Internet & Society > Editing Blogs |
|
|
Rotisserie Question
This question was stolen (with permission!) from the blog of John Palfrey, Executive Director of the Berkman Center. Blogger #1 posts frequently during the course of most days to his publicly accessible web site. Blogger #1 syndicates his work via an RSS feed to anyone who wishes to pick up that feed. Blogger #1 retains full copyright in his written work. Though it's not strictly required that he do so under copyright law, Blogger #1 has made clear in various places, including the footer of each page of his blog and in the text of his RSS feeds, that he retains full (c). Blogger #2 receives the RSS feed from Blogger #1. Blogger #2, in fact, configures a computer program to receive this RSS feed quite frequently from Blogger #1's site over the course of several days. Blogger #2 reposts the relevant content from Blogger #1's RSS feeds (i.e., not including XML tags in the reposting) verbatim. In fact, Blogger #2 reposts every version of every blog posting to the republication site, apparently to highlight edits made to Blogger #1's postings over the course of each day. Blogger #2 uses color to highlight the edits that Blogger #1 has made. Blogger #1 objects to Blogger #2's verbatim republication of Blogger #1's feeds. What recourse does Blogger #1 have? Has Blogger #2 violated the copyright of Blogger #1 by copying the text verbatim? Has Blogger #2 created a derivative work of Blogger #1's posts by highlighting the changes? Can Blogger #2 rely upon a fair use exception? Consider carefully the impact of the *entirety* of the copying in the 4-factor test (http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm#test). Or, perhaps, can he rely on an implied license to republish in the manner that he has? |
| Sort By: Thread / Author | View: Rotisserie Posts and Comments / Rotisserie Posts Only |
| Expand Rounds: All / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / None | |
This is an interesting scenario at the heart of which is the ongoing difficulty with defining "copy" in the digital world. As various people have previously argued (in particular Litman More...
Actually, I think the fact that B#2 has taken out the bits that identiy B#1 as the author means that this is a *worse* violation of copyright, not a lesser More...
Blogger #2 is clearly republishing work. This is "systematic" and important element. If this republication was being done for educational purposes, this might not be a clear violation of copyright. More...
I see your point, but I disagree. You direct all forms of public communication as protected, with your use of the generic word "generally". People volunatarily post on a web More...
But what if a hundred other bloggers start doing the same thing? The "not appreciation" notice gets pretty long and begins to distort the original work.
I'm wondering how heavily More...
I suspect the continuous and complete reproduction of Blogger #1's work will fall outside the fair use exceptions. One possible defense might be that the work is totally devoid of More...
With regard to Blogger 2's use of Blogger 1's work, I think that in most imaginable cases, Blogger 2 is violating not only the intent and spirit of RSS but More...
I agree with Cristina's post and would also like to emphasize what I feel is an important goal of Copyright: to provide the POSSIBILITY of some gain for the creator, More...
I consider posting a blog on the net as a type of public communication, which is generally covered by copyright. Assuming that Blogger Blogger 1's blogs are original works, I More...
I totally agree, even I have posted the same position before.
I consider posting a blog on the net as a type of public communication, which is generally covered by copyright. Assuming that Blogger Blogger 1's blogs are original works, I More...
I disagree. I think B2 has permission to republish the feed but not to create derivative work (you seem to be saying the opposite).
There is a good argument for More...
I am not crystal clear on the benefits bought by Blogger #2 to readers of the blog. Purely highlighting edits done by Blogger #1 (as Word does when a document More...
If the disclaimer text can be appropriately and constantly displayed on the page "generated" by Blogger #2 confusion on who has created the content is likely to stop. However, Blogger#2 More...
Blogger #1, as I understand the question, objects to having his posts "mirrored" by Blogger #2. If that is the case, Blogger #1 then asks Blogger #2 to stop. I More...
Hi, IANAL/Wendy: Empowerment of the people has taken on new meaning in recent years, by empowering the individual to compete with the world's largest corporations. Using the RSS protocol, Blogger More...
Fortunately, or at least how I read the question posed, the issue of copyright is restricted to Blogger #2's republishing, including the copyright within the text, placed there by Blogger More...
Hi, Cristina: This is terrific! You agree with me. I agree with you. We could form a support group. If we're asked to continue this discussion, maybe we could shift More...
Hi, Wowbagger: I like the concept of a defacto library, but am not sure what that means. To the point, though, when speaking of "process of supplying web pages", there More...
Clearly I am not a lawyer, and don't know the intricacies of copyright. However, instinctually I would think that Blogger #2 has created a derivative work of Blogger #1's posts. More...
Since Blogger #1 has claimed full copyright, i think Blogger #2 violated the copyright of Blogger #1. I don't really understand the copyright law in the U.S, but in Taiwan More...
Given the nature of the internet, the process of supplying Web pages
violates the principle of copyright. That is, to view a page a copy
of the document must be More...
Copyright applies to any original work "fixed in a tangible medium of expression," including a web page. However we could argue that supplying an RSS feed gives an implied license More...