3 ms·

But it's siting the sources, how is it a copyright violation?

by worldsavior 4y ago

moralestapia 4y ago
It's not, I disagree with GP's argument. Safe harbors in copyright law exist to allow this.
- isthispermanent 4y ago
  It's quite likely a fair use violation... 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 3. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Particularly 3 & 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors
- worldsavior 4y ago
  Tho now I think about it more, it might be damaging the site money of income (ads, etc). But it's still not a copyright violation.
  - isthispermanent 4y ago
    "it might be damaging the site money of income" Which is one of the key factors of determining Fair Use and Fair Use falls under copyright.
    - moralestapia 4y ago
      It could also be bringing new money to those sites by referring users to them. So, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The issue with Google had more to do with antitrust behavior than with copyright infringement.
      - shawnz 4y ago
        I might be bringing new money to movie publishers by pirating their movies and sending clips to my friends, but that's not a valid basis for calling it fair use
- gnopgnip 4y ago
  Safe harbor covers hosts of user uploaded content. The copyright owner can pursue the infringer, they are not protected by safe harbor.
fabianhjr 4y ago
Citing does not confer a license
- moralestapia 4y ago
  You don't need a license to cite others.
  - shawnz 4y ago
    But what about when you're also reproducing the content on your own page like what's being done here?
    - moralestapia 4y ago
      It's tricky but you don't need a license for that either. With tricky I mean that only under very specific circumstances you would be infringing copyright laws, like maybe if the content was private in the first place; but then in that case you wouldn't be infringing copyright either, you would just be breaking privacy laws/terms. I honestly can't think of an example where you would get in trouble by citing a piece of content that belongs to someone else, but I'm not closed to the possibility that it could happen.
      - thewataccount 4y ago
        > only under very specific circumstances you would be infringing copyright laws It's the reverse of this. Any work public or not by default is all rights reserved to the owner. The fair use doctrine provides an exception from this if you meet specific criteria. An extreme example, you cannot just upload a complete movie and just add "credit to disney". > you wouldn't be infringing copyright either, you would just be breaking privacy laws/terms. Maybe we're from different countries, but with US law it would be either under theft, the computer fraud/abuse act and/or copyright violations, there are no privacy laws applicable here unless we're talking about PII. Extracting very specific examples from an article or blog is almost certainly going to fall under fair use. However I've seen several cases where it essentially just returns an entire article as the answer which would certainly be legally ambiguous.

But it's siting the sources, how is it a copyright violation?

moralestapia 4y ago

It's not, I disagree with GP's argument. Safe harbors in copyright law exist to allow this.

isthispermanent 4y ago
It's quite likely a fair use violation... 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 3. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Particularly 3 & 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors
worldsavior 4y ago
Tho now I think about it more, it might be damaging the site money of income (ads, etc). But it's still not a copyright violation.
- isthispermanent 4y ago
  "it might be damaging the site money of income" Which is one of the key factors of determining Fair Use and Fair Use falls under copyright.
  - moralestapia 4y ago
    It could also be bringing new money to those sites by referring users to them. So, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The issue with Google had more to do with antitrust behavior than with copyright infringement.
    - shawnz 4y ago
      I might be bringing new money to movie publishers by pirating their movies and sending clips to my friends, but that's not a valid basis for calling it fair use
gnopgnip 4y ago
Safe harbor covers hosts of user uploaded content. The copyright owner can pursue the infringer, they are not protected by safe harbor.

fabianhjr 4y ago

Citing does not confer a license

moralestapia 4y ago
You don't need a license to cite others.
- shawnz 4y ago
  But what about when you're also reproducing the content on your own page like what's being done here?
  - moralestapia 4y ago
    It's tricky but you don't need a license for that either. With tricky I mean that only under very specific circumstances you would be infringing copyright laws, like maybe if the content was private in the first place; but then in that case you wouldn't be infringing copyright either, you would just be breaking privacy laws/terms. I honestly can't think of an example where you would get in trouble by citing a piece of content that belongs to someone else, but I'm not closed to the possibility that it could happen.
    - thewataccount 4y ago
      > only under very specific circumstances you would be infringing copyright laws It's the reverse of this. Any work public or not by default is all rights reserved to the owner. The fair use doctrine provides an exception from this if you meet specific criteria. An extreme example, you cannot just upload a complete movie and just add "credit to disney". > you wouldn't be infringing copyright either, you would just be breaking privacy laws/terms. Maybe we're from different countries, but with US law it would be either under theft, the computer fraud/abuse act and/or copyright violations, there are no privacy laws applicable here unless we're talking about PII. Extracting very specific examples from an article or blog is almost certainly going to fall under fair use. However I've seen several cases where it essentially just returns an entire article as the answer which would certainly be legally ambiguous.