News-Record.com

Don't know why anyone would print my stuff, but just so you know, you can always use mine. ^_^

Thanks for understandind. All I care about is remaining anonymous. If someone can figure out a way to make a profit on my blog, just let me know so I can, too. As posted, Gate and his blog are for sale.

I think you handled everything great. If you had wanted to use my stuff, asking is more then sufficent for me. I am surprised that only 2 people responded at all. You handled it well. I wish you would revisit the idea though. Maybe more people would respond next time. You can always use my stuff, Lex. Just let me know, so I can buy more papers.

You should have just posted the entries. But, in the future, perhaps we should all adopt the Creative Commons licensure so there will be no question.

You handled it the right way, by waiting to see what the public mood is. And how bloggers might feel.

I think that anything on a blog, a public blog that is, that has been published, can be quoted, as long as credit is given. Just as a columnist can quote something he or she finds in another paper or magazine, crediting the original reporter, crediting bloggers is the thing to do.

For example, "According to Frank Rich, writing in the New York Times, blah blah blah..." is okay, because you have credit the writer and the publication he writes for.

For a blogger, say, "According to Daniel Webster, writing in his blog titled 'Web-ster, get it?', blah blah blah....."

Just credit bloggers the way you credit print writers. This is perfectly legal and ethical and polite. I can't believe any bloggers would mind, and if they mind, they should not post public blogs. A public blog, once published, should be treated like a newspaper, once published.

And that's the way it is, April 31, 2008....

I second David Hoggard's comment. This problem is precisely what a creative commons license demystifys. Permission.

I like to be asked, but usually I'm just a girl who can't say no.

As you well know, US copyright law allows "fair use" of any copyrighted material and any blogger who'd complain about getting quoted and/or linked on a newspaper website that sees 6 million? readers a month is in my opinion: nuts.

Quote me, link me, beat me if you must, but please don't ignore me lest I write a naughty poem about you.

PS. Who needs Creative Commons anyway? There's nothing you can do with it that you can't do without it. And if you want a complete post from my blog we'll discuss it. Fact is: For me-- like most bloggers-- a link is wort far more that payment for one article

A few months ago, the N&R printed a front-page story that I had posted at my blog ten days earlier. The reporter and I got the information from the same source, so I think the N&R was in the clear to run the entire story without my permission. Still, JR was courteous enough to call me for my permission, and I received plenty of credit in the article. That was more than enough to satisfy me, particularly since the story/blog post was essentially a reprint of an email from a Marine.

Another post of mine in February led directly to a story in the N&R. I stated a little-known fact in my post, and the reporter ran with it. The reporter did all the work to craft the story, so no permission/credit was necessary, and none was sought/given.

In neither case did I feel I was deprived of appropriate credit or compensation.

Why would it be fair for a blog to take an excerpt from another blog and link to it, yet somehow unfair for a newspaper to do the same?

Eventually, someone has to declare that journalists have rights, too.

Beau, I didn't see it as a matter of legal rights, I saw it as a matter of acting so as to not play into some of the worst fears of some local bloggers. Consideration, in other words.