Reposting of Sportal Content

  • Welcome to Yellow and Black Online. Registered Members gain access to tools and additional Forums designed to enhance your experience.
  • 2020 AFL Season has been suspended until at least May 31

  • Join the Yellow and Black Tipping Competition. No prizes, just bragging rights :)



    Visit Tipping Central and sign up to our Pool.
  • Coterie Membership premium membership package allows the subscriber to enjoy the site without any advertising, access to a private forum, "The Coterie Room" as well as some other extra tools that you can use on the forum.

    Full information can be found here: Member Upgrades. I'll add more benefits as they are requested or as I think of them.


Coach

Staff member
Coach
Foundation Member
Site Immortal
Jul 17, 2003
12,688
163
63
As per the letter I've received from the Managing Editor of Sportal, Ashley Browne, anybody reposting content that meets the criteria set out below must do so as requested. If the content breaches this directive from Sportal, it shall have to be deleted.

Following the email I received yesterday, this letter is to confirm that you are not permitted to re-publish any content previously published by Sportal Australia on its own site (www.sportal.com.au) or syndication partners including, but not restricted to, www.afl.com.au and www.richmondfc.com.au.

As is the case with other message boards, we will allow you to publish the headline and first paragraph of the story, but there must then be a link through to the full story as published on any of our sites.

All content prepared by Sportal is protected by copyright. On the AFL and Richmond websites, you can identify our content by one of these attribution lines
  • Sportal for afl.com.au
  • Exclusive to afl.com.au
  • Exclusive to richmondfc.com.au'
Any further publication of Sportal content in full on the yellowandblack.com.au website will be regarded as a breach of copyright, and we will commence legal action immediately.

Perhaps one option is to no longer promote media and other websites through this website by refusing to repost any content from other sites.
 

ballast

Recruit
Apr 21, 2004
2,093
0
0
58
Legal action against the poster and/or the site I assume. Perhaps they should put in place software guards to prevent copying of thier items, after the 1st paragraph of course.
Im thinking that is a fairly onerous watchdog liability to place on a forum website proprietor.
 
Oct 6, 2004
8,833
0
0
31
Do you think they have even checked for their articles or have simply sent this e-mail to all the main forums predicting each one would have some of their content.
 
Oct 6, 2004
8,833
0
0
31
There's an article by Tony Greenburg about Howats promotion. It has been posted in full by bigfooty but i am not sure how it should be posted here. Help, please :) ?
 

Coach

Staff member
Coach
Foundation Member
Site Immortal
Jul 17, 2003
12,688
163
63
proffessional optimist said:
There's an article by Tony Greenburg about Howats promotion. It has been posted in full by bigfooty but i am not sure how it should be posted here. Help, please :) ?
As mentioned in the letter, if it states any of the following:
  • Sportal for afl.com.au
  • Exclusive to afl.com.au
  • Exclusive to richmondfc.com.au
We can't repost the article in full. If in doubt, post the first paragraph and supply the article link.
 

Coach

Staff member
Coach
Foundation Member
Site Immortal
Jul 17, 2003
12,688
163
63
ballast said:
Legal action against the poster and/or the site I assume. Perhaps they should put in place software guards to prevent copying of thier items, after the 1st paragraph of course.
Im thinking that is a fairly onerous watchdog liability to place on a forum website proprietor.
Nope, legal action against just me :(
 

HKTiger

Staff member
Assistant Coach
Mar 19, 2004
4,263
29
48
59
It hasn't stopped other sites to date. They can't have singled Y&B out that's illegal.

Will you be questioning Ashley on that ?
 

Coach

Staff member
Coach
Foundation Member
Site Immortal
Jul 17, 2003
12,688
163
63
HKTiger said:
It hasn't stopped other sites to date. They can't have singled Y&B out that's illegal.

Will you be questioning Ashley on that ?
Nope - I'd rather err on the side of caution and comply. However, if anyone finds any other site reposting information from Sportal, I'd suggest that you let Ashley know by e-mailing him: ashley.browne@sportal.com.au
 

Gracie

Site Immortal
Jun 1, 2005
19,436
225
63
59
Infamy said:
How about we just don't post anything from Sportal
Well I am with Infamy with this.

There are plenty of information out there so Sportal isn't getting any exclusive as far as I can see.

Can't really see the problem as long as it is acknowledged it came from Sportal. Pretty narrow minded actually.

Can we add the word Sportal to the swear filter?
 

Coach

Staff member
Coach
Foundation Member
Site Immortal
Jul 17, 2003
12,688
163
63
Gracie said:
Well I am with Infamy with this.

There are plenty of information out there so Sportal isn't getting any exclusive as far as I can see.

Can't really see the problem as long as it is acknowledged it came from Sportal. Pretty narrow minded actually.

Can we add the word Sportal to the swear filter?
I'm happy to not have their articles shown here at all.
 

dalla

Recruit
Sep 1, 2005
7,580
0
0
32
*sigh*

That's a real shame. You can pretty much end up in legal action for doing almost anything it would seem.
 

seenitall

Site Immortal
Jul 2, 2004
11,820
12
38
66
Burwood East
proffessional optimist said:
There's an article by Tony Greenburg about Howats promotion. It has been posted in full by bigfooty but i am not sure how it should be posted here. Help, please :) ?
I've posted it, po - Tony Greenberg is the RFC's Media Manager, not a Sportal employee.

Also, there is no mention of any of the three "attribution lines" quoted in Ned's initial post.

By the way, Ned - what happened to the following principle, as recorded at the bottom of our Home Page?

As all news articles are in the public domain they are reposted on this site under the "Fair Use" copyright exemption for "the reporting of news".

Can Sportal claim "breach of copyright" when there is a legal exemption for exactly this sort of situation?
 

malreid

Recruit
Jul 11, 2004
418
0
0
47
Rather than read the post in full here (with all acknowledgements to the source of the article) they want us to link to their page to view it.

Big Dick syndrome for how many hits are on their site maybe?
 

seenitall

Site Immortal
Jul 2, 2004
11,820
12
38
66
Burwood East
Mal - the stupid thing is that if we follow their "edict", Sportal end up not being mentioned at all on this site, because the link will normally show "richmondfc.com.au" or "afl.com.au", as in Ned's example!

Ned said:
I've altered this thread http://www.yellowandblack.com.au/forums/showthread.php?p=68814 as an example of what is required in the future.
We very rarely quote directly from "sportal.com.au", so exactly what do they gain? [:-dunce]
 

malreid

Recruit
Jul 11, 2004
418
0
0
47
seenitall said:
Mal - the stupid thing is that if we follow their "edict", Sportal end up not being mentioned at all on this site, because the link will normally show "richmondfc.com.au" or "afl.com.au", as in Ned's example!

We very rarely quote directly from "sportal.com.au", so exactly what do they gain? [:-dunce]
Yeah I understand that but the article headline does normally have exclusive to whoever.com.au in it for sportal.com.au
All I can suggest is that they are looking after their own and their partners interests to make sure people visit their respective web pages.

I would have thought it may have something to do with the amount of traffic that gets directed to each site, the more hits the better chance each site has of selling their product.

P.S. You having trouble sleeping Old Timer? :D
 

seenitall

Site Immortal
Jul 2, 2004
11,820
12
38
66
Burwood East
malreid said:
P.S. You having trouble sleeping Old Timer? :D
I'm often up & about overnight, mate - my work (from home) involves a fair bit of contact with the UK, Canada & the US, so I'm usually controlled by their business hours, unfortunately! [:-sleep]
 

chris88

Recruit
Feb 20, 2004
6,536
0
0
44
Ned said:
HKTiger said:
It hasn't stopped other sites to date. They can't have singled Y&B out that's illegal.

Will you be questioning Ashley on that ?
Nope - I'd rather err on the side of caution and comply. However, if anyone finds any other site reposting information from Sportal, I'd suggest that you let Ashley know by e-mailing him: ashley.browne@sportal.com.au
With the greatest of respect Ned, that's ridiculous.

It's bad enough the geniuses at Sportal wish to single out this site - which it seems they have done to some extent considering a number of other sites have not put this message up on their noticeboards, and still seem to be posting full Sportal articles - but then we are now being asked to police this measure by dobbing in other sites to Sportal?

No, that's not on.

Let the idiots at Sportal deal with this. Let them write to everyone and tell them the same thing they've told us. Let them police it and see how they go being in 400 places at once.

Ned - is there any indication from the "esteemed" Ashley Browne that they have written to more sites than just this one? Are you able to ask him on that matter. If they've singled us out (apart from the fact they can get stuffed) I'd like to know why.

Ned said:
As per the letter I've received from the Managing Editor of Sportal, Ashley Browne, anybody reposting content that meets the criteria set out below must do so as requested. If the content breaches this directive from Sportal, it shall have to be deleted.

Following the email I received yesterday, this letter is to confirm that you are not permitted to re-publish any content previously published by Sportal Australia on its own site (www.sportal.com.au) or syndication partners including, but not restricted to, www.afl.com.au and www.richmondfc.com.au.

As is the case with other message boards, we will allow you to publish the headline and first paragraph of the story, but there must then be a link through to the full story as published on any of our sites.

All content prepared by Sportal is protected by copyright. On the AFL and Richmond websites, you can identify our content by one of these attribution lines
Sportal for afl.com.au
Exclusive to afl.com.au
Exclusive to richmondfc.com.au'

Any further publication of Sportal content in full on the yellowandblack.com.au website will be regarded as a breach of copyright, and we will commence legal action immediately.


Perhaps one option is to no longer promote media and other websites through this website by refusing to repost any content from other sites.
What a bunch of knobs.

So what can we do - here's a couple of ideas.

1 - For the "exclusive to AFL.com.au" and "sportal for afl.com.au" pieces, let's not post them when they appear on the AFL site. Simple as that.

That way, the traffic coming from our site to their site to check out the story (and other stories at the site) stops completely.

2 - For the exclusive to RFC pieces, we have a few options. The first is not to post them at all. But again, that's defeating the purpose of being an up-to-date site on everything Richmond.

So, there is another way around it. In looking at the many Sportal articles on the RFC site that have "exclusive for RFC.com.au", most of them are news articles. Most recently we've had the Richo is back inthe side piece, the Tigers/AFG renewed sponsorship piece and a couple of other straight out news pieces.

For a story like the "Richo is back" yarn, simply don't post it. Its about the squad, we know the team, no need to post it.

But for a story like the Tigers/AFG sponsorship one, simply start a short thread along these lines.

"Good news, just formally announced that the Tigers and AFG have renewed their sponsorship until 2007. Great to see AFG staying on board and supporting us". What does everyone reckon?

Don't provide a link to the Sportal story ... after all, you are only spreading information already freely available in the public arena and accurately reported on by the media.

News isn't copyright. News is news. The whole idea of spreading officially reported news is to inform people, to bring them up-to-date and keep them up-to-date.

The idea that news needs to in fact be limited due to copyright reasons and other so-called legal namby pamby is the complete opposite to what news is about - and, bluntly, should be shunned at every opportunity.

We provide fair and reasonable links, sourcing and attribution through this site, and it is something that Ned and all of us here at the site are absolutely committed to doing. How dare one pinicky media organisation tell us that this conspicuous sourcing and attribution work; work that covers not only published media material, but even fair and reasonable attribution when needed to RFC forums and BF, is not up to scratch in their view.

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Sportal must be struggling to deliver on Internet visit targets they agreed on as part of their contract to supply their "exclusive" news to AFL and AFL clubs. Maybe there are other conclusions, but this one stands out like a sore thumb.

**** you Sportal (I'll probably be warned for that). How precious can a news site be if it feels it has to "protect" the news it reports on from being spread around like ... well, news.


PS - Ned - is this something we should/could at least raise with Tony Greenberg, telling him of the threat Sportal have made and the effect this is going to have on the amount of justified and good publicity the Tigers get through stories being spread around on forums like ours.

Anything that limits the spread of Richmond good news stories ought to be stopped.
 

chris88

Recruit
Feb 20, 2004
6,536
0
0
44
Spot on SIA - as you pointed out earlier in the thread -

Seenitall said:
By the way, Ned - what happened to the following principle, as recorded at the bottom of our Home Page?

As all news articles are in the public domain they are reposted on this site under the "Fair Use" copyright exemption for "the reporting of news".

Can Sportal claim "breach of copyright" when there is a legal exemption for exactly this sort of situation?
Interestingly, I found this on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_copyright_law) re Australia's Fair Dealing provisions - I've bolded a couple of interesting sections:

Fair dealing

Fair dealing, comparable to the United States' fair use, is a use of a work specifically recognised as not being a copyright violation. However, unlike fair use, in order to be a fair dealing under Australian law a use must fall within one of range of specific purposes. These purposes vary by type of work, but the possibilities are:

review or criticism
research or study
news-reporting
lawyers' business

In order for a certain use to be a fair dealing, it must fall within one of these purposes and must also be 'fair'. What is 'fair' will depend on all the circumstances, including the nature of the work, the nature of the use and the effect of the use on any commercial market for the work.

Fair dealing is not the same as fair use, a term which is generally used in relation to the US's open ended exception, which allows any use (regardless of purpose) as long as it is 'fair'. This has, for example, been interpreted by US courts to allow for reasonable personal use of works, e.g. media-shifting, which would not necessarily be permitted under Australia's fair dealing laws.

Australian copyright law does, however, have a number of additional specific exceptions which permit uses which may fall outside of both fair dealing and fair use. For example, a number of exceptions exist which permit specific uses of computer software (see List of some possibly non-violating actions in Australia below).


So obviously Sportal are going after us because it might, as I suspected, harm some commercial agreement they have in place - you'd think it could specifically related to deals they have with sites where they've promised a certain amount of extra traffic through click-throughs to the sites and to any customers of those sites.

As I said before, maybe poor old Sportal are struggling to keep up their side of the deal. Boo hoo.

Maybe Sportal ought to take steps through the sites they actually have deals with to ensure these click throughs occur.

Maybe they should only allow the casual user to view the first par of these stories on the RFC and AFL sites, with users required to click through to another site (with ads, or other ways to fulfil their commercial deals) to read the rest of the story.

But I still believe we'd have some sort of meaningful debate over the term "fair" especially considering the news content of the material we are posting.

Sportal have no right to purchase exclusive rights to news - that simple. And we've always been willing to give them an attribution - though that might well change now...
 

tigerforever

Foundation Member
Jul 19, 2003
2,221
0
0
59
agree with chris on this one.i think we should find out if we have been singled out .will be interesting to see how this effects other forums.
 

Coach

Staff member
Coach
Foundation Member
Site Immortal
Jul 17, 2003
12,688
163
63
seenitall said:
By the way, Ned - what happened to the following principle, as recorded at the bottom of our Home Page?

As all news articles are in the public domain they are reposted on this site under the "Fair Use" copyright exemption for "the reporting of news".

Can Sportal claim "breach of copyright" when there is a legal exemption for exactly this sort of situation?
Good point SIA however, with the number of legal threats I've already received this year, I'd prefer not to push the point as I may at some point be required to pay for legal representation which I'm not prepared to put myself or my family through.

I'll begrudgingly comply with their request and let them claim victory. I'm quite happy to not have their articles appear on this site anyway.