Bye Bye

[midlandi]

Midlandi gone!!

Bye Bye

Note to admin......please remove my account.

[maxseo]

Midlandi gone!!

Bye Bye

Note to admin......please remove my account.

what's that all about?

[rakib]

why you are going?

[temi]

Read OWG comment here: http://forums.ukwebmasterworld.com/g...html#post16492

[maxseo]

Now I am even more confused, from what I understand OWG is panicing because of some copyright issues, Temi you are telling me to read the post that contents of it were removed and midlandi is crying because he thinks that nobody likes him

Am I on the right path?

I was gone few days and you kids are starting to misbehave

..

[temi]

I think Midlandi is an excellent guy, so this thing about no one liking his is not right. Look at his contribution to this forum, he has contributed almost 200 post, I welcome that kind of poster in my forum any day.

What went wrong was that Midlandi contributed a post yesterday which OWG recognises as someone else's article. Posting copyrighted article is not a problem provided you have obtained the copyright owners permission (which should be stated in your version of the article) and you are not passing the article off as your own.

[OldWelshGuy]

Yep. It has nothing to do with liking or not liking, and I am sorry if anyone has been offended by this, but there is a lesson to be learned.

Two threads were started, and in both cases the only content in the thread was the article. As Temi says, using other peoples articles is not a problem, but you MUST stick to the acceptable terms of use. In both cases no mention was made of the original writer or company website bio etc, the articles were passed off as being the work of the person making the post.

As I said, I am certain this was an oversight, and the material can be re-posted with the originators bio in place without problem.

Using copyrighted material CAN cause problems for the forum owner as he/she is responsible for the material posted there. I checked the articles and they were written by a web marketing company called npresense .

I did what I had to do, and that was to remove the copyrighted material, and make a comment as to why. I think Midlandi did not read the reasons for editing and posted a 'why was my content removed, if you don't want me here I will go' type post. This is of course his prerogative we are all free to come and go as long as we please, provided we follow the forum guidelines.

Here is the position (worse case scenario).

The originator of the article runs a script looking for his content and checking there is an outbound link to his site on that page.

He finds the content here and contacts Temi demanding action be taken

Temi states that he had no knowledge of this being copyrighted material

The originator demands Temi supply the contact details for Midlandi as he is going to take legal action against him for damages (passing off the writers content as being his own).

A law suit follows involving both Midlandi & Temi. The forum is closed down by the courts pending decision.

Can you see now why I removed the articles. No big deal, and it was CERTAINLY nothing personal.

Guys I run a rugby forum, and we post copyrighted content constantly, news stories, player lists etc. I ALWAYS ensure the originator is cited with a link to the original page, or if it is an news article the words 'taken from the xxx paper, written by xxx dated xxx' this keeps us sweet with the originators. The last thing anyone needs is legal action.

Again I apologise if anyone has been offended, but the law is the law, and it must be followed.

For future reference, if anyone is going to use other peoples material, it is imperative you cite it properly.

e.g
here is an article I picked up on written by xxxx of the wall street journal (copy and paste the article here) original article can be found here (link to original URL where you copied from). do it like that and everyone is happy. Also be aware (I am not saying this was done in this case) be aware that these article re-writing software packages that change words etc and create new articles, are 100% ILLEGAL. Copyright laws changed a few years back, and were replaced by 'intellectual property ownership'. IPO is FAR more complicated even IDEAS are intellectually owned, so changing a few words of the original article means that the ORIGINATOR owns intellectual property rights over the work YOU produce.

The ONLY way to get around IPO and write articles is to write an article about the original article, using elements of it in YOUR article, but marking them clearly.

Hopefully we have all learned from this.

[ablaye]

I am sorry to say this but midlandi is acting very childishly. Grow up, dude!

[inactive_jumpenjuhosaphat]

Copyright laws changed a few years back, and were replaced by 'intellectual property ownership'. IPO is FAR more complicated even IDEAS are intellectually owned, so changing a few words of the original article means that the ORIGINATOR owns intellectual property rights over the work YOU produce.

Just a small correction if I may.....The ideas themselves are not owned, unless the idea can be proven to have completely originated in the copyrighted work(fictional work, software patents, business methods, etc). In cases where the idea did originate in the written work, the idea is then owned by the author of that work, but there is a time limit that applies to how long that idea can be owned. What is owned in every case, however, is the way in which those ideas are presented. That includes the structure of the written work, and the structure of the sentences, not just the words that are used to make up a written work. That's why it is still considered illegal to re-word an article written by someone else and present it as your own work.

For further reading on IP rights, check out Intellectual property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[temi]

Well some good is coming out of this, I think OWG and Jumps post on Copyright is excellent (hopefully without infringing the two gents copyright) I will add their post to our What Is thread