Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Reposting of Sportal Content
#21
Ned Wrote:
HKTiger Wrote:It hasn't stopped other sites to date. They can't have singled Y&B out that's illegal.

Will you be questioning Ashley on that ?

Nope - I'd rather err on the side of caution and comply. However, if anyone finds any other site reposting information from Sportal, I'd suggest that you let Ashley know by e-mailing him: ashley.browne@sportal.com.au

With the greatest of respect Ned, that's ridiculous.

It's bad enough the geniuses at Sportal wish to single out this site - which it seems they have done to some extent considering a number of other sites have not put this message up on their noticeboards, and still seem to be posting full Sportal articles - but then we are now being asked to police this measure by dobbing in other sites to Sportal?

No, that's not on.

Let the idiots at Sportal deal with this. Let them write to everyone and tell them the same thing they've told us. Let them police it and see how they go being in 400 places at once.

Ned - is there any indication from the "esteemed" Ashley Browne that they have written to more sites than just this one? Are you able to ask him on that matter. If they've singled us out (apart from the fact they can get stuffed) I'd like to know why.

Ned Wrote:As per the letter I've received from the Managing Editor of Sportal, Ashley Browne, anybody reposting content that meets the criteria set out below must do so as requested. If the content breaches this directive from Sportal, it shall have to be deleted.

Following the email I received yesterday, this letter is to confirm that you are not permitted to re-publish any content previously published by Sportal Australia on its own site (http://www.sportal.com.au) or syndication partners including, but not restricted to, http://www.afl.com.au and http://www.richmondfc.com.au.

As is the case with other message boards, we will allow you to publish the headline and first paragraph of the story, but there must then be a link through to the full story as published on any of our sites.

All content prepared by Sportal is protected by copyright. On the AFL and Richmond websites, you can identify our content by one of these attribution lines
Sportal for afl.com.au
Exclusive to afl.com.au
Exclusive to richmondfc.com.au'

Any further publication of Sportal content in full on the yellowandblack.com.au website will be regarded as a breach of copyright, and we will commence legal action immediately.


Perhaps one option is to no longer promote media and other websites through this website by refusing to repost any content from other sites.

What a bunch of knobs.

So what can we do - here's a couple of ideas.

1 - For the "exclusive to AFL.com.au" and "sportal for afl.com.au" pieces, let's not post them when they appear on the AFL site. Simple as that.

That way, the traffic coming from our site to their site to check out the story (and other stories at the site) stops completely.

2 - For the exclusive to RFC pieces, we have a few options. The first is not to post them at all. But again, that's defeating the purpose of being an up-to-date site on everything Richmond.

So, there is another way around it. In looking at the many Sportal articles on the RFC site that have "exclusive for RFC.com.au", most of them are news articles. Most recently we've had the Richo is back inthe side piece, the Tigers/AFG renewed sponsorship piece and a couple of other straight out news pieces.

For a story like the "Richo is back" yarn, simply don't post it. Its about the squad, we know the team, no need to post it.

But for a story like the Tigers/AFG sponsorship one, simply start a short thread along these lines.

"Good news, just formally announced that the Tigers and AFG have renewed their sponsorship until 2007. Great to see AFG staying on board and supporting us". What does everyone reckon?

Don't provide a link to the Sportal story ... after all, you are only spreading information already freely available in the public arena and accurately reported on by the media.

News isn't copyright. News is news. The whole idea of spreading officially reported news is to inform people, to bring them up-to-date and keep them up-to-date.

The idea that news needs to in fact be limited due to copyright reasons and other so-called legal namby pamby is the complete opposite to what news is about - and, bluntly, should be shunned at every opportunity.

We provide fair and reasonable links, sourcing and attribution through this site, and it is something that Ned and all of us here at the site are absolutely committed to doing. How dare one pinicky media organisation tell us that this conspicuous sourcing and attribution work; work that covers not only published media material, but even fair and reasonable attribution when needed to RFC forums and BF, is not up to scratch in their view.

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Sportal must be struggling to deliver on Internet visit targets they agreed on as part of their contract to supply their "exclusive" news to AFL and AFL clubs. Maybe there are other conclusions, but this one stands out like a sore thumb.

**** you Sportal (I'll probably be warned for that). How precious can a news site be if it feels it has to "protect" the news it reports on from being spread around like ... well, news.


PS - Ned - is this something we should/could at least raise with Tony Greenberg, telling him of the threat Sportal have made and the effect this is going to have on the amount of justified and good publicity the Tigers get through stories being spread around on forums like ours.

Anything that limits the spread of Richmond good news stories ought to be stopped.
Husband and father
Supporter of Richmond
Drinker of coffee
Writer of articles
Handler of cacti
Player of Xbox360
Reply
#22
Precisely the points I tried to make, Chris! [:-thumbu]
[COLOR=rgb(255, 215, 0)]Advocate for Shane Edwards
[/COLOR]

[COLOR=rgb(255, 215, 0)]Guardian of the Shane Tuck Eternal Flame
[/COLOR]

[COLOR=rgb(255, 215, 0)]Do not scorn a weak cub - he may become the brutal tiger [/COLOR]... Mongolian proverb
Reply
#23
Spot on SIA - as you pointed out earlier in the thread -

Seenitall Wrote:By the way, Ned - what happened to the following principle, as recorded at the bottom of our Home Page?

As all news articles are in the public domain they are reposted on this site under the "Fair Use" copyright exemption for "the reporting of news".

Can Sportal claim "breach of copyright" when there is a legal exemption for exactly this sort of situation?

Interestingly, I found this on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_copyright_law) re Australia's Fair Dealing provisions - I've bolded a couple of interesting sections:

Fair dealing

Fair dealing, comparable to the United States' fair use, is a use of a work specifically recognised as not being a copyright violation. However, unlike fair use, in order to be a fair dealing under Australian law a use must fall within one of range of specific purposes. These purposes vary by type of work, but the possibilities are:

review or criticism
research or study
news-reporting
lawyers' business

In order for a certain use to be a fair dealing, it must fall within one of these purposes and must also be 'fair'. What is 'fair' will depend on all the circumstances, including the nature of the work, the nature of the use and the effect of the use on any commercial market for the work.

Fair dealing is not the same as fair use, a term which is generally used in relation to the US's open ended exception, which allows any use (regardless of purpose) as long as it is 'fair'. This has, for example, been interpreted by US courts to allow for reasonable personal use of works, e.g. media-shifting, which would not necessarily be permitted under Australia's fair dealing laws.

Australian copyright law does, however, have a number of additional specific exceptions which permit uses which may fall outside of both fair dealing and fair use. For example, a number of exceptions exist which permit specific uses of computer software (see List of some possibly non-violating actions in Australia below).


So obviously Sportal are going after us because it might, as I suspected, harm some commercial agreement they have in place - you'd think it could specifically related to deals they have with sites where they've promised a certain amount of extra traffic through click-throughs to the sites and to any customers of those sites.

As I said before, maybe poor old Sportal are struggling to keep up their side of the deal. Boo hoo.

Maybe Sportal ought to take steps through the sites they actually have deals with to ensure these click throughs occur.

Maybe they should only allow the casual user to view the first par of these stories on the RFC and AFL sites, with users required to click through to another site (with ads, or other ways to fulfil their commercial deals) to read the rest of the story.

But I still believe we'd have some sort of meaningful debate over the term "fair" especially considering the news content of the material we are posting.

Sportal have no right to purchase exclusive rights to news - that simple. And we've always been willing to give them an attribution - though that might well change now...
Husband and father
Supporter of Richmond
Drinker of coffee
Writer of articles
Handler of cacti
Player of Xbox360
Reply
#24
agree with chris on this one.i think we should find out if we have been singled out .will be interesting to see how this effects other forums.
[color="white"]R.I.P. RoaR.... a true tiger..at rest.forever young.[size="5"][/size][size="6"][/size][/color]
Reply
#25
seenitall Wrote:By the way, Ned - what happened to the following principle, as recorded at the bottom of our Home Page?

As all news articles are in the public domain they are reposted on this site under the "Fair Use" copyright exemption for "the reporting of news".

Can Sportal claim "breach of copyright" when there is a legal exemption for exactly this sort of situation?
Good point SIA however, with the number of legal threats I've already received this year, I'd prefer not to push the point as I may at some point be required to pay for legal representation which I'm not prepared to put myself or my family through.

I'll begrudgingly comply with their request and let them claim victory. I'm quite happy to not have their articles appear on this site anyway.
Cheers!

Please don’t PM me with help issues as I won’t respond. Use the Help & Suggestions Forum.
2018 - Fighting Tiger Fund Patron
2018 - Official Richmond Cheer Squad Member
Reply
#26
chris88 Wrote:With the greatest of respect Ned, that's ridiculous.

It's bad enough the geniuses at Sportal wish to single out this site - which it seems they have done to some extent considering a number of other sites have not put this message up on their noticeboards, and still seem to be posting full Sportal articles - but then we are now being asked to police this measure by dobbing in other sites to Sportal?

No, that's not on.

Let the idiots at Sportal deal with this. Let them write to everyone and tell them the same thing they've told us. Let them police it and see how they go being in 400 places at once.
The idea of people dobbing in other sites reposting their articles was mine, not theirs. My intention was for Mr Browne to receive e-mails about 100's of sites reposting Sportal's content.

chris88 Wrote:Ned - is there any indication from the "esteemed" Ashley Browne that they have written to more sites than just this one? Are you able to ask him on that matter. If they've singled us out (apart from the fact they can get stuffed) I'd like to know why.
Nope - no indication whatsoever, and I haven't asked. As I mentioned in my earlier response to SIA, I'm happy to just comply with their request and leave it at that.

chris88 Wrote:What a bunch of knobs.
I find it difficult to disagree with you on that Smile

chris88 Wrote:1 - For the "exclusive to AFL.com.au" and "sportal for afl.com.au" pieces, let's not post them when they appear on the AFL site. Simple as that.

That way, the traffic coming from our site to their site to check out the story (and other stories at the site) stops completely.
I'm more than happy with that idea

chris88 Wrote:2 - For the exclusive to RFC pieces, we have a few options. The first is not to post them at all. But again, that's defeating the purpose of being an up-to-date site on everything Richmond.

So, there is another way around it. In looking at the many Sportal articles on the RFC site that have "exclusive for RFC.com.au", most of them are news articles. Most recently we've had the Richo is back inthe side piece, the Tigers/AFG renewed sponsorship piece and a couple of other straight out news pieces.

For a story like the "Richo is back" yarn, simply don't post it. Its about the squad, we know the team, no need to post it.

But for a story like the Tigers/AFG sponsorship one, simply start a short thread along these lines.

"Good news, just formally announced that the Tigers and AFG have renewed their sponsorship until 2007. Great to see AFG staying on board and supporting us". What does everyone reckon?
I like that idea - it would also have the benefit of raising the amount of original content on the site and sparking debate.

chris88 Wrote:Don't provide a link to the Sportal story ... after all, you are only spreading information already freely available in the public arena and accurately reported on by the media.

News isn't copyright. News is news. The whole idea of spreading officially reported news is to inform people, to bring them up-to-date and keep them up-to-date.

The idea that news needs to in fact be limited due to copyright reasons and other so-called legal namby pamby is the complete opposite to what news is about - and, bluntly, should be shunned at every opportunity.

We provide fair and reasonable links, sourcing and attribution through this site, and it is something that Ned and all of us here at the site are absolutely committed to doing. How dare one pinicky media organisation tell us that this conspicuous sourcing and attribution work; work that covers not only published media material, but even fair and reasonable attribution when needed to RFC forums and BF, is not up to scratch in their view.

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Sportal must be struggling to deliver on Internet visit targets they agreed on as part of their contract to supply their "exclusive" news to AFL and AFL clubs. Maybe there are other conclusions, but this one stands out like a sore thumb.
I think that the discussions on the Internet rights for the next 5 years may have something to do with this. [:0]

chris88 Wrote:**** you Sportal (I'll probably be warned for that). How precious can a news site be if it feels it has to "protect" the news it reports on from being spread around like ... well, news.
Nah - you echo my thoughts.

chris88 Wrote:PS - Ned - is this something we should/could at least raise with Tony Greenberg, telling him of the threat Sportal have made and the effect this is going to have on the amount of justified and good publicity the Tigers get through stories being spread around on forums like ours.

Anything that limits the spread of Richmond good news stories ought to be stopped.
I'm not sure if Richmond has much say in what appears on their site or the how that information is managed. When you click on any of the privacy or copyright links they always refer to Telstra as being the owner, not the RFC.
Cheers!

Please don’t PM me with help issues as I won’t respond. Use the Help & Suggestions Forum.
2018 - Fighting Tiger Fund Patron
2018 - Official Richmond Cheer Squad Member
Reply
#27
Ned Wrote:The idea of people dobbing in other sites reposting their articles was mine, not theirs. My intention was for Mr Browne to receive e-mails about 100's of sites reposting Sportal's content.

Its a damn fine idea then - what's Ashley Browne's email address again - I'd love to set the ball rolling with a few sites I can think of.... [:-sly]

Just also Ned - and hope I'm not stepping over the line here, but is there a way that the "ways to avoid using Sportal content" - not using it, referring to it obliquely, etc etc - can they be written up as new site guidelines here, along with the reason why we're needing to do this?

Maybe the more people know about the ways to get around the problem, the more willing they'll be to join in the fun - [:-party]

Let's encourage everyone to email Mr Browne with some links of sites seem to be transgressing these stupid rules - let's see how he goes pursuing all these leads, all these sites, all these threads and all these people.

Won't he be popular by the end of the season....
Husband and father
Supporter of Richmond
Drinker of coffee
Writer of articles
Handler of cacti
Player of Xbox360
Reply
#28
dalla Wrote:*sigh*

That's a real shame. You can pretty much end up in legal action for doing almost anything it would seem.



I'm hearin ya buddy! 21, 18, 16 - sheesh - whats the difference?

Hayfever tablets - speed.........Heroin / Morphine ......Pot-a-to / Po-tah-to ........ litigous society - blame the lawyers I say!


Oh and Sportal - get f$@# you whinging whining rubber stamping runts.

And Ashley - you can quote me on that!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Time to get on the Bustling Benny Bus - Bald is back and its beautiful baby!!
Reply
#29
chris88 Wrote:Its a damn fine idea then - what's Ashley Browne's email address again - I'd love to set the ball rolling with a few sites I can think of.... [:-sly]

Just also Ned - and hope I'm not stepping over the line here, but is there a way that the "ways to avoid using Sportal content" - not using it, referring to it obliquely, etc etc - can they be written up as new site guidelines here, along with the reason why we're needing to do this?

Maybe the more people know about the ways to get around the problem, the more willing they'll be to join in the fun - [:-party]

Let's encourage everyone to email Mr Browne with some links of sites seem to be transgressing these stupid rules - let's see how he goes pursuing all these leads, all these sites, all these threads and all these people.

Won't he be popular by the end of the season....
I'm currently working on the wording for the Site Rules and will present the first draft to the Coaching Panel later this morning.

Ashley's e-mail address is ashley.browne@sportal.com.au - I'm sure he'd be happy to hear from you about further ways to protect Sportal's copywrite.
Cheers!

Please don’t PM me with help issues as I won’t respond. Use the Help & Suggestions Forum.
2018 - Fighting Tiger Fund Patron
2018 - Official Richmond Cheer Squad Member
Reply
#30
Could we sort of preface any news from those guys as:

"The tossers at Sportal reckon ....."

The get the accreditation that they deserve in that case.
''Since that day as a very young boy staring out enraptured between MCG bodies I have known it always has been and always will be about the club.''
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)