I don't understand copyright law, but I post on a couple of forums which are pretty touchy on the subject.

The view seems to be that you shouldn't quote a whole article, rather just quote a short exerpt, and include a ULR to the original.

I'm usually a bit naughty, in that I usually quote the whole thing, but I always include a URL to the original.

I've noticed round here though that whole articles are sometimes posted without URLs given!

Personally, I don't understand why there's a fuss about copying articles that are available to read online for free. But I do think it's good form to provide a link to articles.

I did ask about copyright on Fish Eaters, but I'm none the wiser. I know that AQ and FE post whole articles (with URLs given) and I can't believe people actually seek permission!

Anyone here know the rules?

Clare.

I don't understand copyright law, but I post on a couple of forums which are pretty touchy on the subject.

This has been a subject of interest of mine for some time.  While I'm not an expert, I'll share my thoughts.  Firstly, if a particular board is touchy on the subject, as a user, I would suggest you conform to the will of the board owner.  It's just more neighbourly.

The view seems to be that you shouldn't quote a whole article, rather just quote a short exerpt, and include a ULR to the original.

Either seem fine to me... while only posting the relevant element of the article you seek to bring out for discussion and leaving the rest to be read from it's original source is certainly the best way to handle this.  

Added: You will find that often, reading the docuмent in it's proper home helps in providing context (where the author sits in the political spectrum, what other writings reside there, archived docuмents provide more debt to the author's thinking, professionalism or amateur, etc...)

I'm usually a bit naughty, in that I usually quote the whole thing, but I always include a URL to the original.

Do you feel there is a legitimate reason to this ?  There might be at times.  Often, it's not necessary though.

I've noticed round here though that whole articles are sometimes posted without URLs given!

I've previously stated that this was in my opinion a bad practise not only from the standpoint of copyrights but also from the standpoint of sourcing and credibility.

Personally, I don't understand why there's a fuss about copying articles that are available to read online for free. But I do think it's good form to provide a link to articles.

I suggest you read into the difference between public domain information, and information obtained freely.  It's not necessarily the fact you are allowed to redistribute something because you obtained it for free.

The flip side -- and where it gets murky -- , is when an author sees his writing posted on the Internet with his consent, thus seemingly relinquishing his rights.  But thus is not necessarely so.

I did ask about copyright on Fish Eaters, but I'm none the wiser. I know that AQ and FE post whole articles (with URLs given) and I can't believe people actually seek permission!

As long you post with fair use in mind... give proper credit to the author and link to the original (available free of charge or that subscriptions aren't required), no trouble come to you.

Anyone here know the rules?

There is no clear rule on this, and copyright laws could vary from a country to another.

Thanks for your insight, Vandaler.

Quote

I'm usually a bit naughty, in that I usually quote the whole thing, but I always include a URL to the original.

Do you feel there is a legitimate reason to this ?  There might be at times.  Often, it's not necessary though.

Two reasons.
1. I'm not very good at editing, and I can't decide what bits to cut out.
2. People who are arguing with me will pick up on something I've cut out and say I've taken things out of context! So I like to give the whole context, so as not to be accused of being selective.

Very occasionally I edit out bits which are obviously irrelevant.

Clare.

Both good reasons.

In fact, the second reason is one you might find me on your back, but there are ways around it: If you present the subject for discussion only (as opposed to make a point), and with the proper linkage to be fair to the original author, you can hardly be accused of anything.

Thing is, by giving the link, one of my adversaries is sure to look on it and see something that I've left out that suits his case, and will say "I see you missed the next bit where it says...."! So to avoid being accused of downplaying things that might not suit my case, I quote the whole lot! Unless it's way too long.

As you say, if it's out of respect for the source that you do not edit, I think you should be only commended for your rigour rather then scolded.  

Hope so. Thank you!

Clare.

Thanks for that, Vandaler.