I have a question for you authors..

[Bamagan]

Why that same principle doesn't apply to Forum linked content, I don't know, but that's what I picked up at one point.

That one's pretty easy to take a stab at. You can post links in the forum because you're not asserting copyright claims to forum posts, or at least, not in the same way as you are when you post a story. Including a quote or some song lyrics in your stories is well-established as reasonable use of material copyrighted by someone else. A link to a performance inside a copyrighted story is different. I don't know if that's been adjudicated by a court yet, but I can easily see why LE would not be interested in being caught in the middle.
Anyway, that's my guess. Emily's #3 is, I think, the overriding concern of the site. Your ability to assert a copyright over your entire story is potentially compromised by including links to outside material, at least unless you can prove it's licensed use (or open license). Different rules for the forum, since it's 'inward-facing.'

 

[KeithD]

Your ability to assert a copyright over your entire story is potentially compromised by including links to outside material, at least unless you can prove it's licensed use (or open license). Different rules for the forum, since it's 'inward-facing.'

*sigh* Links to copyrighted material are not a violation of copyright. Copyright covers the actual material, not anything mentioning it or pointing to it.

 

[SimonDoom]

. Your ability to assert a copyright over your entire story is potentially compromised by including links to outside material, at least unless you can prove it's licensed use (or open license). Different rules for the forum, since it's 'inward-facing.'

KeithD is right. It's not a copyright issue, because merely linking to another off-site web page that contains copyrighted material is not copyright infringement. See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007). If you intentionally link to content that you KNOW to be infringing, then you may be liable for contributory infringement. I suspect Literotica doesn't want to get involved in any of that, so it has its policy of not allowing linking. But it's really a matter of Literotica policy rather than a matter of risk of copyright infringement.

I think the best way for the Site to handle this issue would be to continue to disallow direct linking but to encourage authors in a preface to say enough about the song on which the story is based that a curious reader easily can find it. That can be done without providing an active link. It's just a 5-second extra step for the reader to find the active link.

 

[firmbutgentle]

I kinda suggested that they might make an exception for this event. But there are multiple reasons why not:

1. The general policy is no off-site links in stories - if they make an exception for this, there will be other requests
2. You would end up with dead links as YT is pretty volatile
3. There are probably copyright and content concerns
4. Most pertinent in my mind - you maybe force the song down the reader’s throat, rather than letting your story paint a picture

Em

There's another consideration: Clicking through to a Google property could expose you more than you'd think, especially if your browser has login cookies for it already.

 

[Bamagan]

KeithD is right. It's not a copyright issue, because merely linking to another off-site web page that contains copyrighted material is not copyright infringement. See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007). If you intentionally link to content that you KNOW to be infringing, then you may be liable for contributory infringement. I suspect Literotica doesn't want to get involved in any of that, so it has its policy of not allowing linking. But it's really a matter of Literotica policy rather than a matter of risk of copyright infringement.

I think the best way for the Site to handle this issue would be to continue to disallow direct linking but to encourage authors in a preface to say enough about the song on which the story is based that a curious reader easily can find it. That can be done without providing an active link. It's just a 5-second extra step for the reader to find the active link.

I don't stay up to date on this stuff because I dislike quibbling over details, especially legal ones. But the 'server test' established in that case applies only to the 9th circuit, and it's still undergoing challenges. A relevant quote from a related case a few weeks back:

The Ninth Circuit also noted that it had previously applied the server test beyond search engines, including to images embedded in blogs and online bulletin boards. The Ninth Circuit did recognize that several district courts outside of the Ninth Circuit have rejected or limited the server test and that no other Circuit had explicitly adopted the test.

The full text is here if anyone wants to read it. And here is some other stuff about the questions still surrounding the issues of links and embedding.
I'm not going to get drawn any further into the legal weeds than to say I don't believe the issue is truly settled yet. I think it's wise to avoid the potential of being accused of contributory copyright infringement (granted, that requires knowingly committing the offense, but with most everyone here behind an alias that adds an additional layer of complexity if the copyright holder tries to contact someone with a legitimate cease and desist or similar, as I don't think a DM through the website counts). I suppose there is even a chance of being accused of defamation or something, if the artist being referred to doesn't like being associated with erotic content (not sure how big of a reach that would be for them).
This is already more research than I wanted to do this morning to show why I'm leery of putting links in anything I can be legally attached to. I'm fine if you disagree or feel confident that your interpretation is unassailable. I'm from a class of people that the law tends to grind up in its gears, where any legal victory is Pyrrhic at best, so I tend to try to steer well clear, if I can.

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't stay up to date on this stuff because I dislike quibbling over details, especially legal ones. But the 'server test' established in that case applies only to the 9th circuit, and it's still undergoing challenges. A relevant quote from a related case a few weeks back:

The full text is here if anyone wants to read it. And here is some other stuff about the questions still surrounding the issues of links and embedding.
I'm not going to get drawn any further into the legal weeds than to say I don't believe the issue is truly settled yet. I think it's wise to avoid the potential of being accused of contributory copyright infringement (granted, that requires knowingly committing the offense, but with most everyone here behind an alias that adds an additional layer of complexity if the copyright holder tries to contact someone with a legitimate cease and desist or similar, as I don't think a DM through the website counts). I suppose there is even a chance of being accused of defamation or something, if the artist being referred to doesn't like being associated with erotic content (not sure how big of a reach that would be for them).
This is already more research than I wanted to do this morning to show why I'm leery of putting links in anything I can be legally attached to. I'm fine if you disagree or feel confident that your interpretation is unassailable. I'm from a class of people that the law tends to grind up in its gears, where any legal victory is Pyrrhic at best, so I tend to try to steer well clear, if I can.

Putting aside the legal details, I suspect that Laurel and Manu share some of the concerns and don't want to undertake even the slight risk of legal exposure. Makes sense.

 

[gunhilltrain]

All valid reasons. The primary reason, I believe (from discussion in the past), is to prevent people linking to content off-site which might be innocuous at first, but the content owner subsequently changes that content, and all of a sudden Lit finds itself a conduit to foul and despicable content.

Why that same principle doesn't apply to Forum linked content, I don't know, but that's what I picked up at one point.

It's possible, but how often does that that situation happen? Often links just go dead and lead to a 404 message or something similar. Of course, I can't prove that.

Foul and despicable content? In the opinions of some people, Lit already has a considerable amount of that.

 

[Trionyx]

All the discussion about copyright law, links, LE rules aside, it’s easy to put in a short paragraph at the end of the story about the song. I have included info about who wrote the song and some of the singers who have performed along with my editorial remarks about the song and performers. Anyone who can navigate to the end of the story can surely copy the song title and look it up on YouTube if they so desire.

 

[ElectricBlue]

KeithD is right. It's not a copyright issue, because merely linking to another off-site web page that contains copyrighted material is not copyright infringement. See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007). If you intentionally link to content that you KNOW to be infringing, then you may be liable for contributory infringement. I suspect Literotica doesn't want to get involved in any of that, so it has its policy of not allowing linking. But it's really a matter of Literotica policy rather than a matter of risk of copyright infringement.

I think the best way for the Site to handle this issue would be to continue to disallow direct linking but to encourage authors in a preface to say enough about the song on which the story is based that a curious reader easily can find it. That can be done without providing an active link. It's just a 5-second extra step for the reader to find the active link.

I don't think it's got anything to do with copyright at all. I think it's more to do with NOT wanting to Link to dodgy content elsewhere. Which is also, I believe, why Lit doesn't allow authors to edit their own content, once a story has been published. It must go through the site first.

 

[Anton25]

Thanks for your answer...'the girl who is driving me mad..'

https://literotica.com/s/ticket-to-ride-5

 

[onehitwanda]

https://literotica.com/s/ticket-to-ride-5

dude. Can you stop repeatedly linking your new work? We get it. Once was enough.

 

[SimonDoom]

https://literotica.com/s/ticket-to-ride-5

This sounds like a smart way to do it, because if you offer commentary about the song, then you can more plausibly claim that it is a fair use of any of the material you reproduce and comment on.

 

[Euphony]

dude. Can you stop repeatedly linking your new work? We get it. Once was enough.

• Today at 10:10 AM
• Today at 10:11 AM
• Today at 10:12 AM
• Today at 10:13 AM
• Today at 10:13 AM

TIL: Posting Tourette's is a thing.

 

[Anton25]

dude. Can you stop repeatedly linking your new work? We get it. Once was enough.

Sorry!

 

[MillieDynamite]

Highly doubtful that the songwriter will agree with you. There is no fair use exclusion on song lyrics or for audio use of the song without written permission of the artist and songwriter. But, if they don't see it, you be fine.

This sounds like a smart way to do it, because if you offer commentary about the song, then you can more plausibly claim that it is a fair use of any of the material you reproduce and comment on.

 

[alohadave]

There is no fair use exclusion on song lyrics or for audio use of the song without written permission of the artist and songwriter.

Fair use covers all copyrighted items. It doesn't need to specify the form.

Quoting for commentary is covered under fair use. You can always be sued for infringement, and you'd have to convince the court that your usage falls under fair use.

 

[MillieDynamite]

The fair use exception to copyright laws is designed to promote free expression by allowing portions of copyrighted works to be reprinted in other works without having to get permission. But when it comes to novelists using bits of song lyrics, the legal advice you’ll find in blogs and the like is clear and consistent: DON’T DO IT. Never, no exceptions, forget about it—unless you get permission, of course. But good luck trying to do that, especially if you’re an indie author with a limited budget.

Article
Just saying, not wise, unless you have deep pockets.

Fair use covers all copyrighted items. It doesn't need to specify the form.

Quoting for commentary is covered under fair use. You can always be sued for infringement, and you'd have to convince the court that your usage falls under fair use.

Songwriters are the most likely to sue your ass. But again, the likelihood that Paul McCartney is going to read your story with lines from Live and Let Die here is small. But he has been known to sue over copyrights he holds, including Happy Birthday, which he bought long ago.