ethics.

Some members may not share our thoughts along these lines, so now we need to impose new guidelines to ensure they agree with us.


That's really good to hear.


If only every dictatorship was as benevolent as this one. The fact that this move was motivated by a desire for higher standards in community-driven internet journalism makes me even more proud of my association with ATS.

(And if only everyone had the decency to display good manners without being coerced into compliance. The carrot is integrity people, there's merit in integrity! Don't necessitate the stick by ignoring the carrot!)



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
WyrdeOne:

Whether or not you agree if it's justified, it IS illegal. What makes you think you can use someone else's artwork just because it's available? What makes you think, even if you don't make money from its use, that you have any right to do anything at all with artistic property not of your own origin?

While, as someone earlier said, Fair Use is this vague thing, left open to some interpretation and in most cases no one is going to pursue it in court unless the guilty party in question is making money off of it, does this somehow give you the right to do whatever you want with it?

If someone paints a painting, or design a cartoon character or some other thing, this creation belongs to the artist. Why do you think you should be able to do anything with it, even if it doesn't bring them any harm? If you use it without the artist's permission, it's theft.

Go ahead, go check around on various other bboards and find out how many of them ban the use of unauthorised Avatars. Better yet, go look around at various artists sites and see how many of them have statements to deny the use of their artwork. Do all artists care? No, but I think that most simply would like to be asked or be given credit.

Do a google search on online art theft. This is a big deal among artists and photographers. And it's why so many resort to watermarks and other schemes to prevent people from simply taking their artwork. Avatars are copyright infringement.

For more information try these sites:

www.artpromote.com...

www.rightsforartists.com...

www.artslaw.org...

www.copyright.gov...



[edit on 3-1-2006 by Jadette]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
CyberKat...

Even if YOU have permission, the owner may not want the material on the web or ATS. We will be making a change to the terms and conditions to indicate that you must have permission specific to ATS befoe you can republish here.

Also, even in the case of permission, given a large piece of content, it will likely be more efficient to link to the online source (if there is one).

In the end, respect the content of another as if it were your own.


(and... Yes... I'm experimenting with a mobile version of ATS... More information coming soon in the next Skeptic Overview.)





Posted Via ATS Moblie Interface (BETA)



O.K. I understand. Just to let you know though, when I asked LewRockwell for permission, I did specify that I wanted to use it on "Above Top Secret". I also tried to get hold of Simon Grey (because I was still pretty new, I didn't know who else to ask), but received no reply.

But, now I know better, and who I should be getting permission from (like you). Thanks though for addressing my question. Also, I don't expect it to happen again. It was one post I made when I had only been a memeber maybe a month or so, and I have not done that with any of my other 499 posts. So, I sincerely hope not be a problem to you or to anyone else. If a similar situation ever does arise, I will definately ask prior to posting someting like that.

Thanks again.


CyberKat



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Well, I'd just like to say, that the question I asked, well I guess I did'nt read the before posts to carefully, so yeah.


Anyways, I don't remember if we have one or not, or if it's part of the new Terms & Condition that will ber implmented, but I think, as I stated in my first post, that we should have a disclaimer, that ATS cannot be held responsible, if some one plaigarises (Can't spell today) something, and the origonal author (not the poster, the person who origonally wrote it) see's it before the issue can be reconsiled(sp?), that way, the site would not get in trouble.

Just a thought.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   


I think the mods need to be aware of certain situations where material posted in its entirety can, at times, be the "story" that starts the thread and should inquire in situations where it may not be reasonable to assume that all quoted material is violating the rules.

thanks,

Centrist


remember that plagiarism is posting the content WITHOUT GIVING CREDIT. As long as credit is given, there should be no problem. If more than 3 paragraphs, and it is not elsewhere on the web, and credit is given, I don't think you'll see any problems here....as long as permission is stated (and preferably, some way to contact the author, if it ever was necessary).



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   


(and... Yes... I'm experimenting with a mobile version of ATS... More information coming soon in the next Skeptic Overview.)

Posted Via ATS Moblie Interface (BETA)


Awesome!



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   


Whether or not you agree if it's justified, it IS illegal.


Enjoyable sex acts are illegal in many places too. You think I change my behavior in this regard to conform to the law?


Certainly not.

The legal system in this country is out of control, and every time someone leaps to its defense, reformists are set back another decade. Every time you defend an insane law, a pixie loses her wings. Are you happy now?





What makes you think you can use someone else's artwork just because it's available? What makes you think, even if you don't make money from its use, that you have any right to do anything at all with artistic property not of your own origin?


What makes me think I can use art because it's available? Because clearly I can. I do. I am. It's a non-issue until some uptight artist makes it their business to dictate the use of their creation. I can, and do, and will continue to use artistic property of others for a thousand and one uses. If they don't want people using it, they should have thought about that before releasing it into the wild.

Good art gets put on my walls and my body. The artist created it, and released it into the world. Now it belongs to everyone. The creator retains all rights to commercial use, but every other use is fair game as far as I'm concerned. I have nothing against artists. In fact, I am one. I'm also a photographer, and a writer, and a digital retoucher, but we'll get to that later...



While, as someone earlier said, Fair Use is this vague thing, left open to some interpretation and in most cases no one is going to pursue it in court unless the guilty party in question is making money off of it, does this somehow give you the right to do whatever you want with it?


Yes. Obviously that's my opinion. Why so many redundant questions?



If someone paints a painting, or design a cartoon character or some other thing, this creation belongs to the artist. Why do you think you should be able to do anything with it, even if it doesn't bring them any harm? If you use it without the artist's permission, it's theft.


NONSENSE. There is no logical basis for a legal system that assigns penalties in the absence of a crime. Legislating victimlesss crimes, and matters of taste, is so utterly foolish and futile, I consider it a very accurate indicator of insanity.

Theft is when one citizen takes something from another. I have taken NOTHING. The artist has not lost a thing, they retain all commercial rights, and so have the ability to sell their creation over and over, not to mention enjoy it. It's not like a television, a thing that, once stolen, no longer serves the original owner.

If I download a song to listen to, does the artist lose revenue? Nope. I refuse to buy music until I've heard the entire album, so in effect by crusading against online music they've made me much LESS likely to purchase their crap.



Do all artists care? No, but I think that most simply would like to be asked or be given credit.


Credit where credit is due, that goes without saying. If using an original image or piece of writing or song or whatever, one MUST give credit to the artist. If using a modified image or song or whatever, one must credit the artist responsible for the particular incarnation one has decided to use.

You don't have to give credit to original artists (though I'm sure they'd appreciate it) in the case of a manipulated image or whatever. I believe this question was answered in the wake of the whole huge debate re: recording artists using samples.



This is a big deal among artists and photographers. And it's why so many resort to watermarks and other schemes to prevent people from simply taking their artwork. Avatars are copyright infringement.


The law is decided on a case by case basis for a reason. I'm an artist and a photographer, and I don't think it's a big deal at all. What I do think is a big deal is the rising index of litigious artists which contrasts sharply with the declining quality of art.

Funny how those two things go together...

Good artists don't need lawyers. They need inspiration.

[edit on 1-3-2006 by Springer]

[edit on 3-1-2006 by WyrdeOne]

[edit on 3-1-2006 by WyrdeOne]





new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join