No posting of articles published by AllNovaScotia

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

I'm a manager of this website.

Yes, I got it.

[xanaxanax]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

Our goal is to ensure no AllNovaScotia articles are being reproduced verbatim either partially or in full on SkyscraperPage and that no photographs published by AllNovaScotia are being re-posted to the forum.

Under Canadian copyright law information (provided it is not protected information, i.e. trade secrets) in an article cannot be copyrighted; the wording/prose of that article can be copyrighted. As such copying, verbatim, a published article may be copyright infringement and in the case of ANS has been identified as such by ANS. Discussing information contained within a copyrighted article is not copyright infringement.

I hope that clarifies the situation.

Your thumbnail is a copyrighted image

[someone123]

Please don't give Mike K. a hard time. He helps to run SSP. He's not the one who initiated this complaint, he's just trying to avoid problems.

To be honest I thought it was a courtesy that we were mentioning Allnovascotia because more mentions result in more traffic to their site and more subscriptions. A number of people have said that they were debating getting a subscription because they wanted to see more content on AllNS' site. Now instead a bunch of people are thinking about cancelling their subscriptions or staying away from the site to begin with because of AllNS' bad behaviour toward their own customers. The claim that articles are being reproduced here meanwhile is simply not true, and I'm not sure we'd want that anyway since this is a discussion forum and not a news site.

It doesn't seem like they've handled this situation very well.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Please don't give Mike K. a hard time. He helps to run SSP. He's not the one who initiated this complaint, he's just trying to avoid problems.

To be honest I thought it was a courtesy that we were mentioning Allnovascotia because more mentions result in more traffic to their site and more subscriptions. A number of people have said that they were debating getting a subscription because they wanted to see more content on AllNS' site. Now instead a bunch of people are thinking about cancelling their subscriptions or staying away from the site to begin with because of AllNS' bad behaviour toward their own customers. The claim that articles are being reproduced here meanwhile is simply not true, and I'm not sure we'd want that anyway since this is a discussion forum and not a news site.

It doesn't seem like they've handled this situation very well.

This describes my situation somewhat. After reading so many references to it here I became curious and considered getting a subscription, which I procrastinated about as I have many higher priorities in my life at the moment. However, after reading this thread combined with their printing of inaccurate information (I know it happens with other sources that I don't pay for as well) I am so much less enthusiastic about it.

I think that this forum is actually a much better source of information anyhow, as there is much more context to go along with the information, plus if something is incorrect it will be brought to light here.

So, for now just the skyscraper forum for me. I'll waste my money on other things that I will get more out of than AllNS.

[Mike K.]

Originally Posted by someone123

Please don't give Mike K. a hard time. He helps to run SSP. He's not the one who initiated this complaint, he's just trying to avoid problems.

To be honest I thought it was a courtesy that we were mentioning Allnovascotia because more mentions result in more traffic to their site and more subscriptions. A number of people have said that they were debating getting a subscription because they wanted to see more content on AllNS' site. Now instead a bunch of people are thinking about cancelling their subscriptions or staying away from the site to begin with because of AllNS' bad behaviour toward their own customers. The claim that articles are being reproduced here meanwhile is simply not true, and I'm not sure we'd want that anyway since this is a discussion forum and not a news site.

It doesn't seem like they've handled this situation very well.

Upon further investigation it has been determined that copyright infringement is not taking place as far as Canadian copyright legislation is concerned.

Granted, there may be instances of materials reproduced that we are not aware of and that were not immediately found. If anyone notices these instances please let either myself or a moderator know and we'll handle the situation.

Thank you for your cooperation and understanding, everyone.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

Upon further investigation it has been determined that copyright infringement is not taking place as far as Canadian copyright legislation is concerned.

Are you able to give any general guidelines as to what is appropriate under Canadian copyright legislation? It could help prevent us from getting you into hot water again in the future.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Are you able to give any general guidelines as to what is appropriate under Canadian copyright legislation? It could help prevent us from getting you into hot water again in the future.

Although you quoted Mike K., based on what has been posted on this thread and other threads (by Mike K. and others) that the following is considered acceptable:

a) quoting short excerpts verbatim (a couple of lines or a short paragraph) with a proper reference to the story and author (this is generally considered to be acceptable with any published story). What isn't acceptable is posting entire articles or large portions of articles even if a source is given - only a short excerpt should be given with a link to the entire story.

b) stating a story's content in a short summary (one or two sentences) with a proper reference to the story (I like to give the story title, author and edition). Even if there are objections by allnovascotia.com, I don't think there would be any copyright infringement by such a practice.


I personally plan to continue my subscription to allnovascotia.com since they have articles that appeal to me regarding HRM and Nova Scotia developments, and general Nova Scotia economic conditions. I have posted one to two sentences verbatim in the past without any objections from allnovascotia.com (although I think that I will just give one sentence re-worded summaries in the future).

[Mike K.]

Yup, you got it fenwick16.

Essentially information cannot be copyrighted, only prose/paragraphs can be copyrighted. Information contained within an article that is made available to the public, even if behind a paywall, is something that you can freely discuss and summarize as far Canadian copyright is concerned.

When it comes to ANS, considering the situation, perhaps avoiding any verbatim reproduction of even a single paragraph is the best way to go. They are clearly not happy that individuals are even discussing content that they publish, and if that's how they view the situation here than they likely do not want us to refer to them in any capacity whatsoever.

Again, information cannot be copyrighted, so if something is gleaned on ANS content, you are free to discuss that information.

[MonctonRad]

So, instead of saying "ANS reported that such and such is planning a new office tower on the corner of High and Main Street"; it would be safer to say that "a usually informed source has indicated that a new office tower is planned on the corner of High and Main Street"…………

ANS is going to miss out on a lot of free advertising!!

Maybe we should refer to ANS as "he who shall not be named"………

[Dmajackson]

We could come up with a nickname like we did for the Chronically Horrid.

All News is Sacred
A New Secret
UnAccessible Nova Scotia
Angry News Source

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

Yup, you got it fenwick16.

Essentially information cannot be copyrighted, only prose/paragraphs can be copyrighted. Information contained within an article that is made available to the public, even if behind a paywall, is something that you can freely discuss and summarize as far Canadian copyright is concerned.

When it comes to ANS, considering the situation, perhaps avoiding any verbatim reproduction of even a single paragraph is the best way to go. They are clearly not happy that individuals are even discussing content that they publish, and if that's how they view the situation here than they likely do not want us to refer to them in any capacity whatsoever.

Again, information cannot be copyrighted, so if something is gleaned on ANS content, you are free to discuss that information.

Perhaps we could hear from a rep of ANS directly on how special and or unique their reporting really is?

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Although you quoted Mike K., based on what has been posted on this thread and other threads (by Mike K. and others) that the following is considered acceptable:

a) quoting short excerpts verbatim (a couple of lines or a short paragraph) with a proper reference to the story and author (this is generally considered to be acceptable with any published story). What isn't acceptable is posting entire articles or large portions of articles even if a source is given - only a short excerpt should be given with a link to the entire story.

b) stating a story's content in a short summary (one or two sentences) with a proper reference to the story (I like to give the story title, author and edition). Even if there are objections by allnovascotia.com, I don't think there would be any copyright infringement by such a practice.


I personally plan to continue my subscription to allnovascotia.com since they have articles that appeal to me regarding HRM and Nova Scotia developments, and general Nova Scotia economic conditions. I have posted one to two sentences verbatim in the past without any objections from allnovascotia.com (although I think that I will just give one sentence re-worded summaries in the future).

I actually think this is an overly restrictive interpretation of copyrights laws.

Let's refer back to Michael Geist, a law professor and copyright law expert at University of Ottawa, who writes:

In fact, the amount of copying is often so insubstantial that a fair dealing analysis is not even needed. Last year, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that several paragraphs from a National Post column by Jonathan Kay posted to an Internet chat site did not constitute copying a substantial part of the work. If there was a fair dealing analysis, there is no doubt that copying a hundred words out of an article would easily meet the fair dealing standard. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that copying full articles in some circumstances may be permitted.

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/michael...b_2828854.html

Anything around 100 words (ie an average sized paragraph) is absolutely fine, so much so that it's not even worth doing any kind of legal analysis. And, depending on the length of the article and what is being quoted, "several paragraphs" might also be fine.

Of course, I appreciated Mike & SSP want to avoid lawsuits and need not push the envelope on the law. Still, let's also be accurate about the scope of the law.