Unauthorized Use of Content

[LawResearcherMissy]

1) Almost certainly not. The doctrine of Fair Use applies to the use of short quotations/excerpts for the purpose of criticism or review. It does not apply to using someone else's work as part of your website.

2) Yep.

3) A TOS and Privacy Policy are good things to have for a site.

4) It's pretty accurate. That said, if you want to make CERTAIN you're never served with an infringement suit, simply don't infringe. GET PERMISSION. If the copyright holder says No, respect that and move on.

[Burns]

Thank you for the clarification. It is greatly appreciated.

Please clarify the following.

1) What is really inclusive in a review or critisicm of another site's content?

Here's an example. Please scrutinize my understanding:

Let's assume website A writes a review/article about a popular artist's new CD. Though I'm unsure if website A was ever given permission to write this article, this issue is not important, as I'm trying to obey fair use.

If I use short quotations from website A, while providing a majority of my own content, does this consititute fair us?

Can I use then use the Artist's name and related information in my page titles, headings, etc?

2) Do I need to link to website A for it to be fair use?

3) flyingron said that "Names and facts (tour dates, etc..) are not protected by copyright."

What does this really mean? Does this mean that I can report facts about artist's news, CDs, song lists, upcoming events, etc., legally?

[flyingron]

Yes, the dates an artist is going to be in the city is not protectable by copyright. You can't copyright facts. You can only copyright the expression of those. So you're free to write up a calendar of artist appearance dates of your own expression without worry.

It doesn't sound like your scenario in #1 is fair use at all. It doesn't matter if site A has permission or you provide links (links and credits are often needed for journalistic integrity but have nothing to do with copyright law). Just because A wrote a review of someone else doesn't make it fair game for you to steal. Now if you wanted to review aspects of his review, you can use illustrative snippets of his work.

[Burns]

Thank you for the reply. It was very helpful.

1) Will you please give me an example of a expression of fact that has copyright?

2) Do track lists(titles of songs in a cd) count as facts? What about artist info found on wikipedia?

3) If an artists makes a post on twitter, can I write a review about the post?

4) Can I use artist names in my page titles? For example "Chris Brown CD review"

[flyingron]

1) Will you please give me an example of a expression of fact that has copyright?

That site you show is an example. It is illegal to copy their tour date page, but you can use the dates contained on it to make your own page.

2) Do track lists(titles of songs in a cd) count as facts? What about artist info found on wikipedia?

Yes, titles (songs included) are not copyright protected. They are just facts.

3) If an artists makes a post on twitter, can I write a review about the post?

Yes.

4) Can I use artist names in my page titles? For example "Chris Brown CD review"

You need to tread carefully here, but as long as you are not intimating that you are the artist or somehow endorsed by him, you can use his name.
"Review of Jimmy Buffet's Cheeseburger in Paradise" would be OK. "The Official Jimmy Buffet Record Review Site" would be treading on infringing.

[Burns]

Thanks flyingron.

I've been continuing my research.

How can this website deny to follow DMCA? http://www.dubstepeden.com/legal/

I've checked on Alexa, and their owner is based out of NZ, however the website seems to be hosted by HostGator in Texas.

This leads me to wonder why they feel they don't need to follow DMCA. It is my understanding that HostGator is actually the ones that would be able to remove the infringing content, yet they haven't done so.

So I guess the reason why they are able to infringe so freely is because the copyright owners are not aware of they activity or don't care.

They sure do have alot of courage to blatantly deny to follow DMCA.

Any ideas on this?

I've researched them and see that they even allow downloading of files via sites like MediaShare or MegaUpload.

[flyingron]

DMCA has no bearing on people in New Zealand. If they were in the US they'd be on thin ice and if the record industry wished to bash these guys, I suspect they'd lose under NZ law as well.

[Burns]

But the website is hosted in Texas by HostGator, a well known hosting company similar to GoDaddy.

Does the fact that the website owner is located in NZ overwrite the fact that his website is hosted in US?

The DMCA requires the ISP to take down the content. The ISP, being HostGator, is in of Texas.

Therefore, shouldn't the DMCA should require HostGator to take down the content?

[flyingron]

Actually that's his name registrar. The site seems to be hosted at GoDaddy.
In that case, he's blowing steam. He can say what he wants, but that doesn't prohibit him from being sued. Kazaa and Napster will tell you that you don't get any impunity for just indexing stolen content.

[Burns]

Thank you for clarifying that.

On Whois.com, it says that their DNS points to HostGator name servers..?

Will you please share with me how you found out the GoDaddy info?

Would it be alright with you if I sent you a question through private message?