Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Posting Copyrighted material was: Re: [Digital BW] "Does a Painter With a Camera Cheat?"

Posting Copyrighted material was: Re: [Digital BW] "Does a Painter With a Camera Cheat?"

2002-06-17 by Martin Wesley

Doug,

Thank you for sharing the NY Times article but I am a bit concerned whether
you had the proper permission to post their copyrighted material. Especially
when I click on the link you provided and it takes me to a membership page
asking me to create an account. Please remember that under the Yahoo Terms
of Service we all agreed not to post anything we did not have copyright
control over.

The line get a bit blurry in that we all have probably sent similar
"clippings" to friends but posting it on a public forum is another thing.

If you did get their permission to post the article please let me know.
Otherwise I think that it would be best to remove it from the archives.

Martin Wesley
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Fisher" <dougfisher@...>
To: "Digital B/W Printing List"
<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 8:54 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] "Does a Painter With a Camera Cheat?"


> There was an interesting article in the New York Times that I thought
others
> in this group might like to read.  While it might seem slightly off topic
at
> a first glance of the title, I think it has relevance considering our
> ongoing discussions concerning quadtone acceptance in galleries, "is it
> really a 'carbon pigment print," etc.
>
> I have copied the text at the end of this message and I have copied the
text
> at the end of this message:
>  http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/16/arts/design/16KIMM.html?8hpib
>
> Doug
>
> ----------
>
(snip)

Re: Posting Copyrighted material was: Re: [Digital BW] "Does a Painter With a Camera Cheat?"

2002-06-17 by Art Campbell

Martin, I'm curious as to why you think posting material to a free
group from which no profit is generated violates the fair use doctrine.
I think Doug was well with in his rights, and well within the NYT's
rights.

What do you consider not to be fair use?

Cheers,
Art

Art Campbell                                                  artc@...
    "... In my opinion, there's nothing in this world beats a '52 Vincent
                 and a redheaded girl." -- Richard Thompson
                             No disclaimers apply.
                                 DoD 358
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, Martin Wesley wrote:

> Doug,
>
> Thank you for sharing the NY Times article but I am a bit concerned whether
> you had the proper permission to post their copyrighted material. Especially
> when I click on the link you provided and it takes me to a membership page
> asking me to create an account. Please remember that under the Yahoo Terms
> of Service we all agreed not to post anything we did not have copyright
> control over.
>
> The line get a bit blurry in that we all have probably sent similar
> "clippings" to friends but posting it on a public forum is another thing.
>
> If you did get their permission to post the article please let me know.
> Otherwise I think that it would be best to remove it from the archives.
>
> Martin Wesley
> http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Fisher" <dougfisher@...>
> To: "Digital B/W Printing List"
> <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 8:54 AM
> Subject: [Digital BW] "Does a Painter With a Camera Cheat?"
>
>
> > There was an interesting article in the New York Times that I thought
> others
> > in this group might like to read.  While it might seem slightly off topic
> at
> > a first glance of the title, I think it has relevance considering our
> > ongoing discussions concerning quadtone acceptance in galleries, "is it
> > really a 'carbon pigment print," etc.
> >
> > I have copied the text at the end of this message and I have copied the
> text
> > at the end of this message:
> >  http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/16/arts/design/16KIMM.html?8hpib
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > ----------
> >
> (snip)
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

RE: Posting Copyrighted material was: Re: [Digital BW] "Does a Painter With a Camera Cheat?"

2002-06-17 by Tim Atherton

> Martin, I'm curious as to why you think posting material to a free
> group from which no profit is generated violates the fair use doctrine.
> I think Doug was well with in his rights, and well within the NYT's
> rights.
>

Firstly, it most likely isn't fair use as it is defined. Or if it is, it
would be a pretty tough argument to make.

However, the NYTimes (like many newspapers) actually encourages and enables
you to e-mail the whole article via it's website system. They don't appear
to put limits on who or what you can e-mail it to (I can see nothing saying
you have to email it to a single friend - for example). So, they seem to
encourage the promulgating. So in this case, I think you'd have to make a
pretty strong case that posting it isn't permitted.

tim

RE: Posting Copyrighted material was: Re: [Digital BW] "Does a Painter With a Camera Cheat?"

2002-06-17 by Austin Franklin

> However, the NYTimes (like many newspapers) actually encourages
> and enables
> you to e-mail the whole article via it's website system. They don't appear
> to put limits on who or what you can e-mail it to (I can see
> nothing saying
> you have to email it to a single friend - for example). So, they seem to
> encourage the promulgating. So in this case, I think you'd have to make a
> pretty strong case that posting it isn't permitted.
>
> tim

From US Copyright Laws, Title 17, Chapter 1, S107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright."

And...from "Fair Use" FL102:

"There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be
taken without permission."  And, as you said, the NYT DOES allow you to
email their articles, without any restrictions on number of recipients...

Though see this:

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/permission.html

Which states:

"A Posting a New York Times article in a non-commercial newsgroup
environment for the purpose of discussion is permitted if it is not possible
or practical to link to the article on our website. It is not permitted,
even in a newsgroup environment, to create an archive of New York Times
articles. New York Times articles posted in compliance with this policy
shall include the following copyright and permission notice:

(c) 2002 The New York Times Company. Reprinted by Permission"

What's important here, is it states that it can't be archived...

And to continue down this section:

"If the discussion group is email based, only the URL may be distributed
with a link back to the article on our website. Other than distribution
through the "Email This Article" feature on our website, email distribution
to discussion groups of New York Times articles requires our permission."

So, it appears that posting an entire article IS against their rules...but
that does NOT mean it is "illegal".  I do not believe posting a link is in
any way, shape, or form, against the law, as one can not copyright a URL.

Austin

RE: Posting Copyrighted material was: Re: [Digital BW] "Does a Painter With a Camera Cheat?"

2002-06-17 by Tim Atherton

Hey Austin,

Your better at searching for the T&C than me!

As for fair use - it's been a couple of years, but I was heavily involved in
some issues around fair use. What I do recall was that all those terms:

> or purposes
> such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
> copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research,

Have been defined by case law and generally the decisions were narrower
rather than broader use. Internet lists only came into it tangentially, but
the prevailing feeling was that fair use was a hard case to make, based on
the case law.

But things may have changed since then, and there may be some specific cases
by now which apply (especially around the issue of mailing list
archives/databases, copyright material and cases such as Tasini?)

tim
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 9:48 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: Posting Copyrighted material was: Re: [Digital BW] "Does a
> Painter With a Camera Cheat?"
>
>
>
> > However, the NYTimes (like many newspapers) actually encourages
> > and enables
> > you to e-mail the whole article via it's website system. They
> don't appear
> > to put limits on who or what you can e-mail it to (I can see
> > nothing saying
> > you have to email it to a single friend - for example). So, they seem to
> > encourage the promulgating. So in this case, I think you'd have
> to make a
> > pretty strong case that posting it isn't permitted.
> >
> > tim
>
> From US Copyright Laws, Title 17, Chapter 1, S107:
>
> "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the
> fair use of a
> copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
> phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
> such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
> copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
> infringement
> of copyright."
>
> And...from "Fair Use" FL102:
>
> "There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be
> taken without permission."  And, as you said, the NYT DOES allow you to
> email their articles, without any restrictions on number of recipients...
>
> Though see this:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/permission.html
>
> Which states:
>
> "A Posting a New York Times article in a non-commercial newsgroup
> environment for the purpose of discussion is permitted if it is
> not possible
> or practical to link to the article on our website. It is not permitted,
> even in a newsgroup environment, to create an archive of New York Times
> articles. New York Times articles posted in compliance with this policy
> shall include the following copyright and permission notice:
>
> (c) 2002 The New York Times Company. Reprinted by Permission"
>
> What's important here, is it states that it can't be archived...
>
> And to continue down this section:
>
> "If the discussion group is email based, only the URL may be distributed
> with a link back to the article on our website. Other than distribution
> through the "Email This Article" feature on our website, email
> distribution
> to discussion groups of New York Times articles requires our permission."
>
> So, it appears that posting an entire article IS against their rules...but
> that does NOT mean it is "illegal".  I do not believe posting a link is in
> any way, shape, or form, against the law, as one can not copyright a URL.
>
> Austin
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks,
> Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Re: Posting Copyrighted material was: Re: [Digital BW] "Does a Painter With a Camera Cheat?"

2002-06-17 by Martin Wesley

Tim, Doug, Austin,

Thank you for all the feedback. Especially Austin with all the "chapter and
verse." I think we will just leave it as is. It would seem that posting it
to the forum is clearly within fair use but the NYT takes exception to it
appearing without their copyright notice which seems fair enough although I
think clearly identifying them as the source would be good enough. Their
dislike of mass e-mailing I can't do anything about since those all went out
within minutes after the post went up.

Besides, the more murky the legal waters get the less obliged I feel to sort
it out. My original concern came out of the recent issue over the Binbook(?)
copying of this group's posts without permission. I did not wish to be
hypocritical and do the same thing we had objected to their doing. Perhaps
newspaper articles fall into a different category or the fact that Binbook
was a for-profit operation.

Perhaps as a guideline for the group for similar situations in the future we
should stick the copyright notice at the end of the text in question.
Further thoughts and opinion are welcome!

Martin Wesley
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 8:47 AM
Subject: RE: Posting Copyrighted material was: Re: [Digital BW] "Does a
Painter With a Camera Cheat?"


>
> > However, the NYTimes (like many newspapers) actually encourages
> > and enables
> > you to e-mail the whole article via it's website system. They don't
appear
> > to put limits on who or what you can e-mail it to (I can see
> > nothing saying
> > you have to email it to a single friend - for example). So, they seem to
> > encourage the promulgating. So in this case, I think you'd have to make
a
> > pretty strong case that posting it isn't permitted.
> >
> > tim
>
> From US Copyright Laws, Title 17, Chapter 1, S107:
>
> "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of
a
> copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
> phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
> such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
> copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement
> of copyright."
>
> And...from "Fair Use" FL102:
>
> "There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be
> taken without permission."  And, as you said, the NYT DOES allow you to
> email their articles, without any restrictions on number of recipients...
>
> Though see this:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/permission.html
>
> Which states:
>
> "A Posting a New York Times article in a non-commercial newsgroup
> environment for the purpose of discussion is permitted if it is not
possible
> or practical to link to the article on our website. It is not permitted,
> even in a newsgroup environment, to create an archive of New York Times
> articles. New York Times articles posted in compliance with this policy
> shall include the following copyright and permission notice:
>
> (c) 2002 The New York Times Company. Reprinted by Permission"
>
> What's important here, is it states that it can't be archived...
>
> And to continue down this section:
>
> "If the discussion group is email based, only the URL may be distributed
> with a link back to the article on our website. Other than distribution
> through the "Email This Article" feature on our website, email
distribution
> to discussion groups of New York Times articles requires our permission."
>
> So, it appears that posting an entire article IS against their rules...but
> that does NOT mean it is "illegal".  I do not believe posting a link is in
> any way, shape, or form, against the law, as one can not copyright a URL.
>
> Austin
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Re: Posting Copyrighted material was: Re: [Digital BW] "Does a Painter With a Camera Cheat?"

2002-06-18 by Sam A. McCandless

It seems to me that Antonis and Martin should have as conservative a 
policy as necessary to keep them from having to think/worry about 
this. My chief concern is that it not add to their administrative 
load. And my personal preference is for shorter posts with more 
references and links.

Sam               samcc@...
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>Tim, Doug, Austin,
>
>Thank you for all the feedback. Especially Austin with all the "chapter and
>verse." I think we will just leave it as is. It would seem that posting it
>to the forum is clearly within fair use but the NYT takes exception to it
>appearing without their copyright notice which seems fair enough although I
>think clearly identifying them as the source would be good enough. Their
>dislike of mass e-mailing I can't do anything about since those all went out
>within minutes after the post went up.
>
>Besides, the more murky the legal waters get the less obliged I feel to sort
>it out. My original concern came out of the recent issue over the Binbook(?)
>copying of this group's posts without permission. I did not wish to be
>hypocritical and do the same thing we had objected to their doing. Perhaps
>newspaper articles fall into a different category or the fact that Binbook
>was a for-profit operation.
>
>Perhaps as a guideline for the group for similar situations in the future we
>should stick the copyright notice at the end of the text in question.
>Further thoughts and opinion are welcome!
>
>Martin Wesley
>http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.