I didn't mean plagiarism, I just wanted to know if I copy some text and put a reference link back to original source, does this will lead to any copyright law suit?
If you reproduce part of an article and give full credit to the source, including a link to the original, you won't have to worry - that constitutes "Fair Use". If the author should complain, you can always remove it rather than get into a legal wrangle.
However it's highly advisable double check the different on-site terms. There are many sources where reproducing partial or total content is not allowed or require special permission, i.e. USAtoday http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/questions.htm?POE=FOOTER#reprints
I think you'll find that in North America at least the "Fair Use" laws override that sort of disclaimer on individual sites when it comes to short excerpts where credit is given to the source.
Not so fast. Just because you only use a "part" and cite doesn't mean it's fair use. How much you use and the context matter. I would recommend reading case law to get a good grasp on the matter. Here's a sure fire way to stay out of copyright hot water (well close to sure fire). 1. If you are writing, do you own work. 2. If you mention a stat in your work, cite it. 3. If you want to use part of another work, contact the author(s) to get permission. 4. If you are ever not sure, contact an IP lawyer.
if you're not using other peoples' materials, you won't get people so mad at you that they want to sue you -- or have you banned. There's plenty of material online (articles and photography with Creative Commons licenses) which you can use provided you provide hyperlinks and credit. Cheers Angela
You can use part of a source, cite it and still be violating copyright. That's copyright law in the USA anyway. I don't know about Canada or elsewhere. Most people falsely believe that "Fair Use" means taking "small amounts." But, I'm just going off my law school book readings of cases and the codified law. Take it as you will--right or wrong.
In the US "fair use" depends primarily on four factors: 1. The purpose and character of your use 2. The nature of the copyrighted work 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion taken 4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work It's complicated, and really needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. You can read more here: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html Note that it's more likely to be considered "fair use" if the material is for non-profit educational purposes, rather than commercial purposes. I have read speculation that that is the reason why Google does not have any advertising on the Google News page - they have a stronger case that the scraped content they include is "fair use".
There is actual news about Belgium?? Did they run out of lace? Or have too much? What next, news about Andorra?
I don't think giving credits to the original owner of the articles or images will be enough. At least drop them a nice email and ask for permission if they want that article or image to be use on your site. A site owner once took my design without letting me know and though he credited it, I don't feel good about it either. I only found out when I found links from his site to mine. It's similar to telling someone "Hey! I took this from that owner" but the owner doesn't know!
The concept of "Fair Use" would not apply to using an entire article or an image or a unique design. "Fair Use" is about short excerpts from written material. I don't know that it applies to non-written material and I don't know how one could apply that to an image, realistically.
I'm not buying that. First of all, Google is a for profit enterprise. Their news page boosts their overall business. Therefore, it is contributing monetarily to their company--ads on the the page or not. I've not seen anything (case wise) that says a non-profit can get any type of pass on fair use. Why? Because even non-profits can be commercial in nature. Non-profit doesn't mean the company isn't trying to make a profit. It simply means that the company isn't paying out shareholders and "storing cash." A lot can be learned by reading judicial opinions of cases. Here's an example for you. Let's take a sports logo from an NFL team that's under trademark. You can't just go around using it as you wish (like printing up team apparel). However, let's say you have an article talking about the design of the team's logo. You could use the logo in your article as it would fall under the Fair use doctrine.