Bugatti Veyron review.

[nlash]

i'm buying, lol.

Too bl**** right you are after your nasty comment earlier      

[neilwillis]

Actually, once a piece of information is in the public domain - which the internet inherently is, its usually taken as read that it can be used freely.

As a newspaper, we use a lot of material from sites such as that, and as long as it is acknowledged as being their material, it's use is not in breach of copyright.    We often use stories from other newspapers, or grab stills from TV.   How many of you saw pictures of 9/11 in newspapers that were taken straight from a TV screen?   Material, once broadcast, although still subject to the rules of copyright, are not considered off limits in most circumstances.

I also suspect that any material used to increase the publicity in respect of a car would be considered to be fair game.   Just about every commercial website uses those disclaimers, but the likelihood of any of them pursuing a prosecution is highly unlikely.   Possible, granted, but I don't for a moment expect they'd consider a car club boardroom a place liklely to gain commercially, so a prosecution would not be in their interest, quite the contrary in fact.

[Renmure]

Possible, granted, but I don't for a moment expect they'd consider a car club boardroom a place liklely to gain commercially, so a prosecution would not be in their interest, quite the contrary in fact

Exactly what I would have thought until I spoke to the horses mouth (so to speak)   Infact, and to demonstrate what a limited existance I must lead, SWMBO and I had a full discussion over dinner about the sort of things you mentioned and other things along the lines of "yeah, ok, thats the law but who would actually bother". Actually talking to someone who earns a wad in a company that makes a mega wad acting for clients (some Corporate, some individual Joe Bloggs) who infact *do* prosecute, mostly in cases where you and I would instinctively think "why would they bother". If your newspaper were to lift an article from Top Gear magazine on the latest sporty car and pop it into the motoring section without full written permission from the copyright holder then no amount of acknowledging the source would prevent the proverbial ton of bricks from decending from the proverbial great height. Same goes for the article which began this thread. On the other hand, most (all?) information provided *for* the media or *for* public distribution by media organisations is inherantly provided without copyright restriction or is provided with very limited but specific restriction. Its interesting that when The Sun publishes a scoop with the 'Our Lawyers are Watching' warning there is no 'lifting' of the story even from other newspapers until such times as the other papers have effectively done their own research and have their own angle to write about.

The 'grey area' I am told is when some work is copied in part, or summarised, or paraphrased or in some way truncated such that the 'new' work is in itself unique and copyrightable. In such cases.....

(yawn...  then I had custard and jelly)

[neilwillis]

I don't know any newspaper that lifts a story, and doesn't change it in some small way.   It doesn't get round the picture issue though, and I know for a fact that every newspaper does it.   Copyright is not usually an issue, but of course, nor is trespass, although there is a law covering that too!

[nlash]

If your newspaper were to lift an article from Top Gear magazine on the latest sporty car and pop it into the motoring section without full written permission from the copyright holder then no amount of acknowledging the source would prevent the proverbial ton of bricks from decending from the proverbial great height. Same goes for the article which began this thread.

And just as if a Freelance Photographer were to make a speculative submission of a collection of images to a magazine or paper on CD, for example, where reproduction rights were clearly marked on that material. If that mag or newspaper went ahead and used the material without first contacting the contributor (to discuss terms) then as recently described in an earlier post, the case WOULD go to court and result in damages being paid.

[Renmure]

I don't know any newspaper that lifts a story, and doesn't change it in some small way

Agreed. But usually newspapers are discussing news or creating news which they are intending for public interest and free exchange. However even newspapers, with their own well paid legal advisors, are very careful not to breach copyright where they have been explicitly warned against doing so and the penalty for so doing can be punitive.

Back to the original thread... the copyright warning could not have been more explicit. The offence could not have been any more transparent. The range of sanctions against the offender could not be any less well defined in terms of court costs, fines, damages, expences etc. Wagering a gamble on whether or not the person against whom you have clearly commited a criminal law and/or civil law offence will choose to prosecute you or not may be seen to be slightly risky. As in this thread ... for some, perhaps most of us, its not worth bothering about. Commiting the offence in the face of a reminder that an offence was being committed is perhaps more of a risk but again perhaps one that some, perhaps most of us, wouldnt bother about. Using WSCC boardroom to publish copyrighted material having been warned that such material was indeed copyright protected again might be a risk that some, perhaps most, of us would not be bothered about but it does spread the risk of prosecution, however minimal, to an audience wider than the original poster no doubt intended. Seems like editing to making a link to the original article was pretty sensible all round really    

[Blatman]

It doesn't have to get to court to be expensive though. You need a lawyer the moment someone writes to you via his solicitor to claim damages. *Lots* of these cases never get to court, but it still costs a fortune to defend them...