DannyInvincible
31/03/2017, 11:58 PM
Just starting a thread, as advised by tets (http://foot.ie/showthread.php?p=1914426#post1914426), to discuss some issues I've been having with posts of mine being edited or deleted due to alleged breaches on my part of the forum rule relating to content attribution/copyright infringement.
I had made the following post in the player eligibility rules thread after having a post edited (with warning included) (http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1914284&viewfull=1#post1914284) and would be happy to receive some conclusive or definitive clarification on the relevant rule if possible:
Hmm, the forum rule on content attribution states:
"To protect both yourself and Foot.ie from copyright infringement liability, please do not quote entire articles on the site, just an extract (a few paragraphs); and please provide the source of the article, plus a link to the original. Posts in breach of this rule will be edited and/or deleted."
Having been recently warned to quote small portions of articles when I quote something in future, I was intentionally very selective in what I quoted above and didn't quote anything remotely near the entirety of the Independent's article about Zaha. I quoted a number of paragraphs from different parts of the article that I thought were particularly relevant to earlier discussions on eligibility and association switches. For future reference and the sake of clarity, what exactly is constituted by "an extract" or how many paragraphs exactly is "a few"?
Tets replied with the following post:
I posted a guideline for you a few days ago
"Danny, as a rule of thumb, if you're quoting more than a paragraph, then the link is enough"
If you want to discuss it further, start a thread in the support forum. It's nothing to do with eligibility
However, the above "rule of thumb" doesn't correspond with the actual forum rule on content attribution (quoted in my post above), nor is it being applied consistently. It seems the "rule of thumb" is being enforced selectively. In fact, it hasn't even been applied consistently within the thread-page of my apparently-offending post. So, as I queried in the quoted post above, what exactly is meant by "an extract" and how many paragraphs is "a few"?
I also had a post deleted from the James McCarthy thread and was confused as to why this was, as I explained:
Erm, tets, in that post of mine that you've deleted, I quoted Ronald Koeman's spoken words from a public press conference, all ten minutes of which could be viewed via the YouTube video that I also posted. Of which forum rule was that in breach? :confused:
Some clarification on which rule I had breached in that instance also would be appreciated.
Thanks.
I had made the following post in the player eligibility rules thread after having a post edited (with warning included) (http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1914284&viewfull=1#post1914284) and would be happy to receive some conclusive or definitive clarification on the relevant rule if possible:
Hmm, the forum rule on content attribution states:
"To protect both yourself and Foot.ie from copyright infringement liability, please do not quote entire articles on the site, just an extract (a few paragraphs); and please provide the source of the article, plus a link to the original. Posts in breach of this rule will be edited and/or deleted."
Having been recently warned to quote small portions of articles when I quote something in future, I was intentionally very selective in what I quoted above and didn't quote anything remotely near the entirety of the Independent's article about Zaha. I quoted a number of paragraphs from different parts of the article that I thought were particularly relevant to earlier discussions on eligibility and association switches. For future reference and the sake of clarity, what exactly is constituted by "an extract" or how many paragraphs exactly is "a few"?
Tets replied with the following post:
I posted a guideline for you a few days ago
"Danny, as a rule of thumb, if you're quoting more than a paragraph, then the link is enough"
If you want to discuss it further, start a thread in the support forum. It's nothing to do with eligibility
However, the above "rule of thumb" doesn't correspond with the actual forum rule on content attribution (quoted in my post above), nor is it being applied consistently. It seems the "rule of thumb" is being enforced selectively. In fact, it hasn't even been applied consistently within the thread-page of my apparently-offending post. So, as I queried in the quoted post above, what exactly is meant by "an extract" and how many paragraphs is "a few"?
I also had a post deleted from the James McCarthy thread and was confused as to why this was, as I explained:
Erm, tets, in that post of mine that you've deleted, I quoted Ronald Koeman's spoken words from a public press conference, all ten minutes of which could be viewed via the YouTube video that I also posted. Of which forum rule was that in breach? :confused:
Some clarification on which rule I had breached in that instance also would be appreciated.
Thanks.