Great interview! Thanks Robby and Ilaria for sharing. I am still laughing at some of the answers
I don't know if you are aware of this but it is not appropriate to reproduce an article or interview in its' entirety on your blog even if you provide a link to the original article. In fact, it is considered to be a violation of the rights of the original author.You are permitted to provide a small excerpt from the article and a link to the original source.Signed: A cycling fan (and lawyer)
Yes, I know, but in fact that isn't the whole article but just a part. Is it a too long part? that I don't know. If I post just the questions/answers part is it ok in your opinion?
To be honest I use to copy a large part - Andy's answers - because if I put just the link you could find nothing after a while and this blog works a bit also as an archive. In my opinion copy right in the Internet is a very hard subject: if an author doesn't want his work copied can simply block the copy function on the web page, that is possible and somebody does. If you don't, you allow people to copy and if they put your name and the correct link everybody is aware you are the author. Or are we talking about money? If that is the problem, once you have been payed by a site to post something, isn't that enough? a web site isn't a book: you don't pay to see it. So? where is the damage to your property? If I post a Gazzetta article the day it is out on paper, you can avoid to buy the newspaper, I agree. Here the situation is completely different.Moreover: your site (and you as an author) get a lot of extra pubblicity because it's seen by people who maybe didn't know it before. The opposite isn't true: where is my interest in posting something? that is a small blog, no profit, no profesional. Ok my readers can say: wow! she found that article in that obscure site! or also: wow, her blog is really complete, you can find everything about Andy Schleck here. - Then of course they start checking your site or keep reading more famous ones, like Cyclingnews.Finally: I find a bit funny that you can use somebody else work just quoting the part you like and so making it a part of your work, signed by you and maybe geting payed for that, but it is forbiden to reproduce an original work signed and linked :)Mah!Anyway, given that nobody pays me, I'll put just the link or better will stop sharing and post just my personal original free-copy-and-ejoy stuff. Signed: me
Ilaria,The author has done all the original research and writing, and deserves to have that recognized.One way to do this is to have readers visit the website where the authors' work is located and read it from the original.It is a matter of etiquette and courtesy as much as a legal issue.And just to make it clear, I have absolutely no connection with the website in question. I am speaking in general terms.A cycling fan (again)
Actually it is not so clear cut. Test Cases are still determining what constitutes copyright infringement. Also as laws vary from country to country there is again no universal law.Etiqutte also varies from culture to culture. Therefore 'common law' would infer it would be reasonable to partly reproduce a published article and reference its original source. Louisa
Posta un commento