PLEASE READ - Posting articles from other websites

[desredandwhite]

Oh, I forgot to mention, this applies to the Brett Kirk match reports from Optusnet too, unfortunately.

Guys, while I am not arguing that some of you don't have valid points (as mentioned before, I like having the articles posted directly on the forum too), the fact remains that whatever little legal ground exists, exists on their side.

Their content, they can do anything they want with it. Our content, we can do whatever the hell WE want to do with it.

Unless someone else is willing to take over the running of the site (I'm serious, by the way), I simply don't have the time or the enthusiasm to take this fight to the highest court in the land.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by desredandwhite
I don't think the club is the one that is worried - they have obligations to the AFL and to the news outlets - it is their content that we have been using.

Des, the club has no obligation to the media to protect its interests. And from your original post they have only made the request re AFL content. (Do you know the Sportal/AFL link? I don't but it's obviously very close.)

The club does have a relationship with the AFL so that's as far as it can go in asking us to stop. But we have no link with the club and, as what they are requesting is not legally enforceable, we are not obliged to do as they ask. If they ask us to stop criticising players, would we?

And if you think their request is reasonable then I presume you have never used a photocopier.

[desredandwhite]

Originally posted by CureTheSane

If we are going to be told what to do, we aren't much different to the official site....

The main difference is that the official site doesn't come over and take our articles without permission. Would that be okay too? Of course it wouldn't. No site should display other sites' content without a prior agreement in place. It's basic courtesy, at the very, very least.

They haven't said we can't use the colours. They haven't said we can't discuss the Swans. They haven't said that we have to erase all posts that criticise the club.

They are requesting that all copyrighted material not be posted on the messageboard. I can't see how this is unreasonable.

I know you're all into raging against the machine and all that CTS, but the sad fact is that they are completely in the right this time!!

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by desredandwhite

They are requesting that all copyrighted material not be posted on the messageboard.

Wow, if that is what they asked then that's very different from them asking us not to reproduce their own material. That means they think that this site is close enough to the Swans that they should have the right to control the content! In that case they will want to ensure that nothing said here is libellous because they could be liable by association.

[CureTheSane]

Raging against the machine?

If that's how I am percieved, then so be it, but I consider this raging with the machine.

It's the nature of the internet.

Am I trying to get you to not do what they want us to do?

Sure.

I haven't seen what they have requested, but is sounds pretty wishy washy.
I would be waiting for something a bit more damnding personally.


Personally, I won't be waiting 20 minutes for one page of afl.com to load because I don't have Telstra boradband.

[CureTheSane]

Lizz, seeking clarification, I will re-read the original post....


Hi all,

Just short and sweet - Could we all please stop posting full articles from other websites?yep, understood that request from the Swans I've had a friendly (no, seriously.) e-mail from the club to let me know that the AFL and other parties are clamping down on the use of material from their websites. What other parties? And why didn't the AFL email you? Why did they ask the Swans to ask us?

I realise that it's more convenient to read them all in one place (and in fact, I tend to just read the re-posted articles here as it's easier). But unfortunately the content has been written for other websites / publications, and they have every right to the traffic / pageviews that result from people wanting to read said articles.Read: they are losing hits and are getting greedy. And they are trying to control the internet.

What's still acceptable? Well, I'm trying to get clarification on this, but in the meantime I would say that the title and the link to the article would be okay.I wouldn't be so sure... I assume that short exerpts or quotes would also be okay.No, that would seem incorrect to me. It is the same thing to a different degree. Unless you specify a word limit maybe.

As an alternative, how about a daily or weekly thread where people can post links to Swans articles they find online - just so that they are captured in one place.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that this is a complete joke, and I would wait before I acted. I am supposing that bowing to the request is being done for maral reasons, and if that is the case, then I won't say another word. Because legally, I do not see, nor have I been shown any precedent.

[CureTheSane]

Hmmm... may have something to do with the law.

BTW, I found that to be a condescending and belittling remark, but I'm sure you didn't mean it that way....

[liz]

Originally posted by CureTheSane
BTW, I found that to be a condescending and belittling remark, but I'm sure you didn't mean it that way....

I didn't, and apologise if it came across that way.

I am no lawyer and thus in no position to argue the wrongs or rights of this matter from that perspective. I am aware of plagarism rules from my academic studies and quoting short phrases or sentences (with credit for the source) is considered appropriate. Once it gets to be up to a paragraph or more, it is considered dodgy unless you have express permission.

But surely the crux of this is that Des has asked us not to do it, based on the communications he has received, and we owe it to him to respect his request, regardless of how we may personally feel.

If we don't we risk losing the greatest single asset this site has - Des himself. And then we have no site.

[SWANSBEST]

I guess that the ban on posting full articles will mainly apply to me , Reggie and in recent times Hemsleys et al who have been posters of full articles. I do not understand how posting a link and short quotes is much different from posting the full article. The impact is still the same and will disadvantage our people .

I will follow the new guidelines and I will now have time to critically examine the Swans game performances, playing list, recruitment etc , and any administration polices of the Swans and AFL that come into focus.

I understand that the 'LAW' must be hold sway but I still think that the decision is petty.

[desredandwhite]

Okay, I'll make this simple.

Why am I agreeing to do this? Because I would prefer to have the club and the AFL and the media companies on our side (or more accurately, not caring very much about us). Add to that the absolute undeniable fact - IT IS NOT OUR CONTENT. I know if other sites were using the match reports and articles written by RWO members, I'd be screaming bloody murder.

Unless either one of you is a lawyer, and willing to donate your time free of charge to defend RWO against all charges that may come up, I don't have the time to even think about ways I can squirm out of having to comply with a request from the AFL, or the club, or whoever. To my way of thinking, it is simply not worth it simply for the convenience of not having to click through to another site - I would rather just say "okay, whatever", and get on with my life. Maybe I'll lose 20-30 seconds each day because I now have to click through to the original site to get my articles to read, but I'll manage. Call me a scaredy-cat AFL-worshipping grovel-monkey if you must.

But if that's not good enough, anytime you like, just say the word. I'll hand over the RWO server and messageboard passwords, and ring up the webhost to transfer ownership of the domain and hosting accounts. Then it can be someone else's problem.

[desredandwhite]

Okay, I just re-read my post and it comes across a bit harsh - for that I apologise.

CTS and Go Swannies, please understand that I am in no way having a go at either of you. But equally, you have to understand that this is my problem. I'm doing it because I want to. Not because I think I will get sued, but mostly out of a desire to "do the right thing".

I'm still hopeful that we continue to be the great resource and community for following the Swans that we've been in the last few years, but I will not put the website in any position where it is in danger. I'm erring on the side of caution.

[SWANSBEST]

Des

I presume that you are having a crack at me and CTS but I did say that " I WILL FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES ." End of story.

[desredandwhite]

swansbest, I hadn't even seen your post before the one I made - definitely wasn't responding to you.

[Charlie]

I think there's bigger issues than this one.

It is the intellectual property of others. I do it, so do many others, but if it means that RWO, and more importantly Des, is at risk of any sort of legal action then it isn't worth it. If Des wants to control what information passes through here, well... that's his prerogative. We're all capable of starting our own sites.

I actually think the Holy Grail as far as relations with the club are concerned would be getting proper media accreditation. Just think what that means. Press conferences after games. Interviews with players. Media releases. As long as it doesn't come at the expense of independence, it would be a new dawn for this site.

[Bleed Red Blood]

Why has this not happened on bigfooty? Not saying I personally am going to dispute this is anyway, even though I think it wrong.