Copyright - Posting Work of Others
Copyright issues are really touchy and tricky on what is and isn't allowed. It is made more complicated because there are different rules for different things... so I will try to clear that up in relation to posts here at our forum
1. Quoting other members
If you are replying right after the member you are answering, there is no need to quote, just answer them. If its older please just clip the portion you are replying to. Quoting the whole post in the case of a long post just uses unnecessary resources and band width... and mods will clip them when they spot them
2. Quoting from a News Source
Clip only a small portion of the text that is relevant to make your point. If you add an image make sure credit for that image is below the image because most news sources use images that are copyrighted by AP or Reuters and they pay to use them. Then provide the link to that news source. You can use the quote box, highlight another color or the "tags with italics"-- so long as it is clear that it is a quote
News services have big lawyers on staff :P
3. Quoting from other forums, Blogs or personal websites
Same general rules apply but you can always simply ASK the owner of those sites for permission to reprint an article. Most of these sites have a creative commons sharing policy. It really isn't necessary to quote a complete large article anyway because most don't read it anyway so just keep it short and to the point. I have never yet got a 'Non' when I ask for permission. Most people write because they want people to read it, they just want the credit
4. Wikipedia and similar sources
Wikipedia is an open source media and as such under a Gnu copyleft license. This allows you to copy and change text, ie create your own work, so long as you then share under the same conditions.
The downside of this is ANYONE can edit Wikipedia and thus it is not a reliable source as a PRIMARY source. However most Wikipedia articles list the original sources at the bottom of the page. Also Wikimedia clearly marks images that are in the public domain. I find most photos on the net, with a little search, you can find a copyright free version
5. NASA, Military and Universities (and other official sources)
Since they are tax payer funded the info and images are GENERALLY in public domain... however some work on these sites is copyrighted by the individual author. It is simple to see the copyright usages on these pages. Just take a minute to check to be sure.
6. Press Releases
Well they are just that... anyone can reprint the entire Press Release
So in general practice... clearly mark it as a quote, keep it short and to the point, and always credit the author
If in doubt, just ask any admin or mod... and save us all time having to edit posts to keep the Lawyer Wolves at bay
Copyright - HistoryWhen people first started writing, they did so to share the knowledge with others. (Or to keep records of goods in inventories, etc). The library of Alexandria never had issues with copyrights. In fact I wish they would have copied more of those books, now lost forever...
So when did all this start that we have to jealously guard our written words?
Well it started over MONEY... when publishers started printing and selling books to the masses. Don't forget that in early times only the gentry and the scholars could even read. It wasn't until we had liesure time that the general populace had time to learn to read
QuoteThe history of copyright law starts with early privileges and monopolies granted to printers of books. The British Statute of Anne 1709, full title "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned", was the first copyright statute. Initially copyright law only applied to the copying of books. Over time other uses such as translations and derivative works were made subject to copyright and copyright now covers a wide range of works, including maps, performances, paintings, photographs, sound recordings, motion pictures and computer programs.
History of copyright law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law)Then of course the lawyers got involved... because there was money to be made chasing down people who 'stole' from the publishers... and the rest is history
But then people began to get angry at the stupidity of certain aspects... like a student copying sections for learning (they have no intent of making money) Wasn't the text written by the author to teach people in the first place? This is one example but the laws have become so ridiculous they long ago went beyond the original intent.
So people fight back and now the whole thing is a mess..
Museums: They took photos of original art work... then claimed copyright on the photos. Well courts ruled that they couldn't do that... unless the photo was altered to show a percentage of original work. Well they couldn't do that for a catalog so they lost the case. Catalog images in general are not copyrightable, neither are simple lists... (See post below for the full court case)
Public Domain:Works are in the public domain if the intellectual property rights have expired,(50 years and 70 years are the most common in most countries), if the intellectual property rights are forfeited (the author releases his/her rights); or if they are not covered by intellectual property rights at all. Examples include the English language, the formulae of Newtonian physics, the works of Shakespeare and Beethoven, and the patents on powered flight.
Public Domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain)Fair useFair use, a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work, is a doctrine in United States copyright law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicenced citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. The term fair use originated in the United States. A similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.
Fair use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)Fair Use... THIS is the one most used by websites and forums, but it is also easily abused and over used. Here is the actual law governing 'fair use'
17 U.S.C. § 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
"US CODE: Title 17,107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use". .law.cornell.edu
The Right to Display Public Domain Images
An introduction to copyright terms and a discussion of Bridgeman vs Corel
The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd., Plaintiff,
- versus -
Corel Corporation, et ano., Defendants.
97 Civ. 6232 (LAK)
Their decision was one of the most important copyright decision affecting museums ever filed. The decision was based on both US and UK copyright law.
WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CASE & WHAT WAS IT ABOUT?
The Bridgeman Art Library had made photographic reproductions of famous works of art from museums around the world (works already in the public domain.) The Corel Corporation used those reproductions for an educational CD-ROM without paying Bridgeman. Bridgeman claimed copyright infringement.
WHAT DID THE COURT DECIDE?
The Court ruled that reproductions of images in the public domain are not protected by copyright if the reproductions are slavish or lacking in originality.
In their opinion, the Court noted: ''There is little doubt that many photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the modest amount of originality required for copyright protection.... But 'slavish copying', although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort, does not qualify.''
In other words, an exact reproduction of an image in the public domain does not possess creativity itself. Therefore, the reproduction is not protected under copyright law.
The Right to Display Public Domain Images
An introduction to copyright terms and a discussion of Bridgeman vs Corel (http://englishhistory.net/tudor/art.html)
Creative Commons
Creative Commons Deed
Creative Commons LicenseQuoteCreative Commons (CC) is a non-profit organization headquartered in Mountain View, California, United States devoted to expanding the range of creative works available for others to build upon legally and to share.[1] The organization has released several copyright-licenses known as Creative Commons licenses free of charge to the public. These licenses allow creators to communicate which rights they reserve, and which rights they waive for the benefit of recipients or other creators. An easy to understand one-page explanation of rights, with associated visual symbols, explains the specifics of each Creative Commons license. Creative Commons licenses do not replace copyright, but are based upon it. They replace individual negotiations for specific rights between copyright owner (licensor) and licensee, which are necessary under an "all rights reserved" copyright management with a "some rights reserved" management employing standardized licenses for re-use cases where no commercial compensation is sought by the copyright owner. The result is an an agile, low overhead and cost copyright management regime, profiting both copyright owners and licensees. Wikipedia is using one of its licenses.
Creative Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons) - Wikipedia
QuoteCreative Commons has been described as being at the forefront of the copyleft movement, which seeks to support the building of a richer public domain by providing an alternative to the automatic "all rights reserved" copyright, dubbed "some rights reserved." David Berry and Giles Moss have credited Creative Commons with generating interest in the issue of intellectual property and contributing to the re-thinking of the role of the "commons" in the "information age". Beyond that, Creative Commons has provided "institutional, practical and legal support for individuals and groups wishing to experiment and communicate with culture more freely."
Creative Commons attempts to counter what Lawrence Lessig, founder of Creative Commons, considers to be a dominant and increasingly restrictive permission culture. Lessig describes this as "a culture in which creators get to create only with the permission of the powerful, or of creators from the past". Lessig maintains that modern culture is dominated by traditional content distributors in order to maintain and strengthen their monopolies on cultural products such as popular music and popular cinema, and that Creative Commons can provide alternatives to these restrictions
Creative Commons Org (http://creativecommons.org/)
CopyleftQuoteCopyleft is a play on the word copyright to describe the practice of using copyright law to offer the right to distribute copies and modified versions of a work and requiring that the same rights be preserved in modified versions of the work. In other words, copyleft is a general method for making a program (or other work) free (libre), and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well.
QuoteCopyleft can be characterized as a copyright licensing scheme in which an author surrenders some but not all rights under copyright law. Instead of allowing a work to fall completely into the public domain (where no ownership of copyright is claimed), copyleft allows an author to impose some restrictions on those who want to engage in activities that would more usually be reserved by the copyright holder. Under copyleft, derived works may be produced provided they are released under the compatible copyleft scheme.
The underlying principle is that one benefits freely from the work of others but any modifications one makes must be released under compatible terms. For this reason some copyleft licenses are also known as reciprocal licenses, they have also been described as "viral" due to their self-perpetuating terms. Under fair use, however, the copyleft license may be superseded, just like regular copyrights. Therefore, any person utilizing a copyleft-licensed source for their own work is free to choose any other license provided they meet the fair use standard.
While copyright law gives software authors control over copying, distribution and modification of their works, the goal of copyleft is to give all users of the software the freedom to carry out these activities. In this way, copyleft licenses are distinct from other types of free software licenses, which do not guarantee that all "downstream" recipients of the program receive these rights, or the source code needed to make them effective. In particular, permissive free software licenses such as BSD allow re-distributors to remove some or all these rights, and do not require the distribution of source code.
Copyleft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft)GNU General Public LicenseQuoteThe GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or simply GPL) is the most widely used[5] free software license, originally written by Richard Stallman for the GNU Project.
The GPL is the first copyleft license for general use, which means that derived works can only be distributed under the same license terms. Under this philosophy, the GPL grants the recipients of a computer program the rights of the free software definition and uses copyleft to ensure the freedoms are preserved, even when the work is changed or added to. This is in distinction to permissive free software licenses, of which the BSD licenses are the standard examples.
The text of the GPL is not itself under the GPL. The license's copyright disallows modification of the license. Copying and distributing the license is allowed since the GPL requires recipients get "a copy of this License along with the Program". According to the GPL FAQ, anyone can make a new license using a modified version of the GPL as long as he or she uses a different name for the license, does not mention "GNU", and removes the preamble, though the preamble can be used in a modified license if permission to use it is obtained from the Free Software Foundation (FSF).
GNU General Public License (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License)
GNU General Public License (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) - GNU.ORG
Derivative workQuoteIn United States copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work.
QuoteA typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.
Derivative work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work)
Plagiarism Checker
Lawyers and Educators use these checkers to hunt for plagiarism... the first to make money, the second to check students submissions..
Article Checker (http://www.articlechecker.com/)
Plagiarisma.Net (http://plagiarisma.net/)
Professional Online Plagiarism Detection. Free Plagiarism Checker (http://www.plagiarismdetect.com/)
Music Downloads - October, 2011Well all you music Pirates out there will be please with this ruling..
Supreme Court rejects Internet music download caseQuoteMon Oct 3, 2011 2:55pm EDT
(Reuters) - The Supreme Court let stand on Monday a ruling that a traditional Internet download of sound recording does not constitute a public performance of the recorded musical work under federal copyright law.
The justices refused to review a ruling by an appeals court in New York that the download itself of a musical work does not fall within the law's definition of a public performance of that work.
The not-for-profit American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) appealed to the Supreme Court. It said the ruling has profound implications for the nation's music industry, costing its members tens of millions of dollars in potential royalties each year.
ASCAP says more than 390,000 composers, songwriters, lyricists and music publishers in the United States exclusively license their music through the organization. It licenses nearly half of all of the musical works played online, according to the court record in the case.
The federal government opposed the appeal. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said the appeals court's ruling was correct and comported with common understanding and sound copyright policy.
Reuters News (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/03/us-internet-downloads-idUSTRE7923AM20111003)
Supreme Court Rejects ASCAP's Argument That Music Downloads Are Public Performances (http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=8641)
Supreme Court legalizes downloading music (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread760364/pg1) - ATS ThreadQuoteThe United State Supreme Court has refused an appeal that would have made downloading music an infringement of federal copyright law. Take that, Metallica!
The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, or ASCAP, had been attempting to appeal to the Supreme Court an early ruling by an appeals court in New York that said that a downloaded song constituted a public performance of the song under federal copyright law. Attorneys for ASCAP were fighting to reverse that decision in hopes that they'd be able to collect additional royalties off of songs downloaded from the Web.
ASC
(http://rt.com/files/usa/news/supreme-court-digital-ascap-061/james-singer-band-rock.n.jpg)
Supreme Court legalizes downloading music (http://rt.com/usa/news/supreme-court-digital-ascap-061/) - Russia Today
QuoteOriginally posted by malletzky at Mists of Avalon
As I mentioned...what you said before, it's all according to the existing laws. No doubt about that. If one wish...they can easily close down this small forum or many others too... But the far-reaching consequences will be undoubtedly harder then doing this today.
Well it all depends on how much money the forum owners have... and how good their lawyers are. :o
Newspaper Chain's New Business Plan: Copyright SuitsQuoteSteve Gibson has a plan to save the media world's financial crisis — and it's not the iPad.
Borrowing a page from patent trolls, the CEO of fledgling Las Vegas-based Righthaven has begun buying out the copyrights to newspaper content for the sole purpose of suing blogs and websites that re-post those articles without permission. And he says he's making money.
"We believe it's the best solution out there," Gibson says. "Media companies' assets are very much their copyrights. These companies need to understand and appreciate that those assets have value more than merely the present advertising revenues."
QuoteBill Irvine of Phoenix says he is fighting infringement allegations targeting AboveTopSecret.com, the site he controls under The Above Network. The site is accused of infringing a Review-Journal article on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The site is a user-generated discussion on "conspiracies, UFO's, paranormal, secret societies, political scandals, new world order, terrorism, and dozens of related topics" and gets about 5 million hits monthly, Irvine says.
Righthaven, he says, should have sent him a takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, because the article was posted by a user, not the site itself.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars/So a user, that you have no control over, posts an article from a news source that has such lawyers hired, will sue the owner of the forum/blog/website and will go for an out of court settlement because they know the owner can't afford to fight it, unlike a big one like ATS who have a staff of lawyers
So... when they interviewed some journalists to ask them how much is OK, they said generally 3 paragraphs for a decent size article, or less if it's very small.
This is the coming storm. Associated Press and Reuters already have teams of lawyers randomly searching the net for any violations.
Permissions
Many publications are now starting to list right n their websites options on what you may or may not copy... in effect a license to reuse.
I am going to make a list here putting them alphabetically in posts stating the name of the source and their copyright policy.
This will allow us a source of news that we can freely quote within their guidelines, and avoid those that don't have a use policy.... so there will be 26 posts following this that will appear empty for some time as I add the news agencies as time permits
Any help contacting important media sources to add to this list will be greatly appreciated
A
ACTIVIST POST - Permission
Hello SkyWatcher,
Thank you for your question. We encourage people to repost our articles in part or in full. We only ask that you please keep the author's name, and a link back to our site, as well as preserve all embedded links if possible.
Thank you very much for your consideration and support!!
Michael Edwards
Activist Post
While we do not encourage people to just simply repost articles from other forums in their entirety (just a waste of space and deprives the other forum of rightful traffic) if you do a simple request for permission like above is the correct way to go about it
B
C
CENTER FOR LAND USE INTERPRETATION
The Center for Land Use Interpretation's Land Use Database is a collection of unusual and exemplary sites throughout the United States. The database is a free public resource, designed to educate and inform the public about the function and form of the national landscape, a terrestrial system that has been altered to accommodate the complex demands of our society.
All work on this site is licensed under an Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Creative Commons License.
http://clui.org/ludb/site/raven-rock-underground-command-center-site-r
A great resource when seeking out secret bases :P
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license.
Used by Wikipedia a lot...
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license.
You are free:
- to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
- to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
- attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
- share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/PD-icon.svg/64px-PD-icon.svg.png)
This work has been released into the public domain by its author. This applies worldwide.
In case this is not legally possible:
[Author] grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
CREATIVE COMMONS DEED
(http://tantek.com/presentations/2006/03/building-blocks/cc-logo.png)
Creative Commons Deed
This is a human-readable summary of the full license below.
You are free:
to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
to Remix—to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.
With the understanding that:
Waiver—Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
Other Rights—In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license:
your fair dealing or fair use rights;
the author's moral rights; and
rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.
Notice—For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do that is with a link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License
D
DENVER POST
Fair Use
The Denver Post has always taken copyright issues very seriously, both as a creator of content and as a user of other people's content. In fact, everything that appears in a typical edition of the newspaper is copyright protected.
Nonetheless, our work is illegally reproduced everyday on websites across the country. The federal Copyright Act protects our right and our readers' rights to make fair use of copyrighted content. We have no issue with people who quote a small amount of a Post story so as to comment on it, perhaps even criticize us. That's the essence of free speech in a vigorous democracy.
But fair use of our content restricts those who want to reference it to reproduce no more than a headline and up to a couple of paragraphs or a summary of the story. (We also request users provide a link to the entire work on our website). The fair use rule generally does not entitle users to display the whole story or photograph on their website. To do so is a violation of our copyright and we will use all legal remedies available to address these infringements.
We understand people may want to share what they find interesting in our publication. This is a reminder that there is a right way to do it.
Finally, thank you for your continued support. We intend to remain a vital and trusted source for unique and unduplicated reporting on the concerns and issues affecting you and this community.
http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
E
ENGLISH RUSSIA
Copyright © 2011 English Russia |
All the materials on this site are submitted by the readers
trough feedback form or acqulred thru the open sources like, but not limited to blogs.2leep.com, flickr.com etc.
(http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/themes/englishrussia2/images/header-logo.png)
English Russia is an awesome photo sharing website with content provided by users. As such most of the material there can be freely shared. Most times there is not even a source of the image provided. They may be considered in the public domain unless otherwise stated, but please include any credits available and a link back to English Russia
http://www.englishrussia.com/
EURASIA. NET
Reposting our content
About us
When reposting EurasiaNet articles in either Russian or English it is required to include the following immediately above or below the article's text: "Originally published by EurasiaNet.org". If EurasiaNet article is being reposted on another website, it is also required to have "EurasiaNet.org" link to our site's main page: http://www.eurasianet.org.
The content and headlines of EurasiaNet articles, whether in English or Russian, cannot be altered or edited in any way during the process of reposting.
http://www.eurasianet.org/node/61787
F
G
H
HARVARD CRIMSON, THE
RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS
General Information
Thank you for your interest in reprinting content from The Harvard Crimson. Please note that all materials contained in the print or online editions of The Harvard Crimson (including, but not limited to, text, photographs, illustrations, video and audio) are protected by U.S. copyright and other laws and may not be copied, modified, distributed, transmitted, displayed or published (either in hard copy or online) without the prior permission of the President of The Harvard Crimson.
All requests for reprints must be submitted in writing, by fax or mail, together with the proper payment. Please download, read carefully and return the Rights and Permissions Request Form. To view and print this form, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader. You can download Acrobat for free from Adobe. If you have any questions, you may e-mail the contact people indicated below.
Send reprint requests to:
Ben Samuels
President, The Harvard Crimson
14 Plympton St.
Cambridge, MA 02138
The Crimson may refuse any reprint request, or charge more than the minimum fees, for any reason in its sole discretion. The Crimson accepts payment by credit card or check (made out to The Harvard Crimson, Inc.) for requests sent by mail, and payment by credit card only for requests sent by fax. You will be contacted if your request will incur more than the minimum fees set forth below. The Crimson will not bill a new or additional fee to your credit card without your prior approval. If your reprint request is denied, your check will be returned, or your credit card will not be charged.
How to Request Permission for Content
Direct all inquiries to President Naveen Srivatsa at president@thecrimson.com.
Minimum reprint fee for commercial use (hard copy or online): $100/article, depending on use.
Minimum reprint fee for non-profit use (hard copy or online): generally free, depending on use.
http://www.thecrimson.com/about/permissions/
I
IBM
© Copyright IBM Corporation 1994, 2012.
U.S. Government Users Restricted Rights - Use, duplication or disclosure restricted by GSA ADP Schedule Contract with IBM Corp.
IBM Web site pages might contain other proprietary notices and copyright information that should be observed.
J
JPL - JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. Publishers who wish to have authorization may print this page and retain it for their records; JPL does not issue image permissions on an image by image basis.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/imagepolicy/
K
LLAS VEGAS REVUE JOURNAL
Stephens Media LLCBeing that this paper is my local news source I am disappointed at their hard attitude policy. See this thread on recent issues
COPYRIGHT TROLLING (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=1562.msg19569#msg19569)Copyright, Stephens Media LLC.QuoteStephens Media welcomes hypertext links to its electronically-published textual content. The appropriate method for linking to Stephens Media content is to post only the headline and the first paragraph of a story and then a link to the original textual material.
Stephens Media LLC copyrights are enforced by Righthaven, LLC, Las Vegas, Nevada, under license from Stephens Media.
http://www.stephensmedia.com/copyright/Moderators and staff will strictly enforce this policy on any links to the LVRJ articles and we recommend finding the story elsewhere if at all possible
LSWN - LE SCIENZE WEB NEWSAbout usLSWN - Le Scienze Web News is an independent online magazine founded in August 2000 that encourages the growth and diffusion of scientific culture in Europe by facilitating science communication between institutions, industries, research environment and the public as well as promoting events like festivals and conferences as a media partner.
LSWN's primary goal is to produce a high-quality editorial product that is far from exploitation and sensationalism by collaborating with a panel of researchers from different subject areas who are often the authors of the articles published on our magazine.
We strongly believe that popular science mainly facilitates the evolution of a well-informed society by making it aware of the risks and advantages of scientific progress in short, the responsibilities relating with science.
Before publishing all articles go to a strict review process by our editorial board including a panel of Italian, European and international journalists and researchers of different areas of expertise.
Through the years, LSWN has been collaborating with several universities and research institutes
About us (http://www.lswn.it/en/about_us)
Permission to Reprint
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/)
M
N
NASA
This file is in the public domain because it was created by NASA. NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". (See Template:PD-USGov (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-USGov), NASA copyright policy page (http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/policies.html#Guidelines) or JPL Image Use Policy (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/imagepolicy/).)
NOAO/AURA IMAGE LIBRARY
Educational/Research Use: NOAO allows reproduction, authorship of derivative works, and other transformations of the original work strictly for educational and research purposes without further permission, subject to the General Conditions section stated above. Some examples of non-commercial uses for educational and research purposes are: academic curricula developed by teachers, research papers written by students or scholars, non-profit educational or non-profit research publications produced by authors or publishers, educational outreach activities composed by amateur astronomers, and news media stories. For other non-commercial uses, permission should be obtained from NOAO/AURA.
Commercial Use: For copyrighted materials, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner, NOAO/AURA, prior to use. NOAO will work with vendors on a case by case basis to establish appropriate permissions for use, which in some cases may involve a fee or royalty agreement. If a recognizable person appears in an image, use for commercial purposes may infringe a right of privacy or publicity, and permission should be obtained from the recognizable person. Some examples of commercial uses are: non-educational book publications, non-news magazines, calendars, logos and retail products. Commercial vendors should submit a description of the intended use of the images to the contact address below for verification of appropriate use.
Personal, Non-Profit Use: NOAO allows reproduction, authorship of derivative works, and other transformations of the original work strictly for personal, non-profit/non-commercial/non-retail use without further permission, subject to the second paragraph under II.B. and the General Conditions section stated above. Some examples of personal, non-profit/non-commercial/non-retail uses are downloading images for personal posters or screensavers or as gifts for friends and relatives.
Any use of NOAO images should include the following credit statement:
"National Optical Astronomy Observatory/Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy/National Science Foundation"
or
"NOAO/AURA/NSF".
National Optical Astronomy Observatory (http://www.noao.edu/image_gallery/copyright.html)
NEW SCIENTIST
Academic use
Academic organisations may reproduce our content free of charge provided New Scientist is clearly credited as the source. No permission is required for this.
If you wish to use our content on your website or blog, you may reproduce up to 200 words and then link back to the article on newscientist.com. No permission is required to do this.
We will take legal action if we find a website has breached our copyright by posting one of our articles in its entirety without our permission for commercial purposes.
http://www.newscientist.com/info/in216?full=true
O
P
PRESS RELEASES
Just what it says... these are official statements from any organization released for free distribution. As such they may be used in their entirety
PHILIP COPPENS
Phil Coppens has an amazing site with all original articles. His work is shared and reprinted all over the internet (with due credit naturally) There are no copyright or use restrictions on his website. If you are looking for a great original source website to find interesting material on topics we are interested in, I would suggest you check of Phil's site. As yet I have no direct contact info for him to get an 'official' policy on copies, so use standard protocol until I 'get it in writing' But there is a lot of great info there
http://www.philipcoppens.com/
PLOS ONE
Reproduction of Articles (http://www.plosone.org/static/terms;jsessionid=DF9EF2821F69962F715121D6B0820A8D)
All articles and accompanying materials published by PLOS on PLOS Sites, unless otherwise indicated, are licensed by the respective authors of such articles for use and distribution by you subject to citation of the original source in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution License.
PLOS ONE (eISSN-1932-6203) is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides:
Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright
Fast publication times
Peer review by expert, practicing researchers
Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact
Community-based dialogue on articles
Worldwide media coverage
PLOS ONE is published by PLOS, a nonprofit organization.
http://www.plosone.org/
PRAVDA - RUSSIA - (ENGLISH)
Copyright © 1999-2012, «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.
http://english.pravda.ru/
Q
R
RT NEWS - RUSSIA TODAY - (ENGLISH)
Using our material
Information presented on this website is considered public information (unless otherwise noted in material) and may be distributed or copied for non-commercial (personal, educational, research etc.) purposes.
The use of any material from this website and quoting in mass media requires appropriate credit and link to the web page where the information was taken from.
The use of articles from the Russian Press section of the site is prohibited.
Unauthorized attempts to change the information taken or quoted from this website are strictly prohibited.
http://rt.com/about/disclaimer/#txt2
SSTEPENS MEDIA LLC
Las Vegas Revue JournalBeing that this paper is my local news source I am disappointed at their hard attitude policy. See this thread on recent issues
COPYRIGHT TROLLING (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=1562.msg19569#msg19569)Copyright, Stephens Media LLC.QuoteStephens Media welcomes hypertext links to its electronically-published textual content. The appropriate method for linking to Stephens Media content is to post only the headline and the first paragraph of a story and then a link to the original textual material.
Stephens Media LLC copyrights are enforced by Righthaven, LLC, Las Vegas, Nevada, under license from Stephens Media.
http://www.stephensmedia.com/copyright/Moderators and staff will strictly enforce this policy on any links to the LVRJ articles and we recommend finding the story elsewhere if at all possible
T
THINK ABOUT IT
This website is a great resource for conspiracy topics that you can freely share...
Welcome to Think AboutIt
Your place for
Alternative Views & Truths in World News, Health, Healing, Spirituality, NWO, Censorship, Alien's, UFO's, Underground Bases, Paranormal, Lost Lands, Hollow Earth, Reality, and other Hidden Agenda's.
For almost 15 years Think About It has been helping people to start thinking for themselves.
To spread this alternative information to all corners of the globe.
This site started when there was not a lot of information out there, and finding it took many hours to locate only the smallest little bits.
This was the time of just a few out spoken persons out there, and having this information could also mean trouble. Big Trouble!
Think About it was one of the first to speak about the underground bases, Aliens and other things to Think About.
We shared the Branton papers, works from William Cooper, Bill Hamilton, John Winston and many others. We have been hacked so many times I cant count, been erased, and just gone.
We thank each of these Truth Walkers and the many more who has helped change the web.
Throughout the years, this information has been used on many other sites and has been translated into many languages. A lot of the info in the older section is from websites long gone. Some of it is outdated and dates have past but the thread is there.
Information shared to anybody - that's the way it should be.
http://www.think-aboutit.com/
U
US NAVY, ARMY, AIR FORCE, Etc. IMAGES
This file is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.
(same applies to all services)
US GOVERNMENT
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. See Copyright.
Note: This only applies to original works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision.
Template:PD-USGov (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-USGov)
V
VETERANS TODAY
Gordon Duff, Senior Editor of Veterans Today is a conspiracy guy just like us. In fact looking over his articles and youtube videos he shares the same opinions as we here at Pegasus do.
Use policy of articles from Veteran Today;
Reprint or Repost Permissions
You may repost a VT article on your site as long as you make sure you link back to the original article. If you want to repost more than one article, please use our RSS feed (http://www.veteranstoday.com/feed/)
Veterans Today Legal Notice (http://www.veteranstoday.com/contact/legal-notice/)
W
WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg/30px-Commons-logo.svg.png)
1) This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below.
2) Commons is a freely licensed media file repository.
3) This is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason:
- a) Public domain This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.
- b) This work is in the public domain in the United States, and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less.
WIKIPEDIA
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Wikimedia-logo.svg/75px-Wikimedia-logo.svg.png)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License); additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Terms of Use
This is a human-readable summary of the Terms of Use.
Disclaimer: This summary is not a part of the Terms of Use and is not a legal document. It is simply a handy reference for understanding the full terms. Think of it as the user-friendly interface to the legal language of our Terms of Use.
Part of our mission is to:
Empower and Engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and either publish it under a free license or dedicate it to the public domain.
Disseminate this content effectively and globally, free of charge.
You are free to:
Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge.
Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses.
Contribute To and Edit our various sites or Projects.
Under the following conditions:
Responsibility – You take responsibility for your edits (since we only host your content).
Civility – You support a civil environment and do not harass other users.
Lawful Behavior – You do not violate copyright or other laws.
No Harm – You do not harm our technology infrastructure.
Terms of Use and Policies – You adhere to the below Terms of Use and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities.
With the understanding that:
You License Freely Your Contributions – you generally must license your contributions and edits to our sites or Projects under a free and open license (unless your contribution is in the public domain).
No Professional Advice – the content of articles and other projects is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use
X -Y -Z