If a news article bears this message...

"Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."

...does that mean the forum could be penalised even for a link being posted to it?

I'd like to see it go over in a court... do you have any idea how many reporters copy edit, copy and paste information and change just enough to make it sound original?

But yes, thats what it means basically. If you only copy part of it and paste it it should be ok

Hmmm...but the wording's so explicit. Could posting a link be classed as redistributing?

My understanding is it's fine if there's a link to the original article

aye, my understanding is that redistributing involves the replication of the media. a link to the owner's own files isnt replicating anything.

Most news articles have a 'share' icon 'facebook' or 'twitter' and if they're are not there I usually embed the first paragraph with quotes "text here" (if you don't do that then some folk could assume it's your own work) then add the link to the source. If I want to share any images I try and get permission from the author before hand and they usually give permission.

Thank you all, but I found the same story elsewhere, without the copyright restrictions.

Drude wrote:
Is it true with images you can escape copyright by tweaking it slightly, even as little as just putting a slight light filter on it?

oioioi wrote:
Not sure about that but these guys must get around that subject somehow

Fuck Copyright

I think it is mainly applied if you are using it for profit. If you are making no money from it then there is no case really. The whole fair use thing perhaps comes into play too. The copyright is for people who might pass it off as their own work.

Oh shit how I hate copyrights, it's like a good idea which went all fucked up in the process... Copyright is designed to support the big, ignore the small, funnel huge profit to the hands it usually doesn't really belong to.

Just for example, how in hell could anybody justify record labels taking about 92% of all record sales income to them selves? Copyrightlaws are there to guard the income of these guys who run big publishing companies, be it music, movie, books, software, what ever. It's specially gruesome about people who make some form of popular art, it's legalized robbery of deserved income.