Regular readers here will recall all issues a couple weeks ago about Gpabuds Florida Today blog post titled Operation Birmingham. Eventually it seemed to boil down to a possible copyright infringement issue. Florida Today said they were discussing the issue with their paid moderators and left some of us with the assumption they would clarify things and either get back to the people involved or better yet, publicly explain how the determination was made. As far as I know, neither has occurred..
One regular Grumpy reader suggested it was probably the use of a tiny Mighty Mouse image near the end of his story. That seems like as good an explanation as any, since we have nothing else.. That image did not affect content in any way and could have been easily removed. Bud tends to be conservative. so do several others who have had material removed
So what happens if removing the potential copyright violation severally affects content? I sent an email to Florida Today early this morning asking that question. I have not yet recieved a reply. Here is an excerpt from that email:
=======================================
From Florida Today
MoveOn.org Backer Stomped Before Rand Paul-Jack Conway Debate
From NPR, there were a couple paragraphs in the middle he skipped over
MoveOn.org Backer Stomped Before Rand Paul-Jack Conway Debate
-----------------------------------------------
Next Up From Florida Today
Angle Campaign Used Decoy To Duck Press: Nevada Reporters
From Huffington Post, once again they skipped a bit
Angle Campaign Used Decoy To Duck Press: Nevada Reporters
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Third on Florida Today we have (At least they played with the title)
Mitch McConnell: ONLY TRYING TO MAKE OBAMA AND THE COUNTRY FAIL!
From Think Progressive
Mitch McConnell: I Want To Be Senate Majority Leader In Order To Make Obama A One-Term President
=====================================================
There was a fourth, but it is no longer in the rotation.
Is it possible that these guys are the real authors and Huffingtin Post and NPR's people pay them to ghost writers? All things are possible, but I strongly doubt it.
I know that getting a license to actually post an article from the original publisher is a very expensive proposition.. The person or persons who posted these blogs would have spent several thousand dollars for the privilege.
Of course it is always possible, as one of the names they're using suggests, the posters are blogging on behalf of the Young Democrats. If that's the case, it's possible they license the articles. the Young Democrats could have financed it. The idea that the Young Democrats would want their name associated with something bordering plagerism would surpise me.
What do you think
Grumpy - Typical behavior for those incapable of individual thought, and either too lazy or too ignorant to paraphrase the opinion.
ReplyDeleteWhat amazes me is he clearly knows his actions are wrong and sometimes illegal. However, when he gets caught, banned or deleted for his own actions, he feels victimized...
ReplyDeleteI think there's a term for that.
What does DFTTS think?
ReplyDelete1) GPABUD deserves a reply to his question. In fact the whole blogging community deserves clarification. I am interested on how this is managed.
2) The FT needs to be specific about the rules the moderators are applying.
3) Serious bloggers should take the responsibility to be fully informed on copyright violations and fair use for text and images, or stop blogging.
4) Serious bloggers should always give credit for including material from another site even when it fails within Fair Use.
5) Serious bloggers should create ORIGINAL material and distinguish between description, fact, and opinion.
DFTTS
ReplyDeleteI think there are times I can't argue with you at all. :)
DFTTS - Really wish you would contact Grumpy to get a handle and User Image. Whenevere I see Anonymous, I am expecting another chuckle from the varmint.
ReplyDeleteMarine, she doesn't even need to register with me.. She can set her name as DFTTS with a gmail address.. and add an image
ReplyDeleteGrumpy, Copywrite infringement wasn't the reason for the following blog to be quickly removed. It was Geo. Strait's utube tribute to the 50000. I posted nothing with it.
ReplyDeleteTo gpabud:
ReplyDeleteI am not going back to the FT til they straighten things out, and even then we'll see - so I don't know what Geo or Strait's utube, did you mean "YouTube" tribute looking like. Did you post a LINK to the youtube or inserted the video file.
I tell ya, pretty soon we'll be able to pass out business cards as blogging consultants!
Please let me know what you posted. I'm curious.
FROM DFTTS:
ReplyDeleteTO gpabud: the 4:41 PM posting is from me - DFTTS. Forgot to sign.
TO USMC1969: On the User name and photo etc. etc., we'll see. For now, I'll keep writing "FROM:" at the top.
TO Grumpy: Arguing is not my goal. What I suggest in this case is just plain old common sense and courtesy...seems to me. My hunch is the FT is over its head with the Pluck technology.
DFTTS
ReplyDeleteIt's posted here on Grumpy
http://grumpyelder-todayimgrumpyabout.blogspot.com/2010/10/fifty-thousand-names-carved-in-wall.html
Can't link in the comments,
ReplyDeleteYou can link it of the archive to the left
Fifty Thousand Names Carved in a Wall
Thanks Grumpy...I learned something. It's not George Strait, but George Jones. The EMBED button is active on the video he apparently created for this song. If the EMBED is there, it means the copyright owner has given permission to repost.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou7y8AyTwIY&feature=related
The EMBED button is also active on the video gpabud posted. I found it on YouTube. While the song is the same, the visuals are not - which leads me to think someone created their own version. So here's the deal, even though it has the EMBED button active, that individual may not have had the "permission" to use the song under copyright rules. YouTube is hosting and may be infringing on copyright and the Party that would be in hot water on infringement rules. Having said that, bloggers shouldn't embed an infringing YouTube.
Generally, if you see the , it is okay to use; but with caution since the EMBED may not be legal.
What is the criteria the FT is using? It's one of the mysteries of life.
Maybe Captain BE has more info.
DFTTS
Sheree will be in a world of hurt on her weekend Zen Blog.
ReplyDeleteTHIS IS FROM DFTTS TO USMC1949:
ReplyDeleteI don't think so. Based on what I see, she's using originals with the tag. I'm not a lawyer, but as I said, generally, if you see the , it's ok to use. If those artists don't know their work is in YouTube with an , then it is YouTube who is in big trouble if the artist complains. Some artists may love the "free advertising" from multiple use of their YouTubes. Others may not.
The point is that bloggers have to use caution and make reasonable assumptions based on knowledge of the rules. What criteria a blogger uses on his/her own website is one thing, what mysterious criteria the FT uses is a whole other matter.
That could be really tough for the average user to figure out. At some point the user has to be able to make an assumptiom of legality.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone explain the situation with the blogs I used as an example?
I am not done with my blog post on this issue...but I can tell you the issue is not actual copyright violations. It is less sinister and actually quite funny.
ReplyDeleteDFTTS is correct with FT having issues with Pluck's system. It is not the technology side...but the human side that is causing the greatest issue.
Oh..as an aside...the embed does not grant permission. In fact, I just did a video today that included an Aerosmith song. Not all record companies care about the artists work being used..although they still own the copyright.
Youtube got super slammed by Warner Music Group a few years ago..since then they scan the header file..and flags file for copyright ownership...then they match that information to the copyright owners directions. In the case of BMI, Sony, and WMG almost all are flagged as blocked world wide...meaning no one can see the video...To unblock it you must make a fair use claim.
In accordance with the law youtube will unblock the video for worldwide veiwing...except in those countries that do not have fair use laws.
As for posting a Youtube...In general DFTTS is correct...stopping embed is the easiest way to protect the video from being spread around.
Hope that helps some.
FROM DFTTS TO CAPT BE: Waiting for your blog. I'm patient.
ReplyDeleteFROM DFTTS TO GRUMPY: Correct, it's not so simple a matter as using cut/paste. The average user has to read the four criteria generally applied and decide. When it comes to still images, there's plenty of stuff available. Let's wait for the Captain's blog and see if he demystifies and can give simple guidelines that anyone can follow.
Sorry, no time to look at your examples. But GENERALLY, portions of other's written work can be reprinted under Fair Use IF the original author is given credit and only portions of the original work are used and placed in quotations. A wholesale cut and paste of an entire article authored by someone else is not compliant with copyright or fair use laws. Paraphrasing is another story.
it amazes me that a faggot with a bear logo, who has dozens if not hundreds of red letter violations, can be in such self denial; always pointing a finger at others while 4 of his own fingers are ointing right back at him. He will all censor this comment quickly too cause he can not stand looking at his own faults or the truth.
ReplyDelete"Ointing" - One I had not heard before. Guess that is why I keep a Thesaurus handy.
ReplyDeletehmm wasn't the 1949 a banned year
ReplyDeleteAnonymous. the only people I have ever heard constantly refer to others as faggots are people with a sexual severe sexual issues of their own.
ReplyDelete---------------
Are you are referring to a blog you published that was completely full of hate, distortions and outright lies about the TEA Party wanting to sever the spinial cords of those that didn't agree with them?
If so I quoted segments, and explained how absurd each segment was. I didn't simply cut and paste the entire piece, I analyzed it, bit by bit. Believe me, I made sure you got the credit you deserved for pasting together the original.
----------------
I quick subpeonia forcing Florida Today to unhide all the names you've been trick banned under and the comments accosiated with each would show
1. You've been banned totally more times than I've been redlined. That hose bans are a result of personal attacks, Identity thieft, abuse button abuse resulting in the deletion of over 10,000 posts. Did I mention name calling?
2. Many of those those redlines are the result of one person filing as many as 10-15,000 abuse reports a month.
3. The results would also show that you eleminiated your own posts in a effort to solicit sympathy
BTW; I've told you about the language before.. so to the spam file you go.... again
ReplyDeleteLooks like Google might have him figured out, His last comment was filtered and placed in the Moderation file instead of posting.
ReplyDeleteanon - No, I cancelled that ID on 8/5/2010. The day the immature one made it personal.
ReplyDeletevarmint - It is "Tread" not "Tred", and "Peers" not "Piers". So how old were you when you dropped out?
ReplyDelete