I wasn’t sure what the limits of free use of copyrighted material is now on FR. I’ve been away for awhile. I recall readers would follow the link to the source.
You recall readers would follow the link to the source?
Bless your heart.
I appreciate the post, but it is daily evident that very few respondents follow links, and instead comment on the lead, for which 100 words are allowed for most sources by FR, and 300 words all told, but which should refer to substantial works.
Often, as a guide, about 10% of copyrighted material is stated as what can provided (https://midway.libguides.com/copyright) but copyright law does not use that measure, as instead the nature, purpose, amount and commercial detriment to the author are factors which are used to determine how much can be copied.
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports.... There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See, Fair Use Index, and Circular 21, - https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html
Some people make their living hammering nails, and others on a keyboard, but the latter can be very easily reproduced and shared at virtually no or minute cost.
Seeing as FR is non-profit, despite volitional fund raising, and postings are for commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports, then it qualifies as a medium more favorable for Fair Use, but reviewing some of the above issue now, I would revise a previous exhortation to those who post thread (normally post as much of the meat of the article as allowed, describe videos, etc.) in which I exhorted normally using 100 word leads and 300 word total of excerpts of an excerpt of an article to provide the meat of the article, since 300 words may be too much for short articles and provide too much meat.
Yet lazily just copying and pasting the first few sentences, often with ads and or "follow us" type superfluity, is inconsiderate of others who look thru the up to 250 excerpts on the articles page for news and content worth reading.
However, no Christian source should prohibit (thus criminalizing it) freely, with no "strings," sharing their compositions, unchanged (comments in brackets), with accreditation (if found), but those who charge for such without permission and accreditation (and esp. if presenting it as their own) are criminals. aside from passing on learning from them.
In the article at issue, with 675 words (which the Word Count Extension for 🦊 Firefox or the Word Counter Plus extension for Chrome can show), then if the 10% guide is followed (67.5 words), then together with the headline, (which FR allows some expansion of)
"Elon Musk’s German Tesla plant suffers close to $1 billion in damages after attack by the ‘dumbest eco-terrorists on Earth" [.Arsonists calling themselves the Volcano Group] His factory manufactures the Model Y crossover.."The complete destruction of the Gigafactory and the lopping off of technofascists like 'Elend' Musk are a step on the path towards liberation from the patriarchy," the group said
then that would be 61 words, and which should eliminate ignorant comments while still inviting more investigation (to the very commericialized Yahoo). I myself often include the link to the source in my first comment though.