Desperate help needed regarding Copyright laws

[gribbon]

I have no intention of making myself a nuisance, and am desperately trying to avoid getting banned because of this.

 

Firstly, could all moderators please forget the fact that I was banned at another forum, because I came here to make a fresh start. Please. I have said this to two other forum Moderators, and they insist that they take me at face value, but I still get the impression that everyone else has a hostile and suspicious attitude towards me. Whilst other people sling swear words around etc, (which I have never done) I get constantly infracted because of my lack of copyright knowledge. I'm not trying playing the victim, and accept full repsonsibility for my mistakes, but I need someone to help me avoid making similair mistakes again. Also, when I ask about rules, it's not because I do not want to abide by them, but because I genuinely do need help understanding them.

 

The copyright laws are something I know nothing about, and despite looking at the links provided in the rules, I still seem to be getting myself into deeper and deeper trouble with this.

 

What I really do need is someone to sit down and patiently explain things to me, because each and every time I think I have understood the copyright rules, I trip up somewhere else.

 

These are the things I need to clarify:

 

If you make a strange claim, it needs to be backed up with some evidence. But what does one do if you have heard that from a programme/radio, and so have no evidence a such to display?

 

Do all claims, even those which are considered basic science, need to be backed up? For example if someone was saying that genes where transferred one way, and you were trying to say to them that in fact they are transferred this other way, would you need a site that proved that? (Even if it's been in textbooks for decades?)

 

Furthermore, if you are proposing a theory of your own, how do you back this up? Most likely, no-one else will have written anything about it at all....

 

If you want to publish an article, but that article is copyrighted (according to the link on Copyright myths everything these days is copyrighted, even if it doesn't say it at the bottom of the page) then are you only allowed to publishthe first couple of paragraphs? If so, then may I ask how do some people publish entire articles?

 

If you re-write an article in your own words, either to make it shorter/clearer, then is this regarded as plagiarism? According to the copyright myths link, this is not allowed unless permission is attained from the source of the info. Is this correct? If so, then how do you explain your question without abbreviating the article you are talking about? Do you just have to provide a link to that article, and then ask questions about it?

 

Thank-you for your time....maybe we can make a fresh start....:) :) :)

 

Remember, I'm only trying to abide by the rules, and I am not trying to find ways round them...

 

Thanks....:)

[C1ay]

See U.S.C. Title 17 - Copyright Law of the United States

The "Fair Use" Doctrine - sections 107 - 188 of U.S.C Title 17

 

These are U.S. centric since the server is located in the U.S.

 

In short, you cannot post a copyrighted work in it's entirety or a derivative work thereof like a rewrite from that one, lone source. You can use a small excerpt and a link to the original work under Fair Use.

[gribbon]

Ahhhh!...I understand now...thanks:) ...unfortunately I only found this thread again after I tried publishing a copyrighted article....(ages ago now)....I wouldn't have ended up in trouble if I had been able to found this thread again...:)

 

Oh well...

[Fatstep]

The only thing I tend to remember is.

You can only use small excerts and you must cite them, and after the author's age + 70 years you no longer have to cite sources of the original work.

[C1ay]

and after the author's age + 70 years you no longer have to cite sources of the original work.

 

False, generally speaking copyright protection ends 70 years after the "death" of the author. It is governed by a complex set of rules so it cannot be said that this is always the case.

[Fatstep]

False, generally speaking copyright protection ends 70 years after the "death" of the author. It is governed by a complex set of rules so it cannot be said that this is always the case.

 

I worded it wrong, but by what teachers have told me(us) after 70 years you no longer have to cite, legally, but can still get in trouble with the teacher for plagiarism

[Buffy]

False, generally speaking copyright protection ends 70 years after the "death" of the author. It is governed by a complex set of rules so it cannot be said that this is always the case.

Moreover, even for content that is not covered by copyright, it is considered really bad form not to cite your references. In fact some people consider it one of the lowest forms of intellectual dishonesty: I know a professor who happily gives out F's on papers simply because even a single reference is unsourced....

 

Rough justice,

Buffy

[C1ay]

I worded it wrong, but by what teachers have told me(us) after 70 years you no longer have to cite, legally, but can still get in trouble with the teacher for plagiarism

 

I hope you realize that "my teacher told me" will not protect you in a court of law. All that counts is what is stated in the law itself which states, "endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death." (Chapter 17 § 302 U.S.C.)

 

This is a change made in 1978 and applies to all works created on or after January 1, 1978. Subsisting copyrights already in effect on that date were protected for 28 years with the proprieter of that copyright, or any heirs, entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for the further term of 67 years.