Fair Use of Newspaper Articles in Blog For Purpose of Critism?

[Co Sign]

What is the name of your state? Iowa

Unfortunately we have seen the local paper transformed into a propaganda publication for the Democratic Party, socialism and communism. It mainly consists of rerunning heavily biased propaganda pieces from the AP and similar liberal sources. The vast majority of the local columnists, which are few, spew forth the same propaganda.

If it was up to me our family would not even buy the paper; however, one elderly family member enjoys the limited non propaganda articles such as local events, obituaries, a special large puzzle insert in the Sunday paper, and so forth.

The only reason I read it at all is that I leave comments on the paper's website in response to these articles. My responses use historical references and facts to easily annihilate the propaganda. Typically these articles make a completely false statement and then to back it up they quote another false liberal source as proof they are right when in fact both are wrong and easily disproven.

I have received quite a large number of positive comments in response to my often detailed comments which take apart the liberal propaganda step-by-step; however, I have also received a number comments which are veiled threats.

Although I do have an online account that corresponds with our paid subscription this is never used for posting. Instead, I use a second guest account and email address through a VPN and / or proxy so that my identity can't be known.

I just left a comment two days ago tearing apart another one of these pieces and received immediate positive response. However, upon attempting to access the article today the newspaper has decided to require everyone to use an account tied to paid subscription to even see the article, which would mean they would know your identify. I believe this newspaper wouldn't hesitate for a second to use this information to dox a subscriber whose comments did not following their agenda.

Would the following be legal under "fair use" doctrine:

1. Create a scan of the original article and post it within a anonymous blog post.

2. Provide a link to original article.

3. Provide a copyright credit notice for the newspaper.

4. Provide a statement saying the article is being used under "fair use" for the purpose of criticism.

5. Quote sections of the article, each of which is followed by a comment which disproves the quoted sections or provides other criticism.

 

[Zigner]

No, it would not.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state? Iowa

Unfortunately we have seen the local paper transformed into a propaganda publication for the Democratic Party, socialism and communism. It mainly consists of rerunning heavily biased propaganda pieces from the AP and similar liberal sources. The vast majority of the local columnists, which are few, spew forth the same propaganda.

If it was up to me our family would not even buy the paper; however, one elderly family member enjoys the limited non propaganda articles such as local events, obituaries, a special large puzzle insert in the Sunday paper, and so forth.

The only reason I read it at all is that I leave comments on the paper's website in response to these articles. My responses use historical references and facts to easily annihilate the propaganda. Typically these articles make a completely false statement and then to back it up they quote another false liberal source as proof they are right when in fact both are wrong and easily disproven.

I have received quite a large number of positive comments in response to my often detailed comments which take apart the liberal propaganda step-by-step; however, I have also received a number comments which are veiled threats.

Although I do have an online account that corresponds with our paid subscription this is never used for posting. Instead, I use a second guest account and email address through a VPN and / or proxy so that my identity can't be known.

I just left a comment two days ago tearing apart another one of these pieces and received immediate positive response. However, upon attempting to access the article today the newspaper has decided to require everyone to use an account tied to paid subscription to even see the article, which would mean they would know your identify. I believe this newspaper wouldn't hesitate for a second to use this information to dox a subscriber whose comments did not following their agenda.

Would the following be legal under "fair use" doctrine:

1. Create a scan of the original article and post it within a anonymous blog post.

2. Provide a link to original article.

3. Provide a copyright credit notice for the newspaper.

4. Provide a statement saying the article is being used under "fair use" for the purpose of criticism.

5. Quote sections of the article, each of which is followed by a comment which disproves the quoted sections or provides other criticism.

You can provide a link to the original article and make comments about its contents. Be careful that your comments are not defamatory or threatening.

It is generally a fair use of copyright-protected material to quote small portions for the purpose of criticism or commentary. You should accredit the source. Again, you need to be careful what you say so that you do not cross any legal lines.

News organizations are free to publish what they want to publish as long as the published content does not violate any laws. Some publications have a decided “liberal” slant and some publications have a decided “conservative” slant. There is no problem with this.

For a good look at what laws govern published content, you can visit the Knight Citizens News Network at http://www.kcnn.org and read the “Limiting Legal Risks” learning module.

Edit to add: Many news sites now require registration of real names and contact information. Anonymous comments are not accepted for publication as they were problematic in the past. If you have comments about what is written in an article, therefore, you must own these comments if you make them on these news sites.

 

[Taxing Matters]

No, it would not.

Done correctly, a fair use defense would certainly hold up. Using small snippets of the news article and paraphrasing what was said, along with commentary/criticism of the article, and with appropriate citation of the article and link can constitute fair use. I agree with quincy that one must take care that the commentary does not result in any defamation or otherwise actionable content.

 

[quincy]

Zigner is correct with his answer to Co Sign’s question number one, however.

Scanning an entire article even for comment or criticism would generally not be a fair use of copyright-protected material. The most basic of the exclusive rights granted copyright holders is the right to reproduce the work.

Reproducing (copying) the work without authorization from the copyright holder would be an infringement on the copyright holder’s rights.

 

[Zigner]

Done correctly, a fair use defense would certainly hold up. Using small snippets of the news article and paraphrasing what was said, along with commentary/criticism of the article, and with appropriate citation of the article and link can constitute fair use. I agree with quincy that one must take care that the commentary does not result in any defamation or otherwise actionable content.

The OP asked if the five acts would be considered "fair use". I was responding to it as a whole because this seemed to be a list of the actions the OP would take. Considered individually, the answer would be different.

 

[quincy]

The OP asked if the five acts would be considered "fair use". I was responding to it as a whole because this seemed to be a list of the actions the OP would take. Considered individually, the answer would be different.

Right. And I was pointing out that you, Zigner, answered question number one correctly. Reproducing the entire article (or even too much of the article) would generally not be considered a fair use of the material.

I really recommend that all writers read through the KCNN “Limiting Legal Risks” module. I tout it with some frequency here as it is an excellent look at all of the laws that govern writers.

 

[FlyingRon]

"Asserting something is fair use (your point #4)" doesn't make it so. Further, even if you have a legitimate fair use, it doesn't mean that the source won't sue you or file DMCA takedown requests with your provider. I agree with Quincy, reproducing the entire work leads you away from fair use to intentional infringement. Making quotes of smaller passages may qualify.

 

[quincy]

Here from the US Copyright Office is information on fair use and the factors a court will look at when deciding if a use qualifies as a fair use or is infringement on a copyright holder’s rights:

https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

Perhaps the most important thing to know about fair use is that it is an affirmative defense to a claim of infringement. It is a defense that can be used in court after a copyright holder decides an unauthorized use of their material infringes on their rights and the copyright holder sues the alleged infringer.

What fair use is not is permission to use copyright-protected material. The copyright law provides guidelines only. The only way to ensure your use will not infringe is to seek permission from the copyright holder to use their material.

 

[zddoodah]

Create a scan of the original article and post it within a anonymous blog post.

So...you want to create some random blog, which no one will likely ever see, and use it to criticize articles from some small town Iowa paper?

Would the following be legal under "fair use" doctrine

It's entirely possible. However, I'll comment on each of the five items you mentioned.

1. Why do you need/want to use a scan of the entire article? Fair use sometimes turns on how much of the source one uses, so using the entire article would be a strike against a finding of fair use.

2. This would seem preferable to scanning the entire article.

3. Largely pointless, but would militate slightly in favor of fair use.

4. Absolutely pointless. Saying it doesn't make it so.

5. This, combined with #2, would seem to make #1 unnecessary.

 

[quincy]

Attribution will not change an infringing use into a fair use.

 

[Co Sign]

So...you want to create some random blog, which no one will likely ever see, and use it to criticize articles from some small town Iowa paper?

It's entirely possible. However, I'll comment on each of the five items you mentioned.

1. Why do you need/want to use a scan of the entire article? Fair use sometimes turns on how much of the source one uses, so using the entire article would be a strike against a finding of fair use.

2. This would seem preferable to scanning the entire article.

3. Largely pointless, but would militate slightly in favor of fair use.

4. Absolutely pointless. Saying it doesn't make it so.

5. This, combined with #2, would seem to make #1 unnecessary.

Well, actually its the largest regional paper along the border of two adjoining states, with advertising from across the state and the adjoining state.

But that is really a moot point as the intention is to do my part to counter the Communist / Socialist insurgency of the Democratic Party in my area. I formerly wrote on my high school and college paper multiple decades ago and have a large group of references collected over the years so creating such comments is easy.

We are not taking about stories slanted a certain way. We are talking about outright lies that would make East Germany proud. Not quite as bad as the communist newspapers that visitors from Minneapolis tried to hand out during a lockout of a local business I was involved in but its getting closer.

Why would you assume no one would read it? Many already applaud my current comments as they are backed up with reliable sources disproving what the original author said. The paper attracts multiple letters to the editor from out of state for the sole purpose of indoctrinating the local population. The last out of state to the editor which I summerly destroyed by referring actual facts, originated from New York as was intended to influence a local school into changing their mascot. I demonstrated; for instance, that the Native American tribe in question were in fact calling themselves a name coined by European settlers and using a written language culturally appropriated from Latin characters.

As far back 2001 I set up my own commerce site on the banner as supported Geocities. Within a couple months it was on Google's first or second page depending on the search term. I sold out my inventory, with payments via snail mail. This was due to having it connected to a web hub of similar sites. Things are much easier now.

I agree with quincy that one must take care that the commentary does not result in any defamation or otherwise actionable content.

All of my comments have been approved by the heavily liberal leaning newspaper.

There is nothing defaming or threatening in my comments.

Everything is backed up by historical referenced sources. The newspaper does not allow direct links - they must be posted as plain text without the leading "http://" or "https://".

I don't attack the commentator - I attack their false facts.

I haven't had a change to read over the aforementioned "KCNN “Limiting Legal Risks” yet, but based upon the replies so far it would seem best to modify the previous steps to three.

1. Save a pdf copy of article for my own records and legal protection.

2. Provide a clickable link to the original article with the name of publication and date accessed provided in plain text.

3. Quote parts of the article, making them as short as possible without taking the author out of context or making it difficult to construct a reply.

4. Each of quotes is followed by commentary which references historical facts (i.e., Constitution approved June 21, 1788) and sources (links / book titles).

Thank You for your time!

 

[Zigner]

Bully for you!

 

[quincy]

... But that is really a moot point as the intention is to do my part to counter the Communist / Socialist insurgency of the Democratic Party in my area. I formerly wrote on my high school and college paper multiple decades ago and have a large group of references collected over the years so creating such comments is easy.

We are not taking about stories slanted a certain way. We are talking about outright lies that would make East Germany proud. Not quite as bad as the communist newspapers that visitors from Minneapolis tried to hand out during a lockout of a local business I was involved in but its getting closer.

Why would you assume no one would read it? Many already applaud my current comments as they are backed up with reliable sources disproving what the original author said. The paper attracts multiple letters to the editor from out of state for the sole purpose of indoctrinating the local population. The last out of state to the editor which I summerly destroyed by referring actual facts, originated from New York as was intended to influence a local school into changing their mascot. I demonstrated; for instance, that the Native American tribe in question were in fact calling themselves a name coined by European settlers and using a written language culturally appropriated from Latin characters.

As far back 2001 I set up my own commerce site on the banner as supported Geocities. Within a couple months it was on Google's first or second page depending on the search term. I sold out my inventory, with payments via snail mail. This was due to having it connected to a web hub of similar sites. Things are much easier now.

Your bias is showing.

If you want to publish your own comments about what you read, you can do that, within the limits of the law. I don’t doubt that you can attract others to your site who share your views.

You can attack the content of articles published elsewhere but you should avoid attacking the writer of the content.

Having insurance enough to cover any lawsuit that might arise over the content you publish is wise and advised.

Good luck.

 

[zddoodah]

the intention is to do my part to counter the Communist / Socialist insurgency. . . .

And this is where you lost me and where you'll likely lose anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

Why would you assume no one would read it?

Well...I hope you understood that "no one" was hyperbolic. The reality is that very few people read the overwhelming majority of blogs.

In any event, the legal question has been addressed as well as possible.