Is it ok to copy an article as long as you'll put the source at the bottom of the copied article? example article from espn. I'll just put somthing like Source: espn.com or do I need to put the person who wrote the article? Thanks!
It is ok to Post Source of article when you copy it till the owner of that website not have any objection. If he have any objection then you have to remove it. Regards.
You can't use ESPN articles (or any other articles) without permission. A link or source doesn't give you permission to do it.
No, even acknowledging source is not enough to get the right to republish. You must get PERMISSION from the owner.
How about for example they have a report/breaking news regarding a certain football team and I rephrase all what they said but with the same story, is that considered plagiarism? Because it's not an article where there is someone's mind created it(like a novel, poem, etc.), I mean that is current event where everyone is possible to be a witness. What do you think?
While copying any article, if you maintain the resource box of the author who has written that article, it is very rare that he will object for doing so, because he will be also getting publicity as an expert writer. But if at all, somebody raises objection for this, you can remove the same.
There are a lot of clueless people who for some reason deem themselves fit to offer legal advice when they don't have any idea what they are talking about. This is not the GUESSING section, it is the LEGAL section. Don't post answers here if you don't know what you are talking about. I am talking about you: rickon123 and digman
You can have issues with that... for instance if you want to reprint an AP article, whcih you see all the time, there is a fee. I believe it's a monthly fee of somewhere between 10 and 20 dollars (it's been a while since I looked into AP) to reprint their articles... I don't know about ESPN but I am sure that you just can't reprint their articles and give them credit. Each source that you want to use will have specific rules and you should check with them directly in order to avoid any problems.
But the words do come from their mind. They don't have a copyright to the underlying facts, but they do to the words. You can report that "ESPN says that X is happening," but the closer you get to copying the article, the more likely you are to be subject to suit. Take this article for example: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4303256 It would probably be OK to say: It would not be ok to reproduce substantial parts of the article, making only minor changes. The work itself is copyrighted. The information is not.
I think there is a good chance they might object. They aren't writing to be respected as an expert. They're writing for the ad revenue on their page. If readers don't visit their page because they are visiting your page, I think they would care very much.
Thanks methomps for your example. I mean that is exactly what I want to do. I will just make minor changes. Repped man! The work itself is copyrighted. The information is not. now that's clear