Q. How do I properly post an article from an internet source here?

[LouisWu]

A. It's really quite simple. there are only a few steps that you need to follow. Here is an example of a properly referenced and posted article.

Topic: Baird votes in favor of U.S.-Mexico fence (using the headline from the newspaper article)

http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/09152006news59405.cfm

Friday, September 15, 2006
By KATHIE DURBIN, Columbian staff writer
Advertisement

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird voted Thursday to spend at least $2 billion and possibly as much as $7 billion on a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border a project he has opposed several times in the past, most recently in December.

The vote came two weeks after a Republican opponent accused Baird of having a lax voting record on border security.

**SNIP**

Post your comments here.



Please notice that I lead off with the link to the actual article at the Columbian's website. Also, I used an excerpt from the article, as opposed to posting the entire thing.

It is also perfectly fine to **SNIP** several pertinent sections of an article, using cut and paste, so you can make several points and highlight several quotes from the same article. Please avoid posting entire articles. Upon occasion, there are editorials that are written by any number of National correspondents, that once in a while have a piece that is so profound, it merits whole publication. That won't be often though.

What we are avoiding with this requirement is copyright infringements and plagiarism. Always provide a link.

[Chief]

It has been brought to my attention in an unfortunate and most avoidable way that I have been violating one of the basic rules here at clarkblog.org by posting entire articles from the Columbian here at the site. I believe a statement is in order.

It has always been my position that this site is a private weblog, that is open to the public for view and comment. Clarkblog.org is about free information. We do not advertise the site. We do not accept, or allow anyone else to advertise on the site. This site is not a business, because there are no revenues involved whatsoever. It costs less than $9.00 a month for the server space to host the site, and I spend $1 six days a week and $3.00 on Sunday to buy a copy of the Oregonian and the Columbian. Beyond that, there are no other expenses for this place, and nobody pays me or gives me anything for what I do here. To suggest otherwise is not only ludicrous, it's irresponsible.

That has not prevented the Columbian from making a complaint to me personally, via a letter from their attorney in Seattle, Davis Wright Tremaine, that accuses me of operating this place as a business, in which "This unauthorized compilation and republication of Columbian content is trading on The Columbian's content for your own benefit." They also claim "unfair competition in violation of the Washington Consumer protection Act, RCW 19.86.020."
The letter also claims that I have ignored the Columbian's prior objections to these practices. I assume they are referring to the woman who called my house last week and complained to my wife, leaving a telephone number that had been disconnected. That sounded like harassment then and it still does now. It does not sound like any formal complaint to me. The letter does state "You were contacted by a representative of the Columbian, and you demanded that the newspaper provide you with a letter from its lawyer. This is the letter you requested." Again, I never requested anything, because your "representative" never talked to me.
It also says this:

"The Columbian believes strongly in the First Amendment and the right of free speech, and it welcomes vigorous debate about matters impacting Clark County. But the Columbian cannot stand by and allow its copyrighted materials to be stolen and posted on your site without its permission."

The letter is signed by the attorney, and copied to Lou Brancaccio.

Attached is a "Settlement Agreement" with five conditions I am expected to comply with, the fifth being that I attach a personal check for the amount of $400 dollars, to cover the costs of the Columbian's attorney fees. I have no intention of signing this agreement, or paying for the Columbian's attorney fees.

Again, this site is not a business, and it does not make money off of anything that is posted here, therefore no copyright violation is possible. It is apparent that the Columbian is willing to throw $400 dollars worth of attorney weight at this, so I am willing to strike a compromise that can possibly avoid a long, nasty, public legal kerfluffle that I believe the Columbian's marketing people would truly rather avoid.


Effective this morning, I have removed the banner from the Index page of this weblog that the Columbian took such offence to, and I will refrain from using it in the future. It sends an incorrect message about Clarkblog.org, and while amusing, it is unneccesary for the site to use it further.

I acknowledge that I have not been in compliance with either the spirit or the meaning of this FAQ here at Clarkblog.org. To be truthful, today is the first time I have even opened this thread since Louis posted it last year, and shame on me for that.

Effective immediately, I pledge to comply with the rules as this FAQ describes, and use a headline, excerpt, and original link back to that article. I cannot and will not agree to the restrictive consition that the Columbian and Mr. Brancaccio are attempting to impose on this weblog. Clarkblog.org is not a business entity like the Daily Outsider, or Democracy for Vancouver, that make money off of the advertising that they sponsor and the hotlinks to their business partner, the Columbian.

The Columbian has also accused me of unfair competition. I cannot for the life of me understand that one! 95 people have become "members" of Clarkblog.org in order to be able to comment about anything I have to say here, whether it is my latest findings from the last Port of Vancouver forum I attended, to the temperature of my compost pile. Considering that the record for the most people on line at any time here was 6 members, I hardly see that competing with the Columbian's circulation of 30,000.

There are any number of you out there who are still upset with me for suggesting that you were foolish to cancel your subscriptions to the Columbian after the Library Bond measure last September!! If anything, I have promoted their readership.

So in the interest of avoiding much nastiness, I am going to observe a quiet and blessed Easter weekend, and on a go-forward basis, I will file off some of the rougher edges here at Clarkblog and comply with the spirit of this basic Clarkblog FAQ. I urge the Columbian to have a blessed Easter as well, and work with me now to defuse what could become a rather messy affair.

My apologies for not following our own rules. My readers have my pledge that henceforth, I will comply.

Chief