News Corp banned from 1 Eyed Eel

This morning I received a legal threat from News Corp regarding the reposting of their stories on this site.

Despite the fact the site has operated in its current form for over 15 years, it is now apparently an issue and I have neither the time nor the money to battle this legally. 

While I disagree with their sudden assertion of copyright, particularly given the fact many of their journalists source stories from this site and spin it off as their own, I do not wish to poke the bear.

What does this mean?

It means you cannot copy/paste an entire article from a News Corp site to 1 Eyed Eel.

What can you do?

You can summarise an article and post that on the site. It has to be your own words.

I'm sure some of our site legal eagles can delve deeper into Australian copyright law to explain this, however essentially you can't just rip content straight onto the site.

There's no issue with copying across tweets, or posting articles from the official Parramatta or NRL sites.

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Just copy and paste the News article into Copilot and ask it to summarise. Paste the output back into this site. At least we'll be able to get a more consise version of the story without all the crap their "journalists" write.

    I hope you banned them from using 1EyedEel content?

    • I have messaged one of our legal eagles to see if there is anything I can respond to about requiring acknowledgement of 1 Eyed as a source when their "journalists" lift info from this site and pass it off as their own.

      • Super, publishers use this type of scare tactics quite often. Was it a cease and desist letter? 

        • It did mention cease and desist, but it came from one of their editors, not their legal counsel.

          • Does this include screenshots of a article ? 

            • Yes

          • If it didn't come from legal then I personally would ignore it and tell them to go *uck themselves.
            Warning letters from publishers are always from legal not editorial.

            I'm guessing one of their editors is pissed off with the way we slag their articles and journos. Maybe a bold piece of shit put them up to it.

            • I've got one of our site legal brains looking at it for me.

      • great if they are using our commentary for their news articles we should do the same

        • I did think about that. Maybe we have to pop some bait up at some point.

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

LB replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion NRL THREATEN 10-YEAR BAN FOR R360 DEFECTORS
"Nah Pou is right, RCG still had to agree to come to Parramatta. He had a contract and was free to stay at Penrith if he liked, he would just play NSW Cup."
17 minutes ago
Michael W. replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion NRL THREATEN 10-YEAR BAN FOR R360 DEFECTORS
"R360 wants to work, they will do everything within their power to make it succeed. God help the NRL if it does succeed."
6 hours ago
Michael W. replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion NRL THREATEN 10-YEAR BAN FOR R360 DEFECTORS
"That's total crap Pou, RCG had a 5yr contract with Penrith, he was told he wasn't wanted, same with Waqa Blake. How many players are in a similar situation, their previous club paying part of their salary at another club. This is how clubs offload…"
6 hours ago
Poupou Escobar replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion NRL THREATEN 10-YEAR BAN FOR R360 DEFECTORS
"Nobody is offloaded mid contract unless they agree to it, which is why Matterson and Hands are still at the club. All the players who did leave or retire chose to."
8 hours ago
More…