Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Reposting of Sportal Content
seenitall Wrote:Until today, I have been a subscriber of "SPORTAL BACKPAGER", their daily e-mail service.

I have now unsubscribed & urge all Y&B members to do the same for this or any other "service" that Sportal provide.

Also, make sure you let Ashley Browne know that you have done this & WHY!!! I will be telling him that I have also removed Sportal from my "Favourites", will be boycotting their sponsors & will also be e-mailing those sponsors (& Sportal's "syndication partners") to advise why I have taken this action! PLEASE NOTE: You should only contact Ashley Browne as an individual, not as a "representative" or member of this site!

Peter - can you encourage some concerted action along these lines through the AFL WebRing?

If this is all about money, let's make their bottom line look even worse! [rage]

Clap Clap. Well said.
2013 Player Advocate of Reece Conca and Tyrone Vickery
OK. This opinion is probably not going to be popular, but I was really surprised when I first came here and started seeing news articles published in full (often with photos from the article) on the site.

News is not copyrightable. News copy IS copyrightable. Which is to say that if a contributor (note I do not say "journalist") to a news service writes an article on an item of news and that article is published by said news service, then that article's copyright belongs to the news service (unless there is some explicit statement about their articles being in the pubic domain - which is unheard of). If the articel is not published, the copyright remains with the author.

Most forums I've been on have a written or unwritten rule that contributors post a paragraph (usually the funny bit), a few comments of their own and a link. Posts which are just a link are banned (because a link is not news), but so too full articles are frowned upon.

I think you'll find that sportal will be on the lookout for their copy on every fan forum from now on and yes - it is up to them to track such copyright breaches down. We don't have to give half a shit, as long as it's not us doing it.

Now - there is one other way to go about this, but it's a lot tougher on the news contributors.

One word: Paraphrase.

Generally when I'm writing news for a forum, I try (as much as possible) to write my own story, then provide a couple of links to the news stories from which I gathered the information. Sometimes I'm too lazy to be bothered and end up pasting in the funny bit (as mentioned above), but I never publish the full article from any other site - because it's actually illegal to do so without the site's permission. I often find that with a couple of news sources you can write a better article than the original authors anyway.

Bear in mind that most of the news published these days is read by the news contributors off a news wire feed from Reuters, AFP or Bloomberg anyway. It's just that the newspapers and TV stations pay for the privilege of publishing news from those services and we don't pay the newspapers for the same right to plagiarise. As has been said - it's all about money.

Anyway, that's my 2 bits.
2010 - ????!!!

2010 - Year of the Tiger!!!
bifrost Wrote:Most forums I've been on have a written or unwritten rule that contributors post a paragraph (usually the funny bit), a few comments of their own and a link. Posts which are just a link are banned (because a link is not news), but so too full articles are frowned upon.

Really? Where? I'm not disputing it, but I visit forums other than this one and I can't recall any such written/unwritten rules. What you've written makes sense, don't get me wrong - it's added some clarity over the issue but I've found it fairly common in most forums I've visited to find fully posted articles.
Bifrost well said and thanks for the perspective on this.

I can see where you are coming from but cant quite agree with you entirely on this.

I guess I look at it like this Sportal have an arrangement in place to supply copy to the AFL and to the RFC. Fair enough and they get paid for it too.

But what gets my goat is the attitude and the way this is done -

For example - I write stuff for the RFC website, content for the site. I dont get paid because its something I like doing.

But what if I started getting paid to supply content to the RFC website. If I did that, and was paid, I couldnt give a stuff where the article was posted to after that as long as it had a link back to the original RFC site and web address.

That way, Im getting paid, the RFC is getting news content, but then its also getting the added publicity of having that content shared and spread all around the place with a link back to the original story (and the implicit understanding of Well, theres more content like that if you visit the source website).

Surely wouldnt Sportal be happy with a similar situation. Many of us here wander onto the Sportal site looking for news and content, some are members. But the heavy-handed attitude of this missive from them turns people right off them to the point we no longer are members and we say Stuff your content, Ill not run it or your links.

Why couldnt Sportal just come out and say Make sure you attribute all the time at the start and end of the article.

Or, more pointedly, if Sportal are worried about their exclusive rights, why couldnt they just make their content on RFC, AFL club or AFL websites protected by password/membership. If you are a member, you get to read the exclusive Sportal content sort of like Jungle Beat right now.

It doesnt take Einstein to figure out a scheme like that promises to have plenty of click throughs and plenty of visits again, like Jungle Beat.

Many people would look at Jungle Beat and know not to post things from that in open forums because people who are members of the RFC have paid for the right to view this exclusive material or exclusive material like the Rookie Club updates.

So if Sportal have got some sort of commercial arrangement going on, why dont they use some of their money to password or membership protect their content. Wed respect that because, as with Jungle Beat, people pay for the privilege of viewing this stuff.

Like I said, you dont see the Age or Herald Sun do it, even though they could argue they could (just as I could argue that it is reproduced under fair use principles). These publications gain more in terms of reputation and probably goodwill, which leads to money) by trusting peoples better judgement and believing theyll fairly and reasonably attribute written articles to author and publication with a web link.

In addition - the way this "threat" was sold to us, that by not going to the source of the article means we're denying our team money, God, that smacks of desparation again.

If the RFC had a problem with this in terms of money, they'd be the ones complaining, not Sportal. But we know now where the "threat" is coming from.

I would argue with your use of the word plagiarise in one sense Bifrost. I would say plagiarism is when you use another persons words, thoughts (or news stories) without attribution, or without correct attribution more specifically. We dont plagiarise Sportals articles, as we ensure we attribute by author, title and website (and link).

But I do agree with you on the adaptation front. Thats more than reasonable, and the crux of the point I was making earlier about being able to say Good news, this has happened, what do you think?

This not only allows us to post these things, but also allows for good debate about them as well (and of course leads people back to find the exclusive Sportal story that is the source of this news).

My understanding is that Sportal are going to be pursuing all fan forums like ours on this. So, again, if there are any forums you see that seem to be flouting the law, let Sportal know so they can deal with it.
Husband and father
Supporter of Richmond
Drinker of coffee
Writer of articles
Handler of cacti
Player of Xbox360
Some things never change.

This reminds me, in a way, of an iexperience I had 10 years ago with an unnamed but large US based transportation company (ok, airline Smile ). I had been on some flights of significance, and took lots of pictures and stuff and put up a website to share this with the world. As part of the site I had scanned in some items containing the logo of said company.

I got lots of email from employees of said company saying they thought it was great and I got a number of siginificant freebies (upgrades, miles, gold frequent flyer card, etc)... and then rude emails from the CHIEF lawyer demanding I pull it all down as I was infringing on copyright, blah blah blah. I threw the fair use argument at them (as a review) and they still put crap on me even though I was not making a cent out of the site and it was free publicity for them (yes I got stuff, but it was unsolicited, and freely given by marketing/sales types in the company that thought it was a great site). So one hand was doing one thing, and the other was trying to kill me off. Luckily this all took a few months and by that time the site had had > 50,000 hits and pretty much done the job, so I took it down.

The point being that sometimes these types of people go for the jugular to spite themselves.
Paid up 2019 Member.
There is sometimes a mention on BF about a site that will "remain nameless" " we can't mention". I don't know which one they are talking about and it is on other sites than the Richmond one. So maybe they have had a similar experience and maybe Jezza would know more
2017 Advocate for the Rising Star Jack Graham
Those who don't believe in magic will never find it. Ronald Dahl 1978
It would seem you can't finish a sentence anymore without having to step around a few little words:

This isn't doing Sportal any good. It'll make more people (like myself) bitter with their excessive legalities, and rather than post their news, i'd rather read it for myself and hope that others might do the same. Exposure-wise it will do nothing.

chris88 Wrote:Why couldn’t Sportal just come out and say “Make sure you attribute all the time – at the start and end of the article”.

Does this man need a medal for people outside of this forum to recognise what he's saying is right? It's just a shame that you can't do anything anymore without having to consider whether you're infringing copyright laws.

I'm right with you on the way in which Sportal has gone about this thing, Chris. It's one thing to request that site owners follow a few guidelines, it's quite another to say "do it or else".

But that's the thing with wankers - they tend to wank. [Wink]

I usually find legal threats sent to websites amusing (particularly when they're directed at [URL=""]SomethingAwful[/URL]), but in this case, Ned has his name heavily placed around the site and it is very clear who is running the show, so it's a real threat. That and from a legal standpoint they're within their rights to demand what they have. And unfortunately being a tool about it is also perfectly legal. If only we had laws against being a tool...

PS: I swear I don't gain anything from the sites I'm mentioning here, I just visit them a lot and they're very good.
2010 - ????!!!

2010 - Year of the Tiger!!!
Thought I'd bring this back to the top, as a couple of Sportal articles were posted in full last night!
[COLOR=rgb(255, 215, 0)]Advocate for Shane Edwards

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

[COLOR=rgb(255, 215, 0)]Do not scorn a weak cub - he may become the brutal tiger [/COLOR]... Mongolian proverb

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)