Revision of posting off-site content

Im not a laywer but I think that this site is far too leaniant when it comes to posting off-site content, and photos. you could end up getting into trouble if you allow members to continue making threads that are basicly a copy and paste job. so much so that you dont even need to visit the scource, isnt this theft of intellectial property?

some examples incase you haven't noticed.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

these are just a small sample of them, would it be possible that for the mods to make a new thread about this kind of thing, i personally dont think it is right that somone can take away visits to your website, because people have already read the whole thing on here. plus there is a possible legal issue, and i really wouldnt want this website taken down for receiving too many dcma notices

Yea, I agree. I think those are taking things a little too far.

I'm pretty sure the rule is that you can copy some content but not all.

I usually try to keep my posts concentrated on a single point. That way I can make my point through an ex-content cut/paste and still leave plenty of content on the source site for people to look at by visiting the site.

Personally, I think that ATS provides a lot of traffic to various sites. Traffic that they wouldn't have gotten without someone posting content/links here. I've discovered several quality sites that I return to on my own through following links I found on ATS.

How will you become a popular cookie on ATS if you don't make threads like that?

Also since the sources are sited they are not stealing content.

I am not a lawyer either, but I have always been under the impression usually things posted for discussion fall under a fairly lenient category and when the source is provided have historically been ok. Too, I find the moderators here usually always don't let extremely lengthy things persist, where they would discourage anyone from actually viewing the link or take up an inordinant amount of unnecessary space.

And I have to agree many times if not most times if the quote is interesting enough I go ahead and check out the link and it brings whatever site it is on extra traffic. Personally I think the main priority should be on allowing whatever policy best aids thoroughly understanding of the subject matter, within reason, it often takes several quotes to make a point, in the end we really don't want to hamper that effort do we, Mr. Bob?

reply to post by Anttyk47


I dont think it works like that.

To quote National Geographic's t&c

2. To not reproduce, distribute, modify, re-post on another site (regardless of the server on which the Content is stored), or sell any Content without specific written authorization from National Geographic, unless such use is pursuant to Educational Use of Content of this agreement.

reply to post by Anttyk47


I agree. It makes it easier to read, instead of navigating to many other sites

reply to post by MR BOB


I have to agree, especially concerning the second link.
Nearly 200 flags for copy pasting another persons web page word for word

The ATS t and c's are quite clear on the matter

* Proper Attribution for the posting of copyrighted material owned by others is defined as posting a relevant snippet of the online content not to exceed 10% of the entire piece, a properly formed link back to the source website, and a clear indication of the name of the source website. The posting to these websites of any copyrighted material owned by others that is not found elsewhere online is prohibited.

Seems to me like 100% is more then 10% I alerted that particular thread because of how blatant it was but it remained untouched

Originally posted by MR BOB
I dont think it works like that.

2 things... you just violated T&C with that post and did not use proper format. I had to go use search to find your quote

To not reproduce, distribute, modify, re-post on another site (regardless of the server on which the Content is stored), or sell any Content without specific written authorization from National Geographic, unless such use is pursuant to Educational Use of Content of this agreement.

www.nationalgeographic.com...

and ya sorta answered your own dilema "unless such use is pursuant to Educational Use of Content of this agreement."

Albeit ATS itself is a business

Now one of your examples in the OP showed NASA images... NASA is in public domain and only requires you provide source

reply to post by zorgon


stop nitpicking zorgon read the full terms and conditions and you will see that this website does not fall under the terms of their educational use.

We do have threads about copyright and posting content from other sources.

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS

MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

DMCA: Digital Millennium Copyright Act