Unwarranted flagging of articles

Bob I have noticed several flagged articles lately. Good luck with gather support.

As it happens, I know nothing about this flag issue you mention but you should be aware that Fair Use does not mean that you can copy/paste articles from other places to here.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Lori, They will not except Emails from me. This is why I had to resort this Email to the public. If they don't believe in your views on any subject or matybe they see you as a threat, this is how they squelch the truth. I wonder how many other people have gone through this and we just thought that they disappeared. I guess they don't believe in our 1st Amendment Rights.

I have to go with Doyle on this. I dont know what fair use actually means either. Thats why I dont copy and paste. I hope you get it resolved.

Good Luck Bob, I think some folks just flag an article or image just based on the title and/or author. I too have been a "victim" of such childish behaviour and attempted many many times to contact Gather to at least defend myself.

Good Luck.

Lori, It's ok that you believe this, and that is your right to believe whatever you want, You should read the law that was written that pertains to just this issue. It's in the article above. This law was inacted for people to educate theirselves without having to depend on other sources of media. A good example of this is the Bible.

Bob I am not saying what you are doing is wrong or right what I mean is the copyright/fairuse issue is something I am not knowledgable enough on to be able to form an opinion.

A large "majority" of the articles getting flagged have to do with illegal aliens.

Therefore, you can always join these sites/forums----as they do not flag, censor, etc!!

http://www.alipac.us

http://www.patriotscorner.com

http://www.minutemanhq.com

Thanks Brenda.

It doesn't matter how you chose to interpret the law--it only matters how Gather choses to interpret it, since they own this site & have the right to ban or not ban anything. Their interpretation of the copyright law is that, "you can only upload content that you created or that you have obtained the written rights to use, if the content is copyrighted. [You can] not use content in your articles, images, videos or comments that someone else owns the copyright to without obtaining written permission and stating their permission." Thanks to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act they can be held responsible for hosting your copyright infringement and they are not going to take chances.

Also, just because you're not acting for profit doesn't mean you have fair use to cut & paste an entire article.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html has more information

Jonathan, Are you speaking on behalf of Gather?

The Cowardly Troll is having a field day !!

My Point exactly . . . fair use would be, for example, to include a line or two of dialogue in a critique about a play to make a point. NOT to post the play and claim you're not profiting. Gather does allow fair use - not copy abuse - even when that's not clear to the person posting and no harm is intended. Factually speaking, they could be held liable for that as well.

...and be a tad fair . . . they cannot explain or give legal advice and probably would have to spend far too much time trying to do so if they started. It's much simpler to research the matter yourself.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

I have referred him time and time again to Gather's own FAQ on copyright. I started out asking him honor the copyright. He refused. I referred him to the rules. He refused. I tried to persuade him to do the right thing. He refused.

The fair use rules are really quite clear, in fact we can go through the following checklist:

Is Bob's article a parody? NO
Is Bob's article a commentary on someone else's work, which simply references that work in order to comment on it and develop its themes? NO
Is Bob's article a scholarly critique of someone else's work? NO
Is Bob briefly quoting someone by reference to illustrate a point? NO
Is Bob quoting someone in order to give a speech? NO
Is Bob a librarian making a copy for a patron? NO
Is Bob a teacher making copies for his students? NO


IS BOB CUTTING AND PASTING SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK, SLAPPING A TITLE ON IT, AND, IN FACT, PROFITING VIA GATHER'S POINT SYSTEM - YES!!!!

If you don't believe me, check for yourself:

http://www.gather.com/faqs.jsp?cat=editorialpolicy

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

aren't the points that one gets a kind of "profit"?

Again, I ask, Are you speaking on behalf of Gather Inc?

Let's just take one example. You copied an article from the Chicago Tribune. When one goes to the Chicago Tribune website, one finds the following notice:

"Copyright. All information, content, services and software displayed on, transmitted through, or used in connection with chicagotribune.com, with the exception of User Content as defined below, including for example news articles, reviews, directories, guides, text, photographs, images, illustrations, audio clips, video, html, source and object code, trademarks, logos, and the like (collectively, the "Content"), as well as its selection and arrangement, is owned by Tribune Interactive, Inc. ("TI"), and its affiliated companies, licensors and suppliers. You may use the Content online only, and solely for your personal, non-commercial use, and you may download or print a single copy of any portion of the Content solely for your personal, non-commercial use, provided you do not remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from such Content. If you operate a Web site and wish to link to chicagotribune.com, you may do so provided you agree to cease such link upon request from chicagotribune.com. No other use is permitted without prior written permission of chicagotribune.com. The permitted use described in this Paragraph is contingent on your compliance at all times with these Terms of Service."

Do you get it? Do you get that the Chicago Tribune expects, and has a legal right, that its copyright be respected?

From the website you linked to, it lists the criteria used in making a determination of violation of fair use:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

I'm not familiar with your issue, but it would seem to me that (1) is problematic if you are getting points which have a monetary value. (3) might also pose an issue if the whole of an article is being posted. A place like cnn.com might be able to argue (4) as well, if they can show that their revenue has the possibility of being impacted by their articles being posted elsewhere, thereby driving traffic (which drives ads) away from their site.

Copyright in the digital age can be really complex, I think. Folks don't think of digital materials in the same way they do paper ones. Additionally it's so much easier that if you had to re-type the whole of an article back out; click and paste don't give us enough time to really think about what it is we are doing.

Bob,
Sorry if you were asking me a question that I didn't answer it's because I don't spend all day here. The answer is no. I was simply quoting the Gather statement on copyright and suggesting why what you have to say is irrelevant.

yes, the "four-pronged" test is the analysis federal courts apply.

These are categories that generally the courts have approved as fair use:

parody
commentary
critique
scholarly analysis
illustration/quotation
library/school use

But there is no magic formula as to how much can be copied. As little as possible is a good rule of thumb.

Don't YOU get it Elizabeth, you just copied what they wrote about copyright material from their newspaper.
Would of it been easier for you people to have let me Email you instead of blocking my Emails?

Bob, I'll unblock you if you really think we could have a constructive dialogue about this. It seems to me that would have to involve the non-stop flagging of my articles and images as well.

Bob, I just checked and you're not on my blocked senders list so email me if you like.

Elizabeth it seem the only person in this conversation that is constructive has been myself, I see that you've deleted all of the name calling posts that you've made to me. You are the one that has brought this about, not me.

"the only person in this conversation that is constructive has been myself..."

wow. Forget my help in the future. Forget profit. If your copy has more of someone else's work than your own it's always a violation without written permission. Ignorance is no excuse.

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

I haven't deleted any posts on this article. All the posts you've received on this article should be in your Gather email so if I've deleted any posts from here, post them if you got 'em.

Put your money where your mouth is. I'm tired of all these accusations and rumors flying around about me.

Since I now know who is at least one source of the constant false rumors on Gather about me, I will also act accordingly.

shucks i was trying to be constructive, but i was just ignored. oh well.

Sorry it looks like Bob was only looking for the answer he wanted to hear.

Sorry, but if you post something that breaks the rules, whether it's because of copyright violation, profanity, hate speech, profanity, or whatever, then why get upset when your article gets flagged?

I've seen quite a few articles that are basically nothing more than cut-and-paste jobs, stealing somebody else's content. Sometimes the original author is credited, but just as often the Gatherer posts it as if it were their content. Either way, claiming fair use doesn't mean that it is fair use.

"I haven't deleted any posts on this article."

WOW! Is that a first?

Well I was trying to be reasonable too....but since apperantly I am not as reasonable as other people....namely the author I am off to do other things...now where did Lera go?

Hey! Are you looking for me? lol

Come and get me, Lori!

Hey Lera!

To all that were trying to be helpful to me, thank you. I was talking about the conversation between Liz and myself where I said "Elizabeth it seem the only person in this conversation that is constructive has been myself". That was in response to her
"Bob, I'll unblock you if you really think we could have a constructive dialogue about this." So to those that thought I was talking to anyone other than Elizabeth, I wasn't.
Elizabeth what makes you think that I was the one that flagged your images and articles? Don't you think there are are other people that you have been malicious to?
I'm a straight-up guy and if I ever did anything to you I would make sure that you would know that it came from me.

OK, time to stick my 2 cents in. Bob M you appear to be a true American for Americans.
Elizabeth ... sorry you MAY be an American but from your attitude, tone and responses you are definitely not for America's Americans.

Brenda M., thanks for some alternatives. If bias truly does exist it may be time to move on.

Thank you Tom, you are a very astute person.