SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the ***=|*|*=*|=*==||*|*=|*=*|*=**|=*==||*==|**|=****=|**=*|** dept.
[20200601_233900 UTC: updated to elide a couple paragraphs and update suggestion to read original article.--martyb]
US court grants permission to recover Marconi telegraph from Titanic wreckage:
When RMS Titanic struck an iceberg on April 14, 1912, crew members sent out numerous distress signals to any other ships in the vicinity using what was then a relatively new technology: a Marconi wireless telegraph system. More than 1,500 passengers and crew perished when the ship sank a few hours later. Now, in what is likely to be a controversial decision, a federal judge has approved a salvage operation to retrieve the telegraph from the deteriorating wreckage, The Boston Globe has reported.
Lawyers for the company RMS Titanic Inc.—which owns more than 5,000 artifacts salvaged from the wreck—filed a request in US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, arguing that the wireless telegraph should be salvaged because the ship's remains are likely to collapse sometime in the next several years, rendering "the world's most famous radio" inaccessible. US District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith concurred in her ruling, noting that salvaging the telegraph "will contribute to the legacy left by the indelible loss of the Titanic, those who survived, and those who gave their lives in the sinking."
However, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is fiercely opposed to the salvage mission. The agency argues in court documents that the telegraph should be left undisturbed, since it is likely to be surrounded "by the mortal remains of more than 1500 people." Judge Smith countered in her decision that the proposed expedition meets international requirements: for instance, it is justified on scientific and cultural grounds and has taken into account any potential damage to the wreck.
[...] This latest ruling is bound to generate more controversy, given that the expedition's plans call for "surgically" removing the telegraph from the hull, risking further damage. (It's believed that the telegraph is located in a deck house near the grand staircase.) According to an Associated Press report, the company's 60-page plan calls for an uncrewed submersible to pass through a skylight. If that doesn't work, the expedition would cut through the roof, which is already heavily corroded. Then a "suction dredge" will remove any loose silt, and the submersible's arms will cut through any electrical cords.
The linked story at Ars Technica goes into considerable detail on the history of how several famous people vied for the claim of creator of telegraphy and wireless communications — well worth reading the entire article.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Monday June 01 2020, @02:38PM (2 children)
It's called an excerpt, and links back to the original source of the excerpt. The practice is long established on the Internet and has been adjudicated many times since. It is permissible to do what Soylent does.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2020, @11:26PM (1 child)
I'm not OP, but that person has a point legally. Yes, it is permissible to use an EXCERPT and has been long before the internet through Fair Use doctrine.
However, I looked at the "summary" here (which is about 6 paragraphs) and then back at the original article (which is 17 paragraphs). Reproducing a THIRD or more of a copyrighted work is NOT something that would generally fall under Fair Use. There's no magic number for Fair Use, of course, and in limited circumstances courts have even ruled that 100% reproduction can sometimes be allowed, though certainly not in something like this.
The other issue is that courts generally look at whether reproductions convey the "heart" of the original vs. some small portion. If the "summary" here (mostly just an excerpt) were simply the opening paragraph or two, that could probably be Fair Use. If the "summary" were a longer set of random sentences that were intended to make several other points in an external (non-quoted) argument, then Fair Use probably would apply.
But cutting out 1/3 of a copyrighted work and giving all the primary info bits? That's probably over the line. I'm not criticizing SN as OP was, but it IS something to be cognizant of. However, the SN audience and hit count probably isn't big enough for SN to get sued.
There is a simple fix, of course. Stop with the extended excerpts and instead just put in a paragraph or two of actual summary (not 1/3 of the original article). For people who want more, click through the damn link and RTFA. Or, alternatively, have editors and contributors write actual summaries, but there doesn't seem much enthusiasm for that around here.
(Score: 2) by martyb on Tuesday June 02 2020, @01:27AM
Yes, I am mindful of "fair use" restrictions when working on a story. As are all the editors.
As you said, there is no clear line as to how much one is permitted to use. It is a battle I wage every time I edit a submission. (Background: an editor takes a story from the submissions queue, edits it as they deem necessary, picks a date/time, and then pushes it to to the story queue. We generally succeed in having a different editor look over those queued stories before it gets released to the main site. This is called "seconding a story".) There has been many a time when I trimmed a queued story down lest we risk violating fair use restrictions. Occasionally we get story submissions that, although interesting, are so short that no reasonably useful/intelligible excerpt could be extracted into a story for SoylentNews.
The source article in this case was so much longer than what we normally get to work with, I went a little longer here than I'd usually do. That said, there is a lot that was left out... and only some of that was mentioned.
It just so happens that after I saw the GGGP(?) comment [soylentnews.org] I brought it up with other staff members. I was reassured that we were protected by the DMCA. It was my raising the issue that led to TMB's reply [soylentnews.org].
I've put waaaaay too much of my limited time into this site — including late-into-the-night stretches to make sure we had enough stories queued up until morning — to risk seeing it all come to naught. So, I was rather earnest about pushing for clear guidance!
The upshot was that (1) anybody could sue us (with or without a valid reason) (2) Even if a complaint were issued to us, we had DMCA protecting us. In such a case we could simply take down the named content in a timely manner and we would be protected.
So, thanks to that, I can breathe a little bit easier now!
Still, I took the liberty of updating the story to elide a couple more paragraphs and to more strongly encourage the reader to refer back to the original article for more detail.
The community spoke up. We listened. We responded. We all win. Much better than beta! =)
Wit is intellect, dancing.