View Full Version : content publishing rights
01-10-2006, 02:58 PM
Does anyone know how much of a newspaper article you can re-publish on your own site before it is considered a copyright problem? Also still crediting the article to the newspaper with link.
Or should this always be done with written permission first.
01-10-2006, 03:54 PM
how much...can re-publish
Technically, none of it. But, it really depends on which newspaper's content you're republishing. Ultimately, it really depends on how much that newspaper enforces it's copyright policy.
Frankly, I would be more concerned about the duplicate content issues (you're using someone else's content on your site), and the search engines don't like that very much.
01-10-2006, 04:34 PM
The duplicate issue really isn't a problem, the newspapers that we are wanting to re-publish does not have the articles online, only in print. Other wise we would just link to the articles.
01-10-2006, 05:27 PM
if you wrote the article you retain copyright but grant the newspaper an unlimited licence.
01-10-2006, 07:34 PM
Either the newspaper or the article author generally retain reprint rights to most articles. You do need express written permission to reprint articles or excerpts from articles, particularly if you are posting their info on your for-profit site. You might be able to get away with copying content if your site is a not-for-profit, but it isn't acceptable to copy someone else's work without permission.
However, you can quote pieces from an article without permission if you attribute the source and present it as a quote, not as your own material.
I just checked this out recently when I wanted to reprint a newspaper article on a friend's blog - they set me straight :-)
01-10-2006, 07:42 PM
thanks for the advice. I doubt the papers will ever see the articles, but to be safe we'll just try to get permission first. If they say no quoting snippets should be enough.
Does it make any difference if the article is about the company who wants to list the article. An "In the news section" for their site.
01-10-2006, 08:34 PM
Within all the uncertainties regarding the reproduction of copyrighted material, there's what's called the "doctrine of fair use" -- although this itself is open to some interpretation.
Nevertheless, if you're thinking of copying a news story/article about your company (or perhaps it's your client's company?), you're most unlikely to generate any static from anyone. Quoting, either in part or even as a whole, what a reporter/writer has said about the good (or the bad and the ugly?!!) of what you do (or don't do) isn't all that different from using a testimonial from one of your customers/suppliers. The one and only limitation is that you should NOT selectively quote just the good and juicy bits and leave the bad and ugly parts unstated. In other words, the "fair use" principle implies that you must reflect the overall opinion that the reporter/writer put forth.
And, of course, you're bound -- aren't you? -- to quote the source of what you've copied, thereby increasing its credibility and, for good measure, your own.
01-11-2006, 03:02 AM
Nevertheless, if you're thinking of copying a news story/article about your company (or perhaps it's your client's company?), you're most unlikely to generate any static from anyone.
You can bet that your competition is watching your website, and you can bet that if it looks like you are violating copyright it will be noticed and communicated to the original authors. With services like http://www.copyscape.com/ at hand, many are even actively watching the net.
Quoting, either in part or even as a whole, what a reporter/writer has said about the good (or the bad and the ugly?!!) of what you do (or don't do) isn't all that different from using a testimonial from one of your customers/suppliers.
I strongly disagree. And even with a testimonial - if not explicitely given for online use - you have to ask whether you can use that on your site.
If a "reporter/writer" or anyone else writes about you or your company: This work is protected by copyright, as long as it is not one of the rare cases of "public domain". You are not allowed to reprint it in any media without consent by the author, and you can get in serious trouble if you do.
I admit that I do not know much about the legal situation in the U.S., but AFAIK it is even more restricting than in Germany. And in Germany, I would NOT dare that.
- you get a bad publicity. Although some say that there is no bad publicity, "copyright violator" is not the kind of image I would want for my company.
- you might be charged with license fees. And those might be hefty, since the infringement may be detected after quite a while and you would have to pay for the whole time. I actually witnessed such a case (although it was a snippet of a map image, not a text) - it amounted to several thousand $$.
As for the "fair use" issue, I suggest to read
01-11-2006, 07:01 PM
faglork is quite correct in the reservations he makes. I simply assumed that you would have contacted the article/news-story source beforehand.
However, I'd be surprised if your request to quote/reprint what was written about you (your client) met with any refusal.
One additional point is perhaps worth mentioning and that's that the law gives the original author the sole right to decide who else can reproduce his/her words but it doesn't specifically add a right to charge anyone that does so. For a payment to be involved, the author needs to incorporate mention of it in either the usual copyright notice (which invariably includes a small circle with a c inside it) or in responding to any reprint request.
PS. I know there's some excitement about what wikipedia is up to, but its explanation of "fair use" is certainly a very thorough and useful one -- even though a law degree is maybe needed to understand it all!
01-12-2006, 12:33 AM
See we run an outsourcing blog. We get the content for the blogs from various websites. We do acknowledge the source and Author of the content. Do you think due to duplicate content, it can harm our search ranking.
01-12-2006, 02:10 AM
To my knowledge, the duplicate penalty only applies to each particular page now. Meaning a duplicated page might not rank for anything, but that it wont affect the rest of your site. Unless of course 9/10ths of the site is seen as duplicated content, which a google reviewer may hand penalize if they have reason to review your site.
01-12-2006, 06:10 AM
I doubt the papers will ever see the articles, but to be safe we'll just try to get permission first.
You might be surprised - the writers I know do look for things like this! I've built sites for a couple of newspapers, and the attitude I've encountered is that if you ask they are glad for the additional exposure - but if you don't ask, then you're stealing their work, even if you've given them a proper credit. Bottom line, writers earn their living by writing, and they protect their copyright, as is their right.
If you ask before posting, you'll most likely get a yes. If you just post it and hope the writer doesn't find it, you may get a nasty email, and have to remove it immediately. The old phrase "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission," does not apply n this case.
01-13-2006, 08:48 AM
after contacting one of the papers for permission to use the article on my clients site (the article was originally printed 2 years ago) the paper gave us permission to use the article and wants to do a follow up story.
So asking definitely has its benefits.
01-13-2006, 04:47 PM
So asking definitely has its benefits.
That's great news. Perhaps you can build a long-term relationship with them and publish their content online.