Newbie School is a blog I have here that is dedicated to "new users". I provide a step by step set of instruction on how to use WordPress as well as mini tutorials for the different features you can have such as SoundCloud, Feedjit, Screenpresso etc. I try to keep in all in plain english with as little "tech" talk as possible so that the average joe can follow along. I also provide screen shots to make it easier for them. If you would like to take a look you can find it at http://theguppypond.wordpress.com

Don't forget to scroll over all the fish you see too...they each have something to say. =o)

My I have your permission to add this to the Newbie School and include a link back to you? I think this is something that needs to be shared with as many as possible at this point since the "ego gods" here don't seem to think it is important to allow us the right to choose who and what is available for reblogging. :)

I can now see that you were saying that all reblogs, no matter what generation should have attribution back to the original author and site.

@Panos, absolutely not Fair Use.

It just never ends, does it?

(It's the same Matt that had written "in two weeks I'm happy to have a discussion with everyone". My mistake, no doubt: apparently he meant in exactly two weeks; I was eight days late in the appointment...)

@tfockler60: Specially for you:
http://wpbtips.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/anti-reblogging/

@tsp: New complication with the new post-by-voice feature. If you post a 60-minute speech, the whole 60 minutes get reblogged (unless you edit the post and add enough text before the audio player). Is that "fair use"?

Ok you confused me...what is not true about the statement that WP's new reblog feature does not attribute back to the original author on ALL reblogs?

In using the term "all" I am notating that anything past the first "editable" copy is void of any attributes to the original author. I think perhaps you misunderstood or maybe I should have phrased it another way? :)

@TT - Quite...

By the way, tsp, the splog excerpt is based on the number of characters, not words.

Anyone any thoughts?

Alex Schleber's views:

http://alexschleber.posterous.com/?sort=&search=copyright

...exactly what WP is allowing by no attributing back to the original author on ALL reblogged copies...

Not true. If someone reblogs a post from your blog (first generation reblog), at the bottom of the quoted passage is a read more link that takes people to the source post on your blog. Below that is a link to the main page of your blog. Of course the reblogger can edit that information out if they wish, but that is a willful act and that would slam the cell door shut on them if it went to court.

On a second generation reblog (reblog of a reblog), the links back to the original disappear and are replaced by the second reblogger's links.

Again, the reblog of 75 word MIGHT fit into the shadowy world of Fair Use depending on a whole lot of stuff as I have alluded to above in another post including the proportion used, the nature and value of the content, etc.

It is much like a library. They own the books but they don't own the content of those books. The content belongs to the original author and should the library adopt a policy by which anyone could come in copy the content of a book and then REPUBLISH it IN THAT LIBRARY as their own work (exactly what WP is allowing by no attributing back to the original author on ALL reblogged copies) then the Library would be and could be held legally responsible for copyright infringment as well as the person who re-published the book.

There is a great misconception that just because you publish on the web that you don't really have any legal means of protection under copyrights and that is wrong. Under federal copyright laws, those protections take top mark regardless of publishing avenue, and yes it can be a headache to pursue someone that infringes on them but unless those that hold a copyright do just that its never going to get better.

Because I am a published author and artist I do take my copyright seriously and I do have a lawyer that handles this kind of thing for me. I have given over the TOS that WP has published as well as copies of all these converstation to him for review and I have been advised to post on my blog that I DO NOT ALLOW ANY REBLOGGING OF ANY CONTENT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT which can be obtained via a copyright site I have listed. If anything of mine is reblogged my computer is set up to send that information directly to my lawyer who will then contact that individual by certified mail.

This is a serious issue for me and I am not going to play games with a bunch of dorks simply because they think they are above the law and can do as they please.

The solution is a simple one that they have refused in writing to employ here. They can keep this feature but they need to allow an OPT OUT for each account and as long as they refuse to do so they assume legal responsibility and I will hold them to it.

"By submitting Content to Automattic for inclusion on your Website, you grant Automattic a world-wide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish the Content solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting your blog."

Fair Use is as one website put it:

...better described as a shadowy territory whose boundaries are disputed, more so now that it includes cyberspace than ever before. In a way, it's like a no-man's land. Enter at your own risk.

WordPress is apparently pulling about 75 words with their reblogging feature. For any original post over say 500 words, the 75 MIGHT BE deemed to fall within Fair Use (15% usage).

If the post is only 300 words, then that 75 word reblog is 25% of the original post and #3 I mentioned in my post above MIGHT say not Fair Use. It all depends on what the court would consider the cutoff line, and that could also depend on the type of content, its value, etc.

If 75 words are pulled from a 150 word post (50% usage), then I can't help but believe that would not be ruled Fair Use.

Think about this: Someone writes and posts Haiku poetry or other short poems or prose under 75 words on their blog (under full copyright protection - not CC). Bloggers start reblogging the poems and since the reblog feature will pull everything up to 75 words, each reblog done on those poetry posts constitutes 100% of the original content. That is NOT Fair Use as I see it.

Now, to defend the other side (ducks for cover behind stone wall): In some cases, the reblog feature could end up making things more legal since it automatically links back to the original and also to the blog it came from. Those are good things. The other thing is, it increases your incoming links, and that will build page rank for your blog and should place you higher in search results (I know not a priority for everyone). This of course means wordpress.COM is also going to benefit from each reblog.

Possible evidence: I've reblogged one post from Timethief's blog as a test, and another from my own blog to see what happened when I reblogged something under 75 words. Both of those reblogs ended up getting picked up and posted on other blogs as "possibly related posts (automatically generated)."

WOW what a very telling reply you offer.

"The feature is not going away, and is going to continue evolving. If you don't like that, perhaps consider an alternative blogging service or hosting your own WordPress."

Perhaps you should go back and read the ORIGINAL request. Nothing was said about REMOVING this feature just allowing those who do not want it to OPT-OUT. As it was pointed out this would be an "EVOLUTION" for this function and one easily accomplished.

I do however (as a fairly new blogger here) find you petuculant little boy reply over the top. One of the reasons I chose WordPress in the first place was because of the ability I had to control my blog and what was done with it. Now you see fit to remove that function with no explination and then point the finger at those who make your site what it is. That makes me wonder a great deal about the OVERALL SECURITY of your site now.

Because of your attitude with this situation, I have posted on my site here that ANYONE reblogging ANY PART of my blog without my consent WILL be subject to legal remedy and yes I do have the means to track them.

So now the question remains...When are you going to hold up to YOUR statement that if after 2 weeks people were still unhappy you would engage in an open conversation about this?

Or is Ronsrealm correct that WP IS getting some hidden benifit on the back of those who blog here? Maybe monitary which would smack of all kinds of illegal actions.

Can it?

:-)

Once again, no reply to that (or to the rest I wrote)... As feartheseeds remarked in the original thread, this is bizarre.

@tsp: Since we've been urged to use and comprehend the feature first, could you please tell me exactly how you would reblogg a deleted post?

Blogger A posts thoughts daily, and each post is less than 50 words. The blogger has a full copyright statement with all rights reserved.

An enterprising wordpress.COM blogger, (re)blogger B, reblogs a number of selected posts - or even just one - from blogger A on his own blog using the like/reblog feature. Since the posts blogger A publishes are under 50 words, the reblogging feature actually posts the entire content of the blog posts from blog A.

The number of words is within the general fuzzy area of Fair Use (there isn't an actual number of words specified in copyright law though), but yet blogger B has reblogged the entire post. Does this fall under Fair Use, and the (re)blogger is in his rights, or does this fall outside Fair Use since blogger B has reblogged the entire content of the post?

From: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html (my emphasis)

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.

I've not researched any case law on this (and don't plan on it), but I do know there are some out there that at lease allude to a number of words, but the number of words suggestion falls apart when the original content is less than that number of words.