RE: redux: online copyright myths - blogs (NPC)

["Dennis Moore" <clayboy56>]

>> 5) "If I only quote a portion of another site's content and link
>> to them I do not need their permission." [a myth]

> Dennis, does this refer to posting on websites or blogs or does it include
> emailing links with a description?? If so, we're all in alot of
> trouble!!!! - XO-Glenna

Increasingly blogs are being used as professional tools and/or as part of
someone's resume, say to get established as an expert in such and such a
field. Such professional 'gain' is not legally different from the actual
exchange of money - those doing so would be well advised to proceed
thoughtfully, and by all means to be damn sure they aren't plagiarizing.

Best practice would be to ask to provide even just a link [on a web page for
example], unless you are using the URL as part of your citation following
standard publication guidelines. Many university web sites have good
sections on guidelines, conventions and rules; as I recall, Columbia's is
fairly extensive.

In practice, take articles from the New York Times as an example. You will
see links, with varying degree of text from the article; often it is no
problem to find the full article several places. (It may even look 'proper'
as it is in the format distributed to the private user by the Times.) But
you try to get permission from The Times to even provide the link. Even
though our website is on Wright State University's website, run by a
professor in their English department, we have yet to get permission for any
of the dozen or so requests we have made, even for archived review's, for
example, regardless as to whether they are available on The Time's web site
or not.

Think about it. What interest does The Times have in someone not going
[first] to them directly for the material/information, photo, whatever - for
any topic or subject. 

Conversely, why would, say Columbia University, care if I gave a link to
their publication guidelines web page? You might be surprised. Even with the
original author's permission for an interview in an out-of-print Columbia
University Press edition, they wanted $200 to use only a portion of the
piece for only 12 months, even with all attribution, and meeting other
conditions of use, of course.