Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Oct 8, 2015.
hundred bucks for takedown LOL
What Is Fair Use?
In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “trans-formative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an illegal infringement.
So what is a “trans-formative” use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and varied court decisions, because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit its definition. Like free speech, they wanted it to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.
Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody.
Commentary and Criticism
If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work — for instance, writing a book review — fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:
quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.
I suggest you learn the law and stop crying. =)
Back for more eh?
He's just making the click-bait website look even more classy tbh.
It's funny though:
Some of the work, not all of it.
if it was me I'd want full permission before posting anyone else's work on my site, if it was just a link then fair enough but the fact that they posted the entire article including all the images with watermarks, its just bad form.
Don't be mean to Mr. Khalid Moammer. It takes time to actually write and benchmark graphic cards. Hilbert you do such a great job at basically EVERYTHING that I am sure he couldn't help himself. You should be flattered
Obviously I am joking lol
The only way to make a click-bait site like that look more classy, is to add logos and reviews from a decent genuine site
You know, like when you've met someone famous and feel the need to name drop during conversations
“I don't care that they stole my idea . . I care that they don't have any of their own”
- N. Tesla
No they stole the information plain and simple. If Hilbert does not want any one to use the images of the benchmarking graphs then they are not allowed to use them plain and simple
lol that idiot is not even able to argue his case
instead he just copy pasted an entire article on Fair Use:
I doubt he understood any of it :wanker:
Not they, him I`m guessing, kinda retarded for another website operator/owner to make such an ass of himself.
Who goes to that site anyway..
Still, very poor to do such a thing.
... and they took every single result chart thereby giving away all the information the article has.
On such an article, you should have like 1 chart and a summarize the rest with text.
You can't just take what you want for "news purposes." Often in TV news, a channel GETS PERMISSION from another news channel to run parts of their content unless it OBVIOUSLY news worthy about said channel.
So that means CNN couldn't just steal FOXNEWS' September 11th footage because it was "news."
But if CNN ran a story about Bill o'Reilly getting arrested for a DUI, they can run snippets of his show... or if they're talking about something he said, they can run snippets... No re-air most of his program.
isn't that the Yankee way? copy someone elses work, take all the credit for yourself?
It's no big deal. At least once credit is given. I see no issue really. You made a respectable article and he was impressed with it.
So he used it as a front end for his analysis. You should be flattered.
It's no big deal.
If they don't write their articles themselves, they should only link to the original article, not repost it. There is no excuse for such actions. Their site should be taken down and penalized.
You must be kidding posting a part of the article with a link to the full article would have been a professional way to do it.Say you did something that took you a couple of days to put together and someone posted it in it's entirety with a couple of links back how would you feel?It's directing traffic away from here to his site with no work on his part that's a big deal.
its fine You should be flattered.
It's no big deal.
Brutal and lame.
I thought that site was actually a legitimate online tech-source. So much for that idea.
I dunno what's worse, the fact that they would even attempt it, or the fact that they are trying to defend doing it and silencing any speak of it on their forums.