I too regularly read (or at least skim through) the Newslines and appreciate the centralized collection of interesting happenings in the railroad world.

The only thing I worry about is that technically this is a violation of copyright law, unless you are receiving specific permission from each newspaper to reprint their materials (or are a member of the Associated Press and receive the stories via the AP wire--not likely for a private individual).

I highly doubt any legal activity would come of it, since it's such a small audience, but to more fully comply with copyright law (which is annoying but is the law, like it or not), it would be better (if a bit more tedious for us) to excerpt a snippet (say, the first paragraph, which should fall under fair use guidelines) and then provide a link to the article on each paper's website.

According to U.S. copyright law, the four tests for fair use are:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The Newsline passes the first two tests with flying colors; however, it probably fails test three (since you're using the entire work, although the purpose could be construed to be fair and reasonable criticism--ambiguity is the wonder of the American legal system) and probably fails test four (the papers are losing potential advertising revenue from the dozen or hundred or whatever people who read the articles here versus the articles on each paper's Web site).

The above-linked Wikipedia article notes:

Quote:

Free Republic, LLC, owner of the political website freerepublic.com, was found liable for copyright infringement in L.A. Times v. Free Republic for reproducing and archiving full-text versions of plaintiffs' news articles even though the judge found the website minimally commercial. She held that "while defendants' do not necessarily 'exploit' the articles for commercial gain, their posting to the Free Republic site allows defendants and other visitors to avoid paying the 'customary price' charged for the works."

I would presume that was a similar case to what is found here.

Additionally, see the section of the Wikipedia article entitled Common Misconceptions.