Rules on Use of Quotations

What are the forum rules regarding the use of quotations from other sources in messages on the forum? When I became a member a few weeks ago I vaguely recall seeing guidance to the effect of not making lengthy quotations when a link to the original material could be inserted. I have reviewed the FAQs and User Agreement but have been unable to find the rule.

Recently a one-message thread of mine on the end of the procurement of the Humvee was deleted. It consisted of a six or seven-paragraph portion of a story clearly identifed as being by the Associated Press. I didn't see any need to link to the online story when a brief quote was sufficient. Last month the same thing happened to a thread of mine on Army slang. The three quotations used were not especially lengthy, and all were attributed to the authors and titles of the original works. Two of the three passages quoted are not available on the internet but were reproduced by me from old original copies; therefore there were no links.

So again, what are the rules for using properly attributed quotations? Is the rule in place to conserve bandwidth or is it to ensure the veracity and proper attribution of the source?

Pete,

I will offer an interim moderators reply.

We do prefer, no insist upon that quotations do have a link to their source, preferably a web link or a source e.g. Rommel's Memoirs pg.39 refers and are in quotation marks I.e. opened with [q-e] and closed with [/q-e].

Excessive quotations are looked at seriously as there could be copyright issues and we have had visits from those who have an interest in preserving copyright. SWC wants to avoid litigation.

Brevity also helps and I regularly summarise quotes from press articles.

Hopefully a wiser head will come along to explain more if required.

with no link to the basic document can cause US copyright law conflicts. AP in particular is very touchy about their stuff; you can make short quotes and link and they're cool with that but if you post the whole thing, even with attribution, they sometimes get dicey about it (LINK), (LINK).

Some Newspaper and publications are even worse than AP and over the years, a few things have been yanked form this Board because the Copyright owner spotted it and demanded that be done. :(

Jedburgh probably said all that in his PMs to you.

In any event, this is a case of better safe than sorry; it may be overkill but that's the way the owners of the Site wish to operate. It's their site, the rest of us are just guests... ;)

Pete,

Ken and David pretty much explained the issue. But I have also told you privately - more than once - via PM about the need for linking sources. It takes extremely little extra effort beyond the cut-and-paste of the quoted material. Hell, its just cut-and-paste of the URL. There are a lot of other people who post regularly on this board, and none of'em appear to have any problem with linking sources.

The effort you are exerting in avoiding a response to my PMs cautioning you about the lack of quotes, and then taking it public on the board, far exceeds the absolute minimal keystrokes necessary to link a source. What is the real issue?

Just remember, this is a board that welcomes open discussion and encourages differing viewpoints. But if you can't play nice, and play by the - very simple and minimal - rules, then take your game somewhere else.

The other part of this that really gets me goat is I get interested in the subject article and have to search or beg for the link :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

The other part of this that really gets me goat is I get interested in the subject article and have to search or beg for the link :mad:

---

I can't help you on the missing links, Stan, but we did find your goat--apparently he's defected to North Korea...

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/3527/610xyhy.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

I can't help you on the missing links, Stan, but we did find your goat--apparently he's defected to North Korea...

---

Thanks, Rex !
Jeez, don't want to piss off a North Korean soldier while goat herding. Must be a new MOS :D

BTW, the Urban Dictionary's version is as follows...

Quote:

---

Notes: Getting someone's goat can not be a quick process and must be done by not being directly mean. The best way to get someone's goat is by means of clever annoyance.

---

And finally...

Quote:

---

Additional Note:
If the process of goat-getting is taking place in an email conversation, further taunting can be achieved by sending a picture of the newly acquired goat.

---

:eek:

You'll note the attention to detail with clean links - someone please teach David and Pete how to do that ;)

Stan,

Quote:

---

You'll note the attention to detail with clean links - someone please teach David and Pete how to do that

---

Just as long as the teaching does not involve high explosive. I await my teaching with some trepidation, but then I am British and a stiff, upper lip is my best defence.:confused:

BTW, Tom taught me how to do it :D

Regards, Stan

Pete asked for the rules. He got some good comments and suggestions for responsible practices. But here's a recap on the rules.

From the FAQ > General > ROE: Respect copyrights and fair use.

A link to a source is good practice but no safe harbor. There is a lot to copyright law. We provide a link in the FAQ > General > to a good reference. We take a dim view when members lift others' works; on the other hand, a fair use excerpt with a little value added commentary is often VERY helpful to the discussion.

The User Agreement which all members agree to prior to being able to post, makes it clear that responsibility lies with the member. You can access the agreement here and should review in its entirety. A few relevant excerpts are:

Quote:

---

You acknowledge that you are aware that messages you author may be perceived by others as libel, slander, plagiarism, copyright infringement, or other violation of law. You agree that you are solely responsible for your message and its consequences, and you indemnify and hold harmless the Operators of this forum, Small Wars Foundation and its affiliates, against any claim or demand, including reasonable attorney’s fees, made by any third party due to or arising from your breach of this Agreement or your violation or alleged violation of any law or the rights of a third party.

While the Operator of this forum may from time to time monitor or review discussions, postings, transmissions, bulletin boards and other user and member generated pages on the Site, neither the Operator nor its affiliates is under any obligation to do so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWCAdmin

Pete asked for the rules. He got some good comments and suggestions for responsible practices. But here's a recap on the rules.

---

Oh come on now. You're preaching doctrine. We're trying to operationalize it.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

Oh come on now. You're preaching doctrine. We're trying to operationalize it.:D

---

Tough to codify common sense, and we're happy if it emerges.

Operationally, the roles & responsibilities are all there, and a reference to support detailed analysis in pursuit of execution, or at least avoiding the pitfalls therein.

I think you're trying to get a tactical checklist, and there isn't one and there isn't going to be one. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete

I vaguely recall seeing guidance to the effect of not making lengthy quotations when a link to the original material could be inserted. I have reviewed the FAQs and User Agreement but have been unable to find the rule.

---

Not sure what you're referring to, though it sounds like a good practice.