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
chris88 said:
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.
The idea of people dobbing in other sites reposting their articles was mine, not theirs. My intention was for Mr Browne to receive e-mails about 100's of sites reposting Sportal's content.

chris88 said:
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.
Nope - no indication whatsoever, and I haven't asked. As I mentioned in my earlier response to SIA, I'm happy to just comply with their request and leave it at that.

chris88 said:
What a bunch of knobs.
I find it difficult to disagree with you on that :)

chris88 said:
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.
I'm more than happy with that idea

chris88 said:
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?
I like that idea - it would also have the benefit of raising the amount of original content on the site and sparking debate.

chris88 said:
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.
I think that the discussions on the Internet rights for the next 5 years may have something to do with this. [:0]

chris88 said:
**** 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.
Nah - you echo my thoughts.

chris88 said:
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.
I'm not sure if Richmond has much say in what appears on their site or the how that information is managed. When you click on any of the privacy or copyright links they always refer to Telstra as being the owner, not the RFC.
 

chris88

Recruit
Feb 20, 2004
6,536
0
0
44
Ned said:
The idea of people dobbing in other sites reposting their articles was mine, not theirs. My intention was for Mr Browne to receive e-mails about 100's of sites reposting Sportal's content.
Its a damn fine idea then - what's Ashley Browne's email address again - I'd love to set the ball rolling with a few sites I can think of.... [:-sly]

Just also Ned - and hope I'm not stepping over the line here, but is there a way that the "ways to avoid using Sportal content" - not using it, referring to it obliquely, etc etc - can they be written up as new site guidelines here, along with the reason why we're needing to do this?

Maybe the more people know about the ways to get around the problem, the more willing they'll be to join in the fun - [:party]

Let's encourage everyone to email Mr Browne with some links of sites seem to be transgressing these stupid rules - let's see how he goes pursuing all these leads, all these sites, all these threads and all these people.

Won't he be popular by the end of the season....
 

country-tige

Recruit
Jul 1, 2004
2,191
0
0
dalla said:
*sigh*

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


I'm hearin ya buddy! 21, 18, 16 - sheesh - whats the difference?

Hayfever tablets - speed.........Heroin / Morphine ......Pot-a-to / Po-tah-to ........ litigous society - blame the lawyers I say!


Oh and Sportal - get f$@# you whinging whining rubber stamping runts.

And Ashley - you can quote me on that!
 

Coach

Staff member
Coach
Foundation Member
Site Immortal
Jul 17, 2003
12,688
163
63
chris88 said:
Its a damn fine idea then - what's Ashley Browne's email address again - I'd love to set the ball rolling with a few sites I can think of.... [:-sly]

Just also Ned - and hope I'm not stepping over the line here, but is there a way that the "ways to avoid using Sportal content" - not using it, referring to it obliquely, etc etc - can they be written up as new site guidelines here, along with the reason why we're needing to do this?

Maybe the more people know about the ways to get around the problem, the more willing they'll be to join in the fun - [:party]

Let's encourage everyone to email Mr Browne with some links of sites seem to be transgressing these stupid rules - let's see how he goes pursuing all these leads, all these sites, all these threads and all these people.

Won't he be popular by the end of the season....
I'm currently working on the wording for the Site Rules and will present the first draft to the Coaching Panel later this morning.

Ashley's e-mail address is ashley.browne@sportal.com.au - I'm sure he'd be happy to hear from you about further ways to protect Sportal's copywrite.
 

HKTiger

Staff member
Assistant Coach
Mar 19, 2004
4,263
29
48
59
Could we sort of preface any news from those guys as:

"The tossers at Sportal reckon ....."

The get the accreditation that they deserve in that case.
 

Coach

Staff member
Coach
Foundation Member
Site Immortal
Jul 17, 2003
12,688
163
63
HKTiger said:
Could we sort of preface any news from those guys as:

"The tossers at Sportal reckon ....."

The get the accreditation that they deserve in that case.
I received this as part of a larger e-mail from Ashley:

Ashley Browne said:
Finally, you should also remind your users that Richmond gets money from Telstra and the AFL for every page impression it generates on its site. By publishing our stuff on your site and not diverting users to the Richmond official site to view the content, you are robbing the club of potential $$$.
I think the answer lies there.
 

Obelix

Foundation Member
Jul 24, 2003
1,284
0
0
Ned, you may have to send everyone a PM about this as well. I imagine there'd be a lot of people who would just see the thread headline and not bother reading it (I almost did) or maybe, like Eatsie, they're away at the moment and are totally unaware.

You'd also want to find a way to let new members know - I imagine most new members would vaguely skim site rules and just treat the site like any other site and post news articles at will. Maybe make it a prominent part of the introductory/welcome PM.

It's pretty farcical. This site provides fair and complete accreditation of published work via a link. You can't ask for more than that. What if I was to use a sportal article in an assignment for uni? Would I only be allowed to quote the first paragraph?
 

Obelix

Foundation Member
Jul 24, 2003
1,284
0
0
Ned said:
I received this as part of a larger e-mail from Ashley:
ashley brown said:
Finally, you should also remind your users that Richmond gets money from Telstra and the AFL for every page impression it generates on its site. By publishing our stuff on your site and not diverting users to the Richmond official site to view the content, you are robbing the club of potential $$$.
I think the answer lies there.
Then why does he care? If they were worried about it, wouldn't it be Richmond FC trying to sue you? They've known about Y&B for years - hell, they get free editorials from Chris as a representative of this site as it stands.

Sportal must get $$$ too.
 

seenitall

Site Immortal
Jul 2, 2004
11,820
12
38
66
Burwood East
Obelix said:
What if I was to use a sportal article in an assignment for uni? Would I only be allowed to quote the first paragraph?
With heavy use of the word "sic" to cover the spelling & grammatical errors! [;)]
 

chris88

Recruit
Feb 20, 2004
6,536
0
0
44
Exactly right Ob - this claim is merely cheap bribery. Its Richmond that should be concerned if there's an issue, and Richmond that would be chasing us if they were concerned.

That its the dimwits at Sportal doing it suggests that it is they who are worried about potential losses of income in this issue.

Anyway, we all visit the RFC site lots anyway each day - an extra click a day linking from a Sportal story ain't going to add greatly to that - we'd visit the RFC site anyway, no matter what Sportal's "rules" are.


Ashley Browne said:
Finally, you should also remind your users that Richmond gets money from Telstra and the AFL for every page impression it generates on its site. By publishing our stuff on your site and not diverting users to the Richmond official site to view the content, you are robbing the club of potential $$$.
Note Ashley says "our stuff". Obviously Ashley is of the opinion that Sportal own the news now. Not even Rupert and his minions would sugest this.
 

chris88

Recruit
Feb 20, 2004
6,536
0
0
44
Also Ob - I'd think using Sportal stuff in a uni assignment would fall into the same problems as using it here.

Research usage is covered under the fair use provisions I listed in an earlier post in the same way news reporting is. But given we're getting in trouble for the "news reporting" side of things, the same would apply for using Sportal stuff as "research" for academia.
 

Coach

Staff member
Coach
Foundation Member
Site Immortal
Jul 17, 2003
12,688
163
63
Obelix said:
Ned, you may have to send everyone a PM about this as well. I imagine there'd be a lot of people who would just see the thread headline and not bother reading it (I almost did) or maybe, like Eatsie, they're away at the moment and are totally unaware.

You'd also want to find a way to let new members know - I imagine most new members would vaguely skim site rules and just treat the site like any other site and post news articles at will. Maybe make it a prominent part of the introductory/welcome PM.

It's pretty farcical. This site provides fair and complete accreditation of published work via a link. You can't ask for more than that. What if I was to use a sportal article in an assignment for uni? Would I only be allowed to quote the first paragraph?
Rather than a PM, I'll do it via e-mail later today or over the weekend.

This restriction will also be placed in the Site Rules. Thankfully, we have some latitude so we're given time to edit any offending post if someone posts inadvertantly.

I agree with you however, there's nothing I can do about it :(
 

seenitall

Site Immortal
Jul 2, 2004
11,820
12
38
66
Burwood East
Until today, I have been a subscriber of "SPORTAL BACKPAGER", their daily e-mail service.

I have now unsubscribed & urge all Y&B members to do the same for this or any other "service" that Sportal provide.

Also, make sure you let Ashley Browne know that you have done this & WHY!!! I will be telling him that I have also removed Sportal from my "Favourites", will be boycotting their sponsors & will also be e-mailing those sponsors (& Sportal's "syndication partners") to advise why I have taken this action! PLEASE NOTE: You should only contact Ashley Browne as an individual, not as a "representative" or member of this site!

Peter - can you encourage some concerted action along these lines through the AFL WebRing?

If this is all about money, let's make their bottom line look even worse! [rage]
 

Obelix

Foundation Member
Jul 24, 2003
1,284
0
0
chris88 said:
Also Ob - I'd think using Sportal stuff in a uni assignment would fall into the same problems as using it here.

Research usage is covered under the fair use provisions I listed in an earlier post in the same way news reporting is. But given we're getting in trouble for the "news reporting" side of things, the same would apply for using Sportal stuff as "research" for academia.
That's the thing. Most academic assignments would involve the quoting of a variety of publications whether they be every-day news providers or industry specific publications. That's why the nit-picky nature of this guy's attempt to monitor exactly "how" we accredit his work should be subject to ridicule. It's totally motivated by $$$.
 

chris88

Recruit
Feb 20, 2004
6,536
0
0
44
seenitall said:
Until today, I have been a subscriber of "SPORTAL BACKPAGER", their daily e-mail service.

I have now unsubscribed & urge all Y&B members to do the same for this or any other "service" that Sportal provide.

Also, make sure you let Ashley Browne know that you have done this & WHY!!! I will be telling him that I have also removed Sportal from my "Favourites", will be boycotting their sponsors & will also be e-mailing those sponsors (& Sportal's "syndication partners") to advise why I have taken this action! PLEASE NOTE: You should only contact Ashley Browne as an individual, not as a "representative" or member of this site!

Peter - can you encourage some concerted action along these lines through the AFL WebRing?

If this is all about money, let's make their bottom line look even worse! [rage]
Well done SIA - and very very good point re us taking this action as individuals, not reps or members of the site.

Sportal will be getting removed from my favourites as well, and any further mentions or references to them in the course of my journo work will, in legalese, "cease and desist" from here on in.
 

fightingfury

Recruit
Apr 14, 2005
5,450
0
0
31
seenitall said:
Until today, I have been a subscriber of "SPORTAL BACKPAGER", their daily e-mail service.

I have now unsubscribed & urge all Y&B members to do the same for this or any other "service" that Sportal provide.

Also, make sure you let Ashley Browne know that you have done this & WHY!!! I will be telling him that I have also removed Sportal from my "Favourites", will be boycotting their sponsors & will also be e-mailing those sponsors (& Sportal's "syndication partners") to advise why I have taken this action! PLEASE NOTE: You should only contact Ashley Browne as an individual, not as a "representative" or member of this site!

Peter - can you encourage some concerted action along these lines through the AFL WebRing?

If this is all about money, let's make their bottom line look even worse! [rage]
Clap Clap. Well said.
 

Bifrost

Recruit
Apr 21, 2005
602
0
0
44
OK. This opinion is probably not going to be popular, but I was really surprised when I first came here and started seeing news articles published in full (often with photos from the article) on the site.

News is not copyrightable. News copy IS copyrightable. Which is to say that if a contributor (note I do not say "journalist") to a news service writes an article on an item of news and that article is published by said news service, then that article's copyright belongs to the news service (unless there is some explicit statement about their articles being in the pubic domain - which is unheard of). If the articel is not published, the copyright remains with the author.

Most forums I've been on have a written or unwritten rule that contributors post a paragraph (usually the funny bit), a few comments of their own and a link. Posts which are just a link are banned (because a link is not news), but so too full articles are frowned upon.

I think you'll find that sportal will be on the lookout for their copy on every fan forum from now on and yes - it is up to them to track such copyright breaches down. We don't have to give half a shit, as long as it's not us doing it.

Now - there is one other way to go about this, but it's a lot tougher on the news contributors.

One word: Paraphrase.

Generally when I'm writing news for a forum, I try (as much as possible) to write my own story, then provide a couple of links to the news stories from which I gathered the information. Sometimes I'm too lazy to be bothered and end up pasting in the funny bit (as mentioned above), but I never publish the full article from any other site - because it's actually illegal to do so without the site's permission. I often find that with a couple of news sources you can write a better article than the original authors anyway.

Bear in mind that most of the news published these days is read by the news contributors off a news wire feed from Reuters, AFP or Bloomberg anyway. It's just that the newspapers and TV stations pay for the privilege of publishing news from those services and we don't pay the newspapers for the same right to plagiarise. As has been said - it's all about money.

Anyway, that's my 2 bits.
 

Obelix

Foundation Member
Jul 24, 2003
1,284
0
0
bifrost said:
Most forums I've been on have a written or unwritten rule that contributors post a paragraph (usually the funny bit), a few comments of their own and a link. Posts which are just a link are banned (because a link is not news), but so too full articles are frowned upon.
Really? Where? I'm not disputing it, but I visit forums other than this one and I can't recall any such written/unwritten rules. What you've written makes sense, don't get me wrong - it's added some clarity over the issue but I've found it fairly common in most forums I've visited to find fully posted articles.
 

chris88

Recruit
Feb 20, 2004
6,536
0
0
44
Bifrost well said and thanks for the perspective on this.

I can see where you are coming from but cant quite agree with you entirely on this.

I guess I look at it like this Sportal have an arrangement in place to supply copy to the AFL and to the RFC. Fair enough and they get paid for it too.

But what gets my goat is the attitude and the way this is done -

For example - I write stuff for the RFC website, content for the site. I dont get paid because its something I like doing.

But what if I started getting paid to supply content to the RFC website. If I did that, and was paid, I couldnt give a stuff where the article was posted to after that as long as it had a link back to the original RFC site and web address.

That way, Im getting paid, the RFC is getting news content, but then its also getting the added publicity of having that content shared and spread all around the place with a link back to the original story (and the implicit understanding of Well, theres more content like that if you visit the source website).

Surely wouldnt Sportal be happy with a similar situation. Many of us here wander onto the Sportal site looking for news and content, some are members. But the heavy-handed attitude of this missive from them turns people right off them to the point we no longer are members and we say Stuff your content, Ill not run it or your links.

Why couldnt Sportal just come out and say Make sure you attribute all the time at the start and end of the article.

Or, more pointedly, if Sportal are worried about their exclusive rights, why couldnt they just make their content on RFC, AFL club or AFL websites protected by password/membership. If you are a member, you get to read the exclusive Sportal content sort of like Jungle Beat right now.

It doesnt take Einstein to figure out a scheme like that promises to have plenty of click throughs and plenty of visits again, like Jungle Beat.

Many people would look at Jungle Beat and know not to post things from that in open forums because people who are members of the RFC have paid for the right to view this exclusive material or exclusive material like the Rookie Club updates.

So if Sportal have got some sort of commercial arrangement going on, why dont they use some of their money to password or membership protect their content. Wed respect that because, as with Jungle Beat, people pay for the privilege of viewing this stuff.

Like I said, you dont see the Age or Herald Sun do it, even though they could argue they could (just as I could argue that it is reproduced under fair use principles). These publications gain more in terms of reputation and probably goodwill, which leads to money) by trusting peoples better judgement and believing theyll fairly and reasonably attribute written articles to author and publication with a web link.

In addition - the way this "threat" was sold to us, that by not going to the source of the article means we're denying our team money, God, that smacks of desparation again.

If the RFC had a problem with this in terms of money, they'd be the ones complaining, not Sportal. But we know now where the "threat" is coming from.

I would argue with your use of the word plagiarise in one sense Bifrost. I would say plagiarism is when you use another persons words, thoughts (or news stories) without attribution, or without correct attribution more specifically. We dont plagiarise Sportals articles, as we ensure we attribute by author, title and website (and link).

But I do agree with you on the adaptation front. Thats more than reasonable, and the crux of the point I was making earlier about being able to say Good news, this has happened, what do you think?

This not only allows us to post these things, but also allows for good debate about them as well (and of course leads people back to find the exclusive Sportal story that is the source of this news).

My understanding is that Sportal are going to be pursuing all fan forums like ours on this. So, again, if there are any forums you see that seem to be flouting the law, let Sportal know so they can deal with it.
 

RichardMEL

Site Immortal
May 26, 2005
18,315
38
48
49
Some things never change.

This reminds me, in a way, of an iexperience I had 10 years ago with an unnamed but large US based transportation company (ok, airline :) ). I had been on some flights of significance, and took lots of pictures and stuff and put up a website to share this with the world. As part of the site I had scanned in some items containing the logo of said company.

I got lots of email from employees of said company saying they thought it was great and I got a number of siginificant freebies (upgrades, miles, gold frequent flyer card, etc)... and then rude emails from the CHIEF lawyer demanding I pull it all down as I was infringing on copyright, blah blah blah. I threw the fair use argument at them (as a review) and they still put crap on me even though I was not making a cent out of the site and it was free publicity for them (yes I got stuff, but it was unsolicited, and freely given by marketing/sales types in the company that thought it was a great site). So one hand was doing one thing, and the other was trying to kill me off. Luckily this all took a few months and by that time the site had had > 50,000 hits and pretty much done the job, so I took it down.

The point being that sometimes these types of people go for the jugular to spite themselves.
 

Gracie

Site Immortal
Jun 1, 2005
19,436
225
63
59
There is sometimes a mention on BF about a site that will "remain nameless" " we can't mention". I don't know which one they are talking about and it is on other sites than the Richmond one. So maybe they have had a similar experience and maybe Jezza would know more
 

dalla

Recruit
Sep 1, 2005
7,580
0
0
32
It would seem you can't finish a sentence anymore without having to step around a few little words: http://www.brownpride.us/forum/showthread.php?t=92

This isn't doing Sportal any good. It'll make more people (like myself) bitter with their excessive legalities, and rather than post their news, i'd rather read it for myself and hope that others might do the same. Exposure-wise it will do nothing.

chris88 said:
Why couldn’t Sportal just come out and say “Make sure you attribute all the time – at the start and end of the article”.
Does this man need a medal for people outside of this forum to recognise what he's saying is right? It's just a shame that you can't do anything anymore without having to consider whether you're infringing copyright laws.
 

Bifrost

Recruit
Apr 21, 2005
602
0
0
44
I'm right with you on the way in which Sportal has gone about this thing, Chris. It's one thing to request that site owners follow a few guidelines, it's quite another to say "do it or else".

But that's the thing with wankers - they tend to wank. [;)]

I usually find legal threats sent to websites amusing (particularly when they're directed at SomethingAwful), but in this case, Ned has his name heavily placed around the site and it is very clear who is running the show, so it's a real threat. That and from a legal standpoint they're within their rights to demand what they have. And unfortunately being a tool about it is also perfectly legal. If only we had laws against being a tool...




PS: I swear I don't gain anything from the sites I'm mentioning here, I just visit them a lot and they're very good.