Fair Use Standards

[William Schlegel]

Hi Folks,

This is my attempt to start a forum discussion about fair use standards. Sure, it is fine to share a link, probably fine to quote someone in moderation. What about sometimes borrowing a figure with attribution? How much is too much?

Here is the top link I found when I searched:

https://www.managingcommunities.com/2010/02/07/fair-use-for-forums-and-how-to-explain-to-your-members-that-they-cant-quote-entire-articles/

Personally, when I find a cool article, I tend to share a link and an explanation of why I think it is important in my own words. I don't typically share others figures but have likely done so.

[Justin Jardinier]

I have pretty strong feelings about this topic. Just recently one post I posted was intended to be deleted (but by lucky chance was not). I spent maybe around 2 hours researching the topic for the community since questions on that topic had kept on arising over the last months in various threads, and there was nowhere the information was collated, in fact one branch of the topic (brachytic tomatoes) I did not even know existed until after I made my post, since I was searching for 'dwarf' with the search function to see what was already written, and the brachytic post did not mention dwarfs.

I did in fact follow the guidelines in the article provided above, fully referencing each quote, and only quoting small portions. And in fact paper I shared a figure from, 'Fine mapping of the BRACHYTIC locus on the tomato genome', has this written on the publisher's website:

All articles published in ASHS journals are open-access and adhere to Creative Commons licensing: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 -- You may share, copy and redistribute this material for non-commercial purposes in any medium.

Source: https://journals.ashs.org/page/general

So I have to say, I find it extremely destructive to trash hours of input from forum members merely sharing academic information for the sake of helping the community, while abiding by fair use rules. I'll also say that I learned a lot from researching for that topic, and my post was my only personal notes on it! Not to mention I made the post in hope that the rest of the community would chip in and contribute many things I did not know - my intention was to start it off, writing about the kind of dwarfs I knew about, but just to get the ball rolling.

One more of my comments on that thread was also intended to be deleted, which contained only a single sentence of mine, in my own words, and then a quote of another member from another thread, previously posted, which contained one figure from a paper, and the link to the source. Again this seems to be within fair use. But I wish to say that intending to delete my own comment (luckily it was only put on 'moderation' in the meantime), without doing so to the person's comment whom I was quoting, does make me feel victimised, personally targeted. I'm actually kind of ok with that since I have got used to it by now. And certainly I do not wish the other person's comment had been deleted -since I believed it was fair use. But I am just giving this feedback as a forum member so that the impact of actions can be known.

And in general, in contrast to the nice recommendation on the link regarding notifying people when their comments are deleted, my own experience has been that various comments of mine have been deleted never with any notification to me, and I only realised they were gone when by chance I looked back through the thread and saw they were missing. Since I rarely go back and re-read threads, and since I am quite unlikely to remember clearly enough to even notice any of my posts being missing, I know that it is very possible and perhaps quite likely that various comments of mine have been deleted which I still do not know about. And I say in the spirit of constructive feedback, that this is exactly the kind of experience which can very easily make people leave forums. Certainly I considered it, but there are members here who are so encouraging and from whom I learn so much, that I have ended up staying. But I do want to express that that kind of behaviour can be experienced as quite violating and aggressive, and highly disrespectful. Not dissimilar to secretly burning unique work I had written on paper.

Making comments can be a lot of work and have a lot of value to the writer and potentially readers. In fact I would personally go further than the article and suggest that when comments are deleted, the writer is not only notified but also their entire comment is copied and pasted into the notification to them. (That's what I used to do when I worked as admin of a forum, so as not to go against the Buddhist principle of 'not taking that which is not given'). This means that the work they have spent time to create, is not simply destroyed. And they also have the chance to modify it in order to make it acceptable, or even just keep it for themselves since it is their own creation. And the opposite extreme, not even telling them, not only has the negative effects I outlined above, but also gives them no opportunity to learn or change, such that they are doomed to keep getting their comments secretly deleted and never knowing why if they even become aware of it, which I think is a really really bad situation.

Now, regarding figures, I am in no position to make any demands, but my suggestion is that if there is some belief that sharing figures from papers in this forum's educational non-profit context, is not included in fair use, then I would suggest that some evidence of that position should be provided. Personally, I have never seen any evidence to support that position except perhaps in the case where papers have specifically stated that the figures are copyrighted - in that case, I am not sure, perhaps that falls out of fair use (in particular, when the figure is functioning to summarize the key point of an article) though even in those cases, I am not sure if that is still disallowed when the reference is given and it is in this education non-profit context if the use of it is for the purpose of critique. But at least so far as I have understood the rules of fair use, I am not aware of any ambiguity at least for papers that are publicly freely available and figures have no explicit copyright. But since I am no expert on this, I think actual evidence is the key, and an explanation of what is or is not within fair use regarding figures, if we want to have rules based on law rather than merely arbitrary rules that may unnecessarily hinder the great potential for learning this forum represents. I would also suggest that this kind of evidence-based transparent approach might suit the 'open source' basis of this forum.

With regard to the benefits, personally I feel that sharing quotes and figures adds greatly to the discussions here. In my experience on other forums, most people do not follow links, but will engage with material quoted. Also trying to track down exactly what someone is referring to in a long paper can be very time consuming, and sometimes goes wrong also, misunderstanding which part they are referring to, or otherwise misinterpreting. Like, in a lecture for example, we can benefit so much more when the teacher recites quotes or shows graphs and chats about them, but that would not be the same at all if each time they want to show a graph or quote something critical to the narrative, they refrained, and only gave a reference.

I do not mean to say this in a way as to criticise anyone only sharing links or references. I just mean it to express how I perceive the great benefits of laying out a narrative that is easy to follow all in one place. For me it greatly enriches the discussion. And indeed if my interest is sufficient, I do also follow the link to read the rest of the article or examine the larger context, if I have the time to do so.

[Joseph Lofthouse]

Technically, the forum rules don't allow fair-use quotations.

From the agreement that everyone signed when joining the forum:

You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material.
[...]
The staff and the owner of this forum reserve the right to remove objectionable content, within a reasonable time frame, if they determine that removal is necessary.

I have been moderating online forums since 1994 (30 years).

Best practice is to delete posts that don't meet publishing standards without providing notice to the author of the post. It's the same as submitting a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. The newspaper never provides notice that they didn't publish a letter.

Best practice for authors includes making backup copies of all of their writing, and not submitting the only copy of the work to a publication that might decline to publish it.

I will continue to delete posts, without notice, that contain pages worth of materials quoted from off-site. If someone wants to list a creative commons copyright notice with each instance of quoting something, then I might notice and refrain from deleting. My default assumption is that anything that is quoted from off-site has a standard commercial copyright. The moderators can't be expected to research every off-site quotation.

I will continue to delete posts, without notice, that bitch about how other people do things. There is a section in the forum agreement that addresses things like that as well.

[stone]

What about sometimes borrowing a figure with attribution?

I had to google term...

I'm not a fan of posts that copy / paste entire articles...

Really despise them, in fact.

Personally, I'd rather post a link, with maybe a sentence or two quoted from article... along with my own personal thoughts about same.

Unfortunately, Links go bad very fast.

When I blogged about growing "Art's Ancient" watermelons, I included a link to a very nice article about them.

Baker Creek moved the article... I relinked to the article... And then? They took it down!

I will admit that I've reblogged a few articles over at tumblr... Always feels iffy to do that...

As far as 'borrowing' figures and / or photos?
I've done it, but... Again, even with attribution, I feel a bit scuzzy about the practice.

Important subject, I'm glad to see a discussion.

[Justin Jardinier]

Unfortunately, Links go bad very fast.

When I blogged about growing "Art's Ancient" watermelons, I included a link to a very nice article about them.

Baker Creek moved the article... I relinked to the article... And then? They took it down!

I know it's a hassle and I don't always do it but I think the kindest thing is to post the title of the article and the link. This has 2 benefits:
1) If the link breaks, the article can still be found at least in many cases (though perhaps not in the case you mention, unless perhaps using something like the Wayback Machine).
2) It can be really helpful to know the title of the article where the link is such that one has no idea what the article is. One might not be inclined to click on a link without being enticed by knowing what the article's title is in the first place.
3) With just the title but without the link, it can take time to locate. Though it can be admittedly a hassle when quoting from one's personal library, to then take the extra step to find an online source for it if one is available at all!

I also agree about whole articles - if the article is online I'd much rather click a link and read the source, or personally more often download it and add my own highlights and notes! Also, while I have been as yet unable to ascertain if moderation on this forum is based on any set of defined rules, it seems clear that it's against the law to post quotes of whole articles (if they are under copyright anyway), so I should think that should rule out posting them. Personally I don't remember ever having gone over the "1/5 or 1/6" rule in the article William kindly shared above.

As far as 'borrowing' figures and / or photos?
I've done it, but... Again, even with attribution, I feel a bit scuzzy about the practice.

Oh that's interesting. So long as you are doing it under the terms of fair use, do you still feel scuzzy about it? So far as I understand, it's not ok by law (even when attribution is included) in the case that the figure summarizes the key point of an article, unless one is critiquing it, parodying it, criticising it, or a transformative use of an image that changes the original to provide a new benefit to the public. Not entirely straightforward I know, but I am glad that at least the law gives us these allowances. My impression is also that academics really like when their work is used and discussed! That has been my impression when I have contacted authors of papers anyway.

[Steph S]

I know I commonly do post links and quote a few lines. 
More rarely I have posted figures, with a link to the original source. 
I think that would be considered as meeting the definition of fair use.  I wasn't aware that this wasn't an accepted practice here on this forum.
However I do think the mods should have authority to decide when a quote is too long and remove it based on the forum standards.  You know what the purpose of the rule was, therefore how to enforce it.

I think posting links to scientific sources is important, whether quoting or using your own words, because it provides the source material for information we are sharing here.  If a thread is focusing on a specific topic, and participants post their sources, it becomes a valuable reading resource for these or other participants to return to.   Short quotes can be helpful and more to the point that coming up with my own words, if that's acceptable.

It's true that links go bad quickly, and I've noticed recently that there's often a note about "how to cite this article" but I confess I haven't paid close enough attention as I'm often in a hurry.  But as Justin suggested the author and title is as important as the link - maybe more important.
There is nowadays often the doi as well, which should always link to the original article.
I should pay more attention to that.

[stone]

I also agree about whole articles - if the article is online I'd much rather click a link and read the source...

1 other point about reading in original context...
By seeing the site, I can make up my own mind about veracity of article...

Sometimes, people will post information (on other forums) that comes from whack sources... I can usually track the article down when they fail to include source... But... still... rather have source link provided... Seeing information in original context is kind of important.

So long as you are doing it under the terms of fair use, do you still feel scuzzy about it?

I blog a fair number of pictures... and find my work used without attribution... Worse, outright stolen.

Makes me sensitive about posting someone else's work.
But... a lot of people are unwilling to click a link, in spite of whatever amount of description of information to be found there.... sometimes I hot-link a pic or whatever to a forum thread... But, yeah... feel scuzzy.

[Justin Jardinier]

But... still... rather have source link provided... Seeing information in original context is kind of important.

Plus the formatting of original articles is usually way better!
I appreciate quotes of extracts of articles because I can see right there exactly what the poster is referring to. I love that we can highlight specific parts to, that really helps communication. Sometimes someone knows so much more on a topic that this kind of quoting and highlighting can help so much (for me anyway) in getting something out of an article that I might not get myself if I read the whole thing. Mainly around applying the knowledge provided in an article, or contextualising it. Or sometimes critiquing it.

I blog a fair number of pictures... and find my work used without attribution... Worse, outright stolen.

Makes me sensitive about posting someone else's work.
But... a lot of people are unwilling to click a link, in spite of whatever amount of description of information to be found there.... sometimes I hot-link a pic or whatever to a forum thread... But, yeah... feel scuzzy.

Yeah that sucks if people use it without attribution in particular if they present it as their own! It's so easy to include an attribution! I'm glad that fair use is set up like that, allowing us to share (by law anyway!) but so long as we give the attribution etc. And I personally believe that taking advantage of these fair use allowances, takes the hard work of academia and actually makes it worth something in the world. That we can use the information (much of which is tax payer funded) for the people, rather than the benefits being limited to environmentally and socially destructive corporations or the budgeting mechanics of university funding systems via publishing quotas etc., or the articles remaining unread on servers.

[reed]

I blog a fair number of pictures... and find my work used without attribution... Worse, outright stolen.

I have also had that happen and find it very discouraging.

[Adrian]

I have a question have i the right to showed mathematicals démonstration ?
Must i posted uniquely the numerique application or can i also posted the literal expression with the mathematicals proprietys? The literal expressionson and the mathematicals proprietys are the property of the mathematician?