No posting of articles published by AllNovaScotia

[Mike K.]

By request of AllNovaScotia, any content published by AllNovaScotia is not to be reproduced in whole or in part anywhere on the SkyscraperPage discussion forum.

This means no articles can be reproduced in whole or in part nor AllNovaScotia photographs displayed anywhere on the SkyscraperPage forum. Posting content published by AllNovaScotia will be removed.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

By request of AllNovaScotia, any content published by AllNovaScotia is not to be reproduced in whole or in part anywhere on the SkyscraperPage discussion forum.

This means no articles can be reproduced in whole or in part nor AllNovaScotia photographs displayed anywhere on the SkyscraperPage forum. Posting content published by AllNovaScotia will be removed.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Mike, a question.

You may not be aware but AllNovaScotia has protected their content by disabling copy/cut functionality. As it is a subscription site, it is impossible to post links to articles either. Therefore those two things prevent their articles from being reposted as is the case for other sources.

So if there is any posting of things they report, it is simply a discussion of something someone saw. No different than me speaking to you and saying, "Hey, did you see what AllNS said about Blatz Beer?"

Is even that considered out of bounds?

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Mike, a question.

You may not be aware but AllNovaScotia has protected their content by disabling copy/cut functionality. As it is a subscription site, it is impossible to post links to articles either. Therefore those two things prevent their articles from being reposted as is the case for other sources.

So if there is any posting of things they report, it is simply a discussion of something someone saw. No different than me speaking to you and saying, "Hey, did you see what AllNS said about Blatz Beer?"

Is even that considered out of bounds?

AllNovaScotia is ridiculous. No reasonable media organization would object to people posting general details about their content AFTER it's been published. The only reason they've been remotely successful is because the competition, media-wise, is so poor in Nova Scotia. If the CH upped its game in a serous way, ANS would be out of business, pronto.

They should realize that being mentioned on an urban development forum is basically free advertising, anyway.

[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.

[Empire]

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.

I was thinking about getting a subscription to ANS but you have eliminated that possibility!

[Dmajackson]

I just sent a strongly worded personal opinion email to AllNovaScotia. I am not saying anything else until they respond.

I have soft deleted recent posts regarding this complaint. If you notice one of your posts has been edited it is only regarding the copyright complaint (no other information has been altered).

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by empire

i was thinking about getting a subscription to ans but you have eliminated that possibility!

+1.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

By request of AllNovaScotia, any content published by AllNovaScotia is not to be reproduced in whole or in part anywhere on the SkyscraperPage discussion forum.

This means no articles can be reproduced in whole or in part nor AllNovaScotia photographs displayed anywhere on the SkyscraperPage forum. Posting content published by AllNovaScotia will be removed.

Thank you for your cooperation.

I can understand that SSP wants to protect itself from lawsuits, but FYI, posting excerpts, even substantial ones, from a news story is not necessarily copyright infringement.

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

If you try to highlight the text to cut and paste it, you are presented with a pop-up request to purchase a licence if you plan to post the article to a website, intranet or a blog. The fee would be $150. In other words, the National Post is seeking payment for text in an article that was itself copied from the Globe. Of course, it is not just Selley's work as many articles quote from other articles or sources (for example, this Post article on Taylor Swift is primarily quotes from Vanity Fair. If you highlight a chunk of text, the licence message pops up).

None of this requires a licence or payment. 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

.

[Mike K.]

Thank you, counterfactual.

[eastcoastal]

Also worth noting: when images to do with proposed developments are posted on ANS, I have yet to see an example of one that appears to be produced by ANS. More often than not, they are renderings produced by an architect for his or her client. As such they would most likely be property of that architect. This really might fall back to the contract governing the architect's services, but, in general, when it comes to copyright law in Canada, architecture (including drawings and renderings) is considered a work of art, with copyright resting with the creator. The client can typically use drawings and specs to produce whatever is defined in the contract (usually one building), but the drawings etc. are really property of the creator.

If I had to guess, I'd say developers hand over drawings to ANS to use without compensation to their creators, which really provides another interesting copyright issue to consider.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by empire

i was thinking about getting a subscription to ans but you have eliminated that possibility!

+2

[scooby074]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

+2

+3

I previously thought their policies were asinine, now I know it! The last thing I want to do is support an organization with such over aggressive copyright enforcement, particularly when their policy could very well be in violation of our current laws on the subject, as CF indicated.

Copying less than the entire article (well retyping the case of ANS) should clearly be fair use if proper reference is given to source. They should have absolutely NO grounds at all if that information was retyped into your own words.

ANS can EABOD!

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by scooby074

+3

I previously thought their policies were asinine, now I know it! The last thing I want to do is support an organization with such over aggressive copyright enforcement, particularly when their policy could very well be in violation of our current laws on the subject, as CF indicated.

!

Exactly. Facts and information are not proprietary. Our entire system of media and copyright law enshrines that. Once something is reported, anyone is free in any way to share that information. So is any other media outlet, for that matter, as long as they credit the original reporting (which is probably why ANS bans journalists and members of competing media from having subscriptions).

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

Thank you, counterfactual.

Are you concerned that people will misrepresent material published in ANS or are you more concerned that there may a tiny bit of lost revenue by people who aren't subscribers?

Is ANS for the good of the province or the good of ANS?

Accountability requested:

[Mike K.]

Empire, I believe you are confusing the issue. We're not behind this request, ANS is. We are responding to their allegations and are investigating where their allegations stem from. As admins we take these issues seriously and need to bring the allegations to the attention of contributors whether or not they merit action (that's what our investigation will determine).

We have no affiliation whatsoever with ANS and are simply responding to their request to cease reproduction of copyrighted materials on the forum which they allege is happening, and we posted the above note as a preventative measure while we investigate.

It is becoming clear however that there are very few instances of any verbatim reproductions of partial articles, and those that have been found so far comply with Canadian copyright legislation. We requested a list of links from ANS where copyright infringement has occurred. This list has not been produced as of this time.

Again, we are not affiliated with ANS.

[MonctonRad]

ANS seems to want to treat their subscribers as members of a secret club. You can read about an exciting new development in the province on their (hard pay wall) website, but you can't tell anyone else about what you have read. Apparently this is against (their) rules

In other words, ANS can tell you a (psst psst) secret, but then they have to shoot you because you might tell someone else......

Next thing you know they'll have spies patrolling the water coolers in their subscribers places of employment!!

Absurd!!

[worldlyhaligonian]

Guess we won't be driving their subscription growth any longer. Hell, they probably get some of their news from us

[Empire]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

Empire, I believe you are confusing the issue. We're not behind this request, ANS is. We are responding to their allegations and are investigating where their allegations stem from. As admins we take these issues seriously and need to bring the allegations to the attention of contributors whether or not they merit action (that's what our investigation will determine).

We have no affiliation whatsoever with ANS and are simply responding to their request to cease reproduction of copyrighted materials on the forum which they allege is happening, and we posted the above note as a preventative measure while we investigate.

It is becoming clear however that there are very few instances of any verbatim reproductions of partial articles, and those that have been found so far comply with Canadian copyright legislation. We requested a list of links from ANS where copyright infringement has occurred. This list has not been produced as of this time.

Again, we are not affiliated with ANS.

Your first post wasn't clear. (see below red) Your title does say website manager but what website? I thought it was as real as the 56th floor of something in Victoria.

Please pass my sentiments along to our friends at ANS.

Originally Posted by Mike K.

By request of AllNovaScotia, any content published by AllNovaScotia is not to be reproduced in whole or in part anywhere on the SkyscraperPage discussion forum.

This means no articles can be reproduced in whole or in part nor AllNovaScotia photographs displayed anywhere on the SkyscraperPage forum. Posting content published by AllNovaScotia will be removed.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[Mike K.]

I'm a manager of this website.

[Dmajackson]

Mike is the person that's responsible for Halifax having its own local section and he keeps us moderators on our toes to make sure the site doesn't devolve into regional bickering.