Has anyone followed any of this? I read awhile ago that Righthaven was I think suing people (mostly bloggers) for copyright of their content. I notice a lot of posters here quote a large amount of text sometimes from articles. I think its legally limited to a few sentences?
Anyway, I won't quote DP at all anymore. Just a link.
Just Google denver post righthaven for more info and news stories.
www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/righthaven-brouhaha/
In all the cases, Righthaven, which uses a loophole in copyright law to sue blogs, claims ownership of the copyright material. And the issue in both states has nothing to do with the merits of the infringement allegations, but whether Righthaven or the news outlets themselves should bring the cases. In all, Righthaven has sued about 300 websites on copyright-infringement allegations. Most of the cases are in Denver and Nevada. Dozens have settled out of court.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
The court in which RightHaven was bringing in suit in Nevada kicked it out as Righthaven did not have standing to sue since they did not own the copyrights.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Interesting. As far as we could tell it depends on the article what and how you can use it. We generally use one paragraph as a general rule. It is common practice of websites to use articles and pieces of them then comment on them. It is really at parlor black hat trick that the
huffington post
just wrote about recently.
I wonder about linking to pictures too. As long as you link to the original source using the img /img tags, is it ok? If you copy and upload to Imageshack, that may be different. But I am not a lawyer. Thankfully! (LOL )
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
The fair use does not say anything about pics as far as I can tell. The purpose of the law is so that people will go to their site to get the info and you are not stealing users. So, I just try to make sure that I am making it easy and trying to actually get them to go to the other site for the info. But you can bet I will use this post to explain to our users why we are so big on the fair use doctrine. So far, I had not seen many copy right infringement suits on the internet but once again with that article about HP the bees nest was stirred. This will probably be the 'new' thing.
But dang, go ahead and sue the small blogger - few of them have anything of value and they are not making money off of it - and most know to do the drop qoute and link back system. Not all. And he cannot sue if you've done it that way - no leg to stand on, no violation.
) 
