However,
the Statesman is trying to impose extra-legal restrictions on the use of their content to restrict the same bloggers whose work the Statesman without permission for nearly two years. Folks like me and Dennis Mansfield shouldn’t have to worry about whether we can link a Statesman article after they took the fruits of our intellectual labor for free. However, I intend to honor the Statesman’s request. If I find an article of interest on the Statesman, I’ll find another article somewhere else and give them the Google Juice the Statesman was getting. Failing that, I’ll paraphrase the facts of the case without actually quoting the Statesman. Saying, “Police don’t have any clues in the the killing of Robert Manwill.” is not something I can be sued over/Adam Graham, Adam’s Blog. More here.
DFO: I enjoy a good dust-up in the local or Idaho blosophere. But I hope cool minds prevail here — and the Statesman and sundry blogs go back to their previous relationship. Online newspapers need the blogosphere and vice versa. Still, this should provide all of you bloggers and commenters a lesson in proper use of other material. Don’t copy material wholesale without permission. And always provide credit and a link so the original source benefits to your post or comment, too.
Bubblehead on March 03 at 12:06 p.m.
I like Adam’s post; some very good points. The main problem I have with the Statesman’s stated policy is that they “require” bloggers to get permission prior to posting an excerpt, which is flatly against the spirit, if not the letter, of the Fair Use doctrine.
fortboise on March 03 at 9:44 p.m.
The Statesman’s “stated” policy has not been stated to me; I’ve seen their correspondence to one person quoted. That one person was violating the newspaper’s copyright, and deserved to get a demand letter, but what was quoted from that letter was poorly thought out and poorly written, in my opinion.
Adam wants to pile on because another conservative blogger is in a huff? Or because they wouldn’t run his pieces for a Reader’s View? He’s got nice, strong opinions, but he doesn’t support them well with his arguments, and he doesn’t write well. Tough business, and criticism is part of it.
Winding up to this brilliant riposte: “I would recommend people plan on cancelling their Statesman subscription.”
No planning needed; if they go out of business, there won’t be a need to cancel, eh?
In the meantime, the Statesman’s website has terms of service that you agree to by browsing there:
http://www.idahostatesman.com/terms-of-service/
If you want to rail against their policy, it would make sense to start by READING IT. Just an idea.
Neither “hyperlink” nor “link” appears in it in regard to inbound links.
There’s ample documentation of the principle of Fair Use, and if the Statesman contradicts that in practice, feel free to ignore it. You do take on a certain amount of risk, of course. “Arguing” with them in one’s blog seems both ill-advised and pointless.
hilariousisback on March 03 at 10:17 p.m.
“Saying, “Police don’t have any clues in the the killing of Robert Manwill.” is not something I can be sued over”
But when you have no basis to back that statement up, other than something you yanked from a trained journalist’s work, it’s a pretty low thing to do.
Call the police and get the information yourself and stop stealing other people’s work.