Front Page News and Articles - Please Read
- Thread starter Rob
- Start date
Scarlet57
Reasonably priced
- Jan 13, 2010
- 3,343
- 6,251
Why would you want to post/mention an article from that fuckdumpling shitfest of a site anyway? So many people dislike the DM on here but are happy to post lots of articles/links.
Just ignore anything they do.
bomberH
Well-Known Member
- Jun 4, 2005
- 28,471
- 168,308
Or.... I could've been joking.
OmarsComing
Mentally Disturbed Individual!
- Jan 2, 2011
- 7,255
- 7,665
- Jun 8, 2003
- 28,025
- 65,145
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #26
I think the opposite is likely to happen. It's not "duplicate content" as that only applies to the same content in multiple places on the same site. If you search for a news article, typically the SC version comes up before the newspaper version.
This will damage our SEO short term but it's more much important that we're compliant with copyright and don't infringe on other news sources.
spud
Well-Known Member
- Sep 2, 2003
- 5,850
- 8,794
I have to say that I've been a member of SC since 2003 and I wasn't aware of this. You live and learn.
I thought the practice was that we could reproduce the article as long as we quoted the source. I suppose that the value being placed on clicks to a site as a bargaining chip for charging advertisers has changed all that. It will be a pain in the arse to do (it's why I couldn't be bothered with any Fanatix articles) but I guess we'll have to get used to it. Or spend more time in the forums and ignore the shit that's written in the press and on most crappy football sites.
spud
Well-Known Member
- Sep 2, 2003
- 5,850
- 8,794
Don't worry mate; there's still free porn.
Gilzeanking
Well-Known Member
- May 7, 2005
- 6,139
- 5,083
Shame there is this prob . For the last 6 months or so I have been checking the front page as its had the latest
info on it . Inside Spurs chat has a different focus.
info on it . Inside Spurs chat has a different focus.
fatpiranha
dismember
- Jun 9, 2003
- 8,337
- 21,678
.
CosmicHotspur
Better a wag than a WAG
- Aug 14, 2006
- 51,069
- 22,383
So why not read the articles and then report on them in your own words, acknowledging the sources when necessary (there may well be more than one for some stories)?
I wouldn't think that constitutes plagiarism - you'd just be commenting on what you've seen or heard in the media in a general way and perhaps adding your opinion on it.
I wouldn't think that constitutes plagiarism - you'd just be commenting on what you've seen or heard in the media in a general way and perhaps adding your opinion on it.
Dan Yeats
Well-Known Member
- Jul 12, 2011
- 2,796
- 2,911
@Rob
It's weird how much attention this site gets from the copyright police - not just this but the likes of Getty images too. I post on another (high profile) board that's more focused on politics/current events but has sections on football and a whole host of other stuff as well, and they don't have to enforce any of this stuff. The only legal considerations that the mods generally have to keep an eye on is potential 'contempt' - speculation on current court cases. That certainly can cause problems for them.
To be honest, people on there don't tend to c&p articles much anyway, they usually link to them and then add their own commentary/opinion. But images that belong to Getty etc are frequently used with no issue.
Do you think it's that they've got a standard legal comeback they use that keeps them at bay maybe? 'Fair use' or something? I'm just speculating on possibilities there though - I'm legally trained, but mainly things like Tort, certainly not copyright law.
Or are football sites particularly targeted by the lawyers?
Not that it matters in terms of us all being careful to only include a few lines - I'm just curious really.
It's weird how much attention this site gets from the copyright police - not just this but the likes of Getty images too. I post on another (high profile) board that's more focused on politics/current events but has sections on football and a whole host of other stuff as well, and they don't have to enforce any of this stuff. The only legal considerations that the mods generally have to keep an eye on is potential 'contempt' - speculation on current court cases. That certainly can cause problems for them.
To be honest, people on there don't tend to c&p articles much anyway, they usually link to them and then add their own commentary/opinion. But images that belong to Getty etc are frequently used with no issue.
Do you think it's that they've got a standard legal comeback they use that keeps them at bay maybe? 'Fair use' or something? I'm just speculating on possibilities there though - I'm legally trained, but mainly things like Tort, certainly not copyright law.
Or are football sites particularly targeted by the lawyers?
Not that it matters in terms of us all being careful to only include a few lines - I'm just curious really.
- Jun 8, 2003
- 28,025
- 65,145
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #35
This.
Getty have people trawling football forums and getting trigger happy with their lawyers. As far as I'm aware, we're by far the largest Spurs forum, the only large one with a "news" section and the only one where our forums aren't completely members only.
