I'm Sure This is Happening in NZ as Well

[king1]

So the copyright/attribution issue is something that the Admin/Mod team are considering, we have been having a bit of a discussion about this and whether it could cause liability issues for us down the track.

My personal feeling on the matter is it won't be a problem based on this 

Copyright exceptions

Copyright is not only about creators rights. Copyright balances the right of creators to choose how their creations are used, with society’s interest in allowing people to access and use works of intellectual or creative endeavour.

One of the most important ways the Copyright Act balances the various rights and interests, is by allowing people to use copyright works without the need to get permission. You can copy without permission from an original if it is for:

• Research
  
• Private study
  
• Criticism or review
  
• Reporting current events
  
  

The amount copied should be deemed ‘fair’. For example it might be fair for an individual to copy an entire poem or article if it is relevant to their study topic. On the other hand, it is unlikely to be fair to copy an entire book if only a section relates to the study.

https://www.copyright.co.nz/understandin...-copyright

I would say we are covered by Criticism or review  AND Reporting current events as long as no-one is trying to misrepresent ownership, and no-one is wholesale stealing large chunks of anyone's creative works.

But, I personally would like to see more use of the Quote boxes (third button from end in the editor) including a link for attribution, so it is very clear that it is a quote from someone else and not the posters' own words.

We will work up a rule/policy/announcement on this in due course, once all mods/admin have had some input...

[Lilith7]

So the copyright/attribution issue is something that the Admin/Mod team are considering, we have been having a bit of a discussion about this and whether it could cause liability issues for us down the track.

My personal feeling on the matter is it won't be a problem based on this 

Copyright exceptions

Copyright is not only about creators rights. Copyright balances the right of creators to choose how their creations are used, with society’s interest in allowing people to access and use works of intellectual or creative endeavour.

One of the most important ways the Copyright Act balances the various rights and interests, is by allowing people to use copyright works without the need to get permission. You can copy without permission from an original if it is for:

• Research
  
• Private study
  
• Criticism or review
  
• Reporting current events
  
  

The amount copied should be deemed ‘fair’. For example it might be fair for an individual to copy an entire poem or article if it is relevant to their study topic. On the other hand, it is unlikely to be fair to copy an entire book if only a section relates to the study.

https://www.copyright.co.nz/understandin...-copyright

I would say we are covered by Criticism or review  AND Reporting current events as long as no-one is trying to misrepresent ownership, and no-one is wholesale stealing large chunks of anyone's creative works.

But, I personally would like to see more use of the Quote boxes (third button from end in the editor) including a link for attribution, so it is very clear that it is a quote from someone else and not the posters' own words.

We will work up a rule/policy/announcement on this in due course, once all mods/admin have had some input...

Ok, thanks for clarifying. So far I've managed it OK but will abide by any new rules if that happens.

[SueDonim]

In general practice, the usual standard for anything is to post the link so that those who are entitled to see the article can do so, and those who aren't can't, eg if it is behind a paywall. A short passage with discussion is acceptable - eg post the link then say "The article says "[quoted sentence]" which I agree/disagree with because ....".  Or whatever other introduction/comment is appropriate to get people interested in reading it.

That then covers you.

The problem for me with links is I am reluctant to click on them as they can be disguised links to malware, or links to publications that I do not wish to support with engagement.  It's getting wilder out there all the time and I err very much on the side of caution.

It's good to be cautious about clinking on links - eg I never click on any that are bit.ly or any of the other services that shorten original links. In general though, when links the links provided are the original ones, it's easy to see where it will go, and if in doubt you can google it, or google the article title, etc. Looking at the google results list poses no risk and from that it's pretty clear whether it is as it is portrayed, or something to steer clear of.

[SueDonim]

So the copyright/attribution issue is something that the Admin/Mod team are considering, we have been having a bit of a discussion about this and whether it could cause liability issues for us down the track.

My personal feeling on the matter is it won't be a problem based on this 

Copyright exceptions

Copyright is not only about creators rights. Copyright balances the right of creators to choose how their creations are used, with society’s interest in allowing people to access and use works of intellectual or creative endeavour.

One of the most important ways the Copyright Act balances the various rights and interests, is by allowing people to use copyright works without the need to get permission. You can copy without permission from an original if it is for:

• Research
  
• Private study
  
• Criticism or review
  
• Reporting current events
  
  

The amount copied should be deemed ‘fair’. For example it might be fair for an individual to copy an entire poem or article if it is relevant to their study topic. On the other hand, it is unlikely to be fair to copy an entire book if only a section relates to the study.

https://www.copyright.co.nz/understandin...-copyright

I would say we are covered by Criticism or review  AND Reporting current events as long as no-one is trying to misrepresent ownership, and no-one is wholesale stealing large chunks of anyone's creative works.

But, I personally would like to see more use of the Quote boxes (third button from end in the editor) including a link for attribution, so it is very clear that it is a quote from someone else and not the posters' own words.

We will work up a rule/policy/announcement on this in due course, once all mods/admin have had some input...

Your quote is from Copyright Licensing Limited who is a reputable source but whose business is charging educational institutions for licences to copy journal articles for tutors to give to students (eg class sets). So their comments are correct from this perspective, but may not be exactly right for the forum situation. Just as Media Copyright Agency (https://mediacopyrightagency.co.nz/#) sells licences to large organisations who send out media monitoring emails to provide a current awareness service to staff. Relevant in that they relate to news media articles rather than journals, but still different from application of the rules to forum use.

The thing that I can see with media websites is that their publication of articles includes layout, illustration and advertising that are lost to the reader when the text is copied. Some or all of those aspects may include copyright that belongs to someone other than the actual publication source.

You will need to keep it simple. Possibly your best bet is to simply play it safe by saying copying should be limited to a sentence or paragraph to accompany discussion, or to do it on a case by case, source by source basis and ask posters to declare what rule is being used when they post long tracts of copyright text. I had a quick look at some of the other forums I know and none seem to have any copyright rules apart from claiming their own on what is posted, but in the other forums I look at I don't recall seeing any widespread copy and paste of whole articles either. Most people seem to provide links to what they want to highlight.

[king1]

So the copyright/attribution issue is something that the Admin/Mod team are considering, we have been having a bit of a discussion about this and whether it could cause liability issues for us down the track.

My personal feeling on the matter is it won't be a problem based on this 



I would say we are covered by Criticism or review  AND Reporting current events as long as no-one is trying to misrepresent ownership, and no-one is wholesale stealing large chunks of anyone's creative works.

But, I personally would like to see more use of the Quote boxes (third button from end in the editor) including a link for attribution, so it is very clear that it is a quote from someone else and not the posters' own words.

We will work up a rule/policy/announcement on this in due course, once all mods/admin have had some input...

Your quote is from Copyright Licensing Limited who is a reputable source but whose business is charging educational institutions for licences to copy journal articles for tutors to give to students (eg class sets). So their comments are correct from this perspective, but may not be exactly right for the forum situation. Just as Media Copyright Agency (https://mediacopyrightagency.co.nz/#) sells licences to large organisations who send out media monitoring emails to provide a current awareness service to staff. Relevant in that they relate to news media articles rather than journals, but still different from application of the rules to forum use.

The thing that I can see with media websites is that their publication of articles includes layout, illustration and advertising that are lost to the reader when the text is copied. Some or all of those aspects may include copyright that belongs to someone other than the actual publication source.

You will need to keep it simple. Possibly your best bet is to simply play it safe by saying copying should be limited to a sentence or paragraph to accompany discussion, or to do it on a case by case, source by source basis and ask posters to declare what rule is being used when they post long tracts of copyright text. I had a quick look at some of the other forums I know and none seem to have any copyright rules apart from claiming their own on what is posted, but in the other forums I look at I don't recall seeing any widespread copy and paste of whole articles either. Most people seem to provide links to what they want to highlight.

They appear to be a non-profit...

We are a not-for-profit organisation, jointly owned by the Publishers Association of New Zealand (PANZ) and the New Zealand Society of Authors (NZSA).

Copyright Licensing New Zealand is the sole, recognised Reproduction Rights Organisation (RRO) in New Zealand for text-based copyright material and a member of the global body, the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations (IFRRO). For more information on the Reproduction Rights Organisations we work with click here.
https://www.copyright.co.nz/about/about-us

They also provide this PDF on the subject of fair dealing
https://www.copyright.co.nz/Downloads/As...ealand.pdf

if I follow that through I progress this way...

• The Copyright Act specifies certain circumstances where you can use all or a substantial part of a copyright work without the copyright owner’s permission. 
  

These exceptions from infringement include:
• the “fair dealing” exceptions outlined in this information sheet;

A “fair dealing” with copyright material does not infringe copyright if it is for the following purposes:
• reporting current events.


There is a further breakdown of considerations in determining 'fair' (which is untested in NZ courts).  I read this situation as there is no commercial incentive to copy, and we're not talking about someone's thesis here, so no specialized knowledge being obtained, it's mainly just clickbait, not a book - for the paywalled stuff there could be an argument against it but otherwise it is already freely and publicly available online, and Lilith7 always attributes the source ...   


What is your take on this?

[SueDonim]

Your quote is from Copyright Licensing Limited who is a reputable source but whose business is charging educational institutions for licences to copy journal articles for tutors to give to students (eg class sets). So their comments are correct from this perspective, but may not be exactly right for the forum situation. Just as Media Copyright Agency (https://mediacopyrightagency.co.nz/#) sells licences to large organisations who send out media monitoring emails to provide a current awareness service to staff. Relevant in that they relate to news media articles rather than journals, but still different from application of the rules to forum use.

The thing that I can see with media websites is that their publication of articles includes layout, illustration and advertising that are lost to the reader when the text is copied. Some or all of those aspects may include copyright that belongs to someone other than the actual publication source.

You will need to keep it simple. Possibly your best bet is to simply play it safe by saying copying should be limited to a sentence or paragraph to accompany discussion, or to do it on a case by case, source by source basis and ask posters to declare what rule is being used when they post long tracts of copyright text. I had a quick look at some of the other forums I know and none seem to have any copyright rules apart from claiming their own on what is posted, but in the other forums I look at I don't recall seeing any widespread copy and paste of whole articles either. Most people seem to provide links to what they want to highlight.

They appear to be a non-profit...

We are a not-for-profit organisation, jointly owned by the Publishers Association of New Zealand (PANZ) and the New Zealand Society of Authors (NZSA).

Copyright Licensing New Zealand is the sole, recognised Reproduction Rights Organisation (RRO) in New Zealand for text-based copyright material and a member of the global body, the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations (IFRRO). For more information on the Reproduction Rights Organisations we work with click here.
https://www.copyright.co.nz/about/about-us

They also provide this PDF on the subject of fair dealing
https://www.copyright.co.nz/Downloads/As...ealand.pdf

if I follow that through I progress this way...

• The Copyright Act specifies certain circumstances where you can use all or a substantial part of a copyright work without the copyright owner’s permission. 
  

These exceptions from infringement include:
• the “fair dealing” exceptions outlined in this information sheet;

A “fair dealing” with copyright material does not infringe copyright if it is for the following purposes:
• reporting current events.


There is a further breakdown of considerations in determining 'fair' (which is untested in NZ courts).  I read this situation as there is no commercial incentive to copy, and we're not talking about someone's thesis here, so no specialized knowledge being obtained, it's mainly just clickbait, not a book - for the paywalled stuff there could be an argument against it but otherwise it is already freely and publicly available online, and Lilith7 always attributes the source ...   


What is your take on this?

Yes, you are right they are non-profit. They can be very vigorous in their activity though - which is great if you are an author, but not so great if you are on the other side. I remembered this from back when it happened https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/polytechni...GTZU73FXE/  and while I was looking that up also came across this one https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0910/S...-theft.htm. And please note I just copy the links in so you can go there and look if you are interested. That is second nature to do that as it is what we always did at work.

Looking at the CLL PDF you linked to, it is clear that it's talking about journal articles (etc) and that it relates to use of something that has been copied or downloaded from the original rather than uploading to a website or copying from one website to another. The difference is that if you photocopy something for yourself, that's just one copy and one reader. When you copy onto a website I would consider that it is being re-published. But that's part is my take on it.

Going back to the CLL PDF, even then it's clear about getting permission for anything more than an "insubstantial part of a work" (their words, and italics, so used with quote marks).

Applying that concept, I think it's risky to post a whole article without permission from the owner.

Going back to the Act, Section 42 is relevant https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publ...e&p=1&sr=4.

42(1) is about criticism and review - not relevant here because the articles are not being critiqued, just posted for people to read
42(2) could cover it if it is reporting current events by means of a "communication work". I don't know exactly what that means so I go back to the definitions at 2(1) and find that it seems to relate to broadcast (https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publ...45639.html). Is a website a form of broadcast?
42(3) Bingo! It says "Fair dealing...[snip]... for the purposes of reporting current events ... [snip]...does not infringe copyright in the work if such fair dealing is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.

So if the purpose is reporting current events it looks like it is covered and therefore OK from a personal use point of view. My apologies if I was wrong all along, but I still feel there is the question of the fact that posting whole articles on the forum is essentially re-publishing, and that many publishers clearly do not give permission for this. Especially for articles behind paywalls. That takes us back to what I was always taught at work - if you send the link then a person who is entitled to read the article can, and those who aren't entitled because they are not subscribers can't.

Coming in from another angle, are forum owners/moderators Internet Service Providers under the definition in clause 2? If so clauses 92A to E and 93 apply. (See https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publ...45634.html for the contents page to link to the clauses).

I agree that the usage here is not commercial but the publishers who have posted the original articles are commercial entities. You could possibly solve it by simply asking a couple of them. Maybe take a couple of local news sites and flick them an email. Copyright questions can be the simplest to solve - if you ask the copyright owner and they give permission then problem gone. I'm sure you have the means to ask anonymously without drawing attention to this particular forum.

I hope there is something helpful there. I certainly didn't mean to stir up a major issue when I raised the question.

[king1]

Thanks for your input SueDonim, we are formulating a position on this.

From my perspective it got me interested because the copyright aspect is not something i have had a lot to do with and I feel like we should have position on it here, other than our one-liner rule saying don't infringe copyrights...

appreciate the input...