Cutting-and-pasting whole articles

[Iron Flatline]

My response from this thread:

As an aside...

We are usually peeved when an image gets posted that's not ours, and especially when an image gets used by someone while the photographer gets no benefit from that use.

I think it's great when someone paraphrases an article and links to it, but cutting-and-pasting the whole thing from a site that lives off its ad revenue... well, you just took viewers and visitors from that site. The link at the bottom is a nice gesture, but why bother once the whole article was posted.

Food for thought. Not sure if we have a policy on this matter.

 

[Onion]

I agree. I don't know what to suggest, other than mentioning that paraphrasing, summarizing, or providing some type of introduction to an article and a link is far better than just plastering a link with a, "read this", in a thread. It improves our skills of communication.

 

[dslrchat]

Well it would be up to the staff here but;

I disagree;
I doubt posting this article here took any readers away, it was a "local Newspaper" that today has a Greater coverage and audience.
In fact I bet (since the link was supplied, and should always be) they have received many new readers today.

The article was posted in full and full credit given, many writers/papers would be more offended if you paraphrased (mutilated) their hard work.

JMHO

 

[Big Mike]

I'm not sure if we have a policy for this in particular...but I think that common sense & courtesy dictates that we shouldn't cut & paste entire articles, even with a link.

I would recommend that, if anything, you could cut a line or two (maybe a paragraph) and post that in the forum and definitely include the link.
It should also be clear to the reader that any pasted text belongs to the linked source and is not being passed off as their own.

 

[Miaow]

As this was my thread this relates to - I did post it as a quote with full credit given as I included the writers name etc & link back to the newspaper article.

In future though I will just post a link to the article and not quote the whole article if this is a problem

Edited to add - On other sites I post articles the same and have never had a problem with posting it this way. I actually find it easier to read it like that than go to a link and then have to click on another link to read the thing in question.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Miaow, you're right, it is easier to read this way. The point is that newspapers and other content businesses make their living by paying for articles around which they post advertisement. We eliminate their business opportunity. It's kind of like musical file sharing... we can just download the file, but the people involved in creating it get no revenue from that.

I didn't mean to single you out, btw. It was just a good example. I've often struggled with the same idea, and wasn't sure whether to paraphrase or to copy.

Regarding these points:

I doubt posting this article here took any readers away, it was a "local Newspaper" that today has a Greater coverage and audience.

In fact I bet (since the link was supplied, and should always be) they have received many new readers today.

The article was posted in full and full credit given, many writers/papers would be more offended if you paraphrased (mutilated) their hard work.

I don't think a "local Newspaper" is somehow worthy of scorn - if anything, we ought to defend local newspapers as they are a dying breed and being crushed by large media factories.

I don't think they got a lot of new readers. If anyone did follow the link they would have realized quickly they already read the article in full - thus at least generating the page-view, but probably not digging much deeper into the non-photography site.

I do agree with the last part though, but of course that would be averted by linking to it. Paparphrasing, or describing it, would be even better:

"Hey, check out this article. It perfectly articulates how I feel like an old perv when I go out shooting in my city these days, and does a great job of showing how different it used to be as an photographer thirty years ago."

 

[Miaow]

Miaow, you're right, it is easier to read this way. The point is that newspapers and other content businesses make their living by paying for articles around which they post advertisement. We eliminate their business opportunity. It's kind of like musical file sharing... we can just download the file, but the people involved in creating it get no revenue from that.

I didn't mean to single you out, btw. It was just a good example. I've often struggled with the same idea, and wasn't sure whether to paraphrase or to copy.

Regarding these points:

I don't think a "local Newspaper" is somehow worthy of scorn - if anything, we ought to defend local newspapers as they are a dying breed and being crushed by large media factories.

I don't think they got a lot of new readers. If anyone did follow the link they would have realized quickly they already read the article in full - thus at least generating the page-view, but probably not digging much deeper into the non-photography site.

I do agree with the last part though, but of course that would be averted by linking to it. Paparphrasing, or describing it, would be even better:

"Hey, check out this article. It perfectly articulates how I feel like an old perv when I go out shooting in my city these days, and does a great job of showing how different it used to be as an photographer thirty years ago."

This paper is quite a large one and is one of the most know for its classified section for which it does charge a bit for an add (to be printed in it) I really doubt that by me posting a a link to one of their opinion articles that it's going to be taking any business away from them when most of their money I'm sure is generated on the paper side rather than the web side. Then again I don't buy this paper I much prefer their competition

Posting a comment in regards to the article the way you've said it in the last paragraph would make sense if I was male and been into photography for at least that time - neither of which I am/have been.

I think in a way its better to copy than paraphrase cause then your own opinion can't come into what you're saying about the article, you are just showing what the article/author actually said. Similarily only quoting part of an article rather than the whole article only shows part of the whole subject.

 

[Iron Flatline]

You're obviously not getting what I'm saying, and I find your answers pretty juvenile. Since when is being a Perv solely a male thing? And I am trying to speak in a generalist way, but somehow you're taking this personal. Nowhere does the sentence imply that you might have been a photographer 30 years ago, but that the author was.

Don't decide how another business earns the bulk of its money. It's not your place to do so. If they earn ad revenue from their site, then re-posting content is stealing. I know that's hard to understand for young people nowadays.

However, judging by your reading comprehension skills, I can see why you might be wary to paraphrase.

HOWEVER: I must admit at closer inspection my own theory doesn't fully add up. The site offers an RSS feed, which would feed out the content without ads.


Anyway... notwithstanding Miaow's self-referential approach to the matter, it might behoove us out of a general respect for Intellectual Property to find a way to deal with other's content.

 

[Josh66]

Is it actually a copyright violation to reprint (quote in it's entirety) an article here without the author/publisher's permission? Other forums I go to don't let you quote whole articles because they say it's a copyright violation. Quoting a paragraph with a link to the rest is the preferred method on those forums.

Not sure if it is a violation or not, but if it is we obviously shouldn't be doing it.

 

[Rachelsne]

I belonged to a cat forum and the rules were you should not post an article as you dont own the rights to it, and you or the forum could get in trouble-even with positng the link

 

[lostprophet]

but if you ban copy and paste on whole articles then how are the know-it-alls on here gonna prove they know everything?

 

[Miaow]

My appologies for my reply not coming out how I meant it (as in not personal)- Was a little tired when I posted it lol But I can see your point Actually on one american news site they actually say you cant copy and paste their articles under the article.

but if you ban copy and paste on whole articles then how are the know-it-alls on here gonna prove they know everything?

Actually have seen a few replies in some posts in the past which the replies have seemed to be copy and pastes (in the way they were worded though no quoting around them) rather than someone's own words - On sites other than this also.

 

[Corry]

I'm at school right now and have only skimmed all but the first post, which I read entirely....

...I'm on another forum in which you aren't allowed to copy and paste the entire article, and I think it might be a good thing to look into doing here, as well.

I'll have to see what the others on the mod team say.