Copilot:
Blogger; Google just sent out a notice of new enforcement policies to come into effect Dec 16, 2026. I read through and found I was clean on everything, although I am not clear about copyright. Given that my blog's audience might include the elderly and Francophones with limited English, I follow the very latest and sometimes re-run articles from newspapers, using an archive.ph version of otherwise protected content. Should I stop doing this??
My short answer: yes, I would strongly consider stopping the practice of republishing full newspaper articles that are still under copyright, even if you are sourcing them from archive.ph rather than the newspaper's website.
Here's why.
archive.ph does not remove copyright protection. An article remains copyrighted whether you read it on the newspaper's site, an archive site, a library database, or a photocopy. The venue changes; the copyright status does not.
For Blogger, Google states that it complies with legal requirements and removes content that violates its policies, including copyright claims. A copyright holder can file a complaint and Blogger may remove the content or take action against the blog.
The risk is not necessarily that Google's new enforcement policies specifically target what you're doing. The risk is that:
A publisher notices.
They file a copyright complaint.
Blogger receives a valid notice.
The content is removed and repeated complaints could affect the blog.
What is usually safer?
✅ Quoting excerpts and then adding your own commentary, explanation, or translation.
✅ Linking to the original article (and perhaps also mentioning that an archived version exists for readers who encounter a paywall).
✅ Summarising the article in your own words, especially if your goal is to make English-language news accessible to Francophones or elderly readers.
✅ Translating selected short passages and discussing them.
Less safe:
❌ Republishing the entire article, even if you credit the newspaper.
❌ Republishing an archive.ph copy verbatim.
❌ Reproducing most of the article while only changing a few words.
There is also a practical consideration. If your audience consists of elderly readers and Francophones, your unique value is probably not acting as a mirror of newspaper content. Your value is likely that you:
curate important stories,
explain them,
translate key points,
provide context.
That kind of original work is both more defensible and more useful to readers.
If I were running the blog, I'd adopt a simple rule:
"Never republish a complete newspaper article unless I have permission. Instead, quote limited portions, attribute the source, and provide my own summary and analysis."
That would substantially reduce the copyright risk while preserving the service you're providing to your audience.
Do you know whether your blog is currently reproducing entire articles or mainly long excerpts plus commentary? The risk level is quite different between those two situations.
I don't do it often, and I might pick a short piece that is readable, or funny!!
In that case, the practical risk is much lower than if you were routinely copying entire investigative pieces or paywalled features.
If you're occasionally reposting a very short newspaper item, especially one that is mostly being shared because it's amusing, odd, or of local interest, the publisher is less likely to notice or object. However, from a strict copyright perspective, the article is still protected whether it's long or short.
A safer approach would be:
Reproduce only a brief excerpt.
Identify the newspaper and author if known.
Add your own introduction or commentary.
Summarise the rest in your own words.
Link to the source (or discuss where it appeared).
For example, instead of republishing a 300-word humorous column, you might quote 50-100 words and then write:
"This story amused me because..."
"For my French-speaking readers, the gist is that..."
That transforms the post from a copy into something genuinely your own.
Also, consider your audience. If many readers are elderly or have limited English, a French summary of an English article is often more valuable than the article itself. You're providing interpretation and accessibility rather than republication.
If you've only done this occasionally over the years, I would not panic and start deleting your archive overnight. But going forward, I would gradually move towards short quotations plus your own summary and reaction rather than reproducing complete newspaper pieces. That's generally a much safer long-term habit for a Blogger site.
Ironically, the funnier and shorter an article is, the easier it often is to summarise. A two-paragraph "man arrested after calling police to complain about being arrested" type story can usually be retold in a few sentences without copying the publisher's text at all. 😊
I do appreciate that some important news sites might be conflicted about it all. The New York Times has some freebies everyday, and knows how to block archiving sites. But they will also allow a few piece to be accessed in this way every month...one gets an allowance. But this is an exception! The Wall Street Journal blocks completely, but they do put the essential information from a piece on the site...
I think you're putting your finger on something important: there is a difference between the legal copyright question and the practical publishing ecosystem.
Many newspapers have effectively made business decisions about access. The New York Times, for example, allows some free access and has technical measures it can deploy against scraping or archiving. Other publishers are more permissive. Others, such as the Wall Street Journal, are famously strict with paywalls and access controls. That's part of each publisher's strategy.
But from your perspective as a Blogger publisher, I'd separate three situations:
1. Reading archived articles for your own research
Very common.
Low risk for you as a reader.
Helps you verify facts and preserve access to material that may later disappear.
2. Linking readers to archived articles
More controversial.
Some publishers dislike it because it bypasses advertising or subscription models.
However, you are not reproducing the article yourself.
3. Copying the article onto your own blog
This is where the copyright risk becomes much higher.
Now you're not merely directing readers elsewhere; you're creating a second publication of the copyrighted text.
What strikes me from what you've described is that your motivation does not sound exploitative. You're not running a content farm. You're trying to make interesting material available to readers who may:
have limited English,
be elderly,
have difficulty navigating paywalls,
simply appreciate a humorous clipping.
That sympathetic purpose may matter morally, but unfortunately copyright law generally focuses more on the act of reproduction than on whether the copier had good intentions.
If I were in your position, I would probably evolve towards a style something like this:
"The New York Times reports that..."
"Here is the amusing part..."
short quotation
"For my French-speaking readers, the article explains that..."
your own summary and commentary
That preserves almost all of the value for your audience while greatly reducing your exposure.
And frankly, as a reader, I'd probably rather hear your take. Anyone can repost a newspaper article. A long-time blogger who says, "Here's what happened, here's why it amused me, and here's a French-language explanation," is providing something original.
One final thought: if you've only occasionally reposted a short, humorous news item over the years, I doubt that is the sort of thing most publishers spend much effort chasing. Going forward, though, Google's increasing emphasis on policy enforcement is probably a good reason to adopt the "quote briefly, then summarise" model rather than reproducing complete articles. It's the conservative approach and it's easier to defend if anyone ever asks questions.
The US has 'fair use' laws on this. What is the situation in Canada?
Canada has something similar, but it's not the same as the U.S. "fair use" doctrine.
The U.S. system is relatively flexible. Courts weigh factors and can sometimes find a use fair even when it does not fall into a specific category.
Canada's system is called"fair dealing", and it is generally narrower. The use must first fit within certain purposes listed in the Copyright Act, such as research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review, or news reporting. Then the use must also be considered fair.
For bloggers, two categories are particularly relevant:
Criticism or review
News reporting
When relying on these exceptions, Canadian law requires identification of the source and, where provided, the author's name.
The courts also look at factors such as:
how much of the work was copied,
whether there were alternatives,
how widely it was distributed,
whether the use affects the market for the original work.
For your blogging practice, I'd look at it this way:
Likely stronger fair-dealing argument
"The Wall Street Journal published a piece on bond yields. Here are two paragraphs that I want to discuss. For my francophone readers, here is a French summary and my commentary."
That looks much more like criticism, review, news reporting, or commentary. You're using part of the work and adding something of your own.
Much weaker fair-dealing argument
Republishing an entire New York Times article from archive.ph so your readers can read it without visiting the Times.
At that point, you're much closer to substituting for the original publication, which is one of the things courts may consider when assessing fairn
I should also mention one interesting Canadian wrinkle. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly described fair dealing as a"user's right", not merely a narrow loophole, so Canadian law is not hostile to fair dealing. At the same time, it is not as open-ended as American fair use.
From what you've described, I suspect your French summaries and commentary are your strongest position. If your goal is helping elderly or francophone readers understand articles they might not otherwise read, that is exactly the sort of original contribution that distinguishes your blog from a simple republication site.
As a practical matter, if I were running your blog under Canadian law, I would feel quite comfortable with:
brief quotations,
attribution,
links,
French-language summaries,
discussion and commentary,
and much less comfortable with posting a complete newspaper article, even an amusing short one. That's where the copyright risk starts to rise.
Copilot said:
Canada has something similar, but it's not the same as the U.S. "fair use" doctrine.
The U.S. system is relatively flexible. Courts weigh factors and can sometimes find a use fair even when it does not fall into a specific category.
Canada's system is called"fair dealing", and it is generally narrower. The use must first fit within certain purposes listed in the Copyright Act, such as research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review, or news reporting. Then the use must also be considered fair.
For bloggers, two categories are particularly relevant:
- Criticism or review
- News reporting
When relying on these exceptions, Canadian law requires identification of the source and, where provided, the author's name.
The courts also look at factors such as:
- how much of the work was copied,
- whether there were alternatives,
- how widely it was distributed,
- whether the use affects the market for the original work.
For your blogging practice, I'd look at it this way:
Likely stronger fair-dealing argument
"The Wall Street Journal published a piece on bond yields. Here are two paragraphs that I want to discuss. For my francophone readers, here is a French summary and my commentary."
That looks much more like criticism, review, news reporting, or commentary. You're using part of the work and adding something of your own.
Much weaker fair-dealing argument
Republishing an entire New York Times article from archive.ph so your readers can read it without visiting the Times.
At that point, you're much closer to substituting for the original publication, which is one of the things courts may consider when assessing fairness.
I should also mention one interesting Canadian wrinkle. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly described fair dealing as a"user's right", not merely a narrow loophole, so Canadian law is not hostile to fair dealing. At the same time, it is not as open-ended as American fair use.
From what you've described, I suspect your French summaries and commentary are your strongest position. If your goal is helping elderly or francophone readers understand articles they might not otherwise read, that is exactly the sort of original contribution that distinguishes your blog from a simple republication site.
As a practical matter, if I were running your blog under Canadian law, I would feel quite comfortable with:
- brief quotations,
- attribution,
- links,
- French-language summaries,
- discussion and commentary,
and much less comfortable with posting a complete newspaper article, even an amusing short one. That's where the copyright risk starts to rise.
Copilot said:
Canada has something similar, but it's not the same as the U.S. "fair use" doctrine.
The U.S. system is relatively flexible. Courts weigh factors and can sometimes find a use fair even when it does not fall into a specific category.
Canada's system is called"fair dealing", and it is generally narrower. The use must first fit within certain purposes listed in the Copyright Act, such as research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review, or news reporting. Then the use must also be considered fair.
For bloggers, two categories are particularly relevant:
- Criticism or review
- News reporting
When relying on these exceptions, Canadian law requires identification of the source and, where provided, the author's name.
The courts also look at factors such as:
- how much of the work was copied,
- whether there were alternatives,
- how widely it was distributed,
- whether the use affects the market for the original work.
For your blogging practice, I'd look at it this way:
Likely stronger fair-dealing argument
"The Wall Street Journal published a piece on bond yields. Here are two paragraphs that I want to discuss. For my francophone readers, here is a French summary and my commentary."
That looks much more like criticism, review, news reporting, or commentary. You're using part of the work and adding something of your own.
Much weaker fair-dealing argument
Republishing an entire New York Times article from archive.ph so your readers can read it without visiting the Times.
At that point, you're much closer to substituting for the original publication, which is one of the things courts may consider when assessing fairness.
I should also mention one interesting Canadian wrinkle. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly described fair dealing as a"user's right", not merely a narrow loophole, so Canadian law is not hostile to fair dealing. At the same time, it is not as open-ended as American fair use.
From what you've described, I suspect your French summaries and commentary are your strongest position. If your goal is helping elderly or francophone readers understand articles they might not otherwise read, that is exactly the sort of original contribution that distinguishes your blog from a simple republication site.
As a practical matter, if I were running your blog under Canadian law, I would feel quite comfortable with:
- brief quotations,
- attribution,
- links,
- French-language summaries,
- discussion and commentary,
and much less comfortable with posting a complete newspaper article, even an amusing short one. That's where the copyright risk starts to rise.
