Original website/blog content is protected by copyright. You generally need copyright owners' consent to make copies, which is entailed by the actions in (a) quoting, (c) taking screen shots and (d) forwarding by email. Check whether any policy or terms of use on the website/blog address this. You should contact the website/blog owner if in doubt.

On the other hand, you can make copies without the express consent of copyright owners if it is a situation of "fair dealing" as determined by the Court, or if it is done for the purpose of criticism or review.

For example, if you share an opinion on someone else's blog entry in your personal website, you may be able to upload and refer to relevant parts of that blog entry under the latter exception. In such a case, you will need to identify the title and author of the blog entry. If the copyright owner takes legal action against you, it is for the Court to decide whether on the evidence, you have genuinely uploaded the content for the purpose of criticism or review such that the exception applies.

Checking the policy or terms of use on the website/blog and contacting the website/blog owner if in doubt are useful, practical steps to apply to the issue of linking in (b) as well. Generally speaking, copyright owners could welcome links to their personal website/blog if there are no other commercial or privacy concerns.

As a point of caution, you should be careful not to create links to websites/blogs which may carry content that infringes copyright. In such a case, you yourself might infringe copyright by "authorising infringement", in that others make unauthorised copies of the content using the link on your website/blog.

a.  You can certainly control how your copyright material is used.  There are many ways to exercise this control as a copyright owner, so you should give it some thought and then communicate your policy clearly on your blog. There is no fixed format that a licence must take. The more important thing is to communicate your intention clearly.

For example, do you want your work to be freely distributed without any conditions, to maximise your reach without bothering about dollars and cents?  Or do you want to restrict use to only non-commercial distribution and copying? Will you allow others to modify your work? Under what circumstances?

For some ideas, Creative Commons (CC), a non-profit organisation, offers a range of flexible copyright licenses for creative works You may even consider adopting one of CC’s licences if it suits your needs (see http://creativecommons.org/). As discussed above, however, there is no fixed format for a licence and a CC licence is only one of the ways to go about controlling your copyright work.

b.  It depends on the policy you adopt for your blog.  If a reader leaves a comment, there is at least an implied licence that she allows her comment to be viewed on your blog.  If you intend to use your readers’ comments beyond this, you should state so clearly on your blog.  After all, original comments by readers belong to them, not you.

In general, the person who took the picture, or, in the case of an article, its author, is the copyright owner. Hence, if you took the picture or wrote the article yourself, you own the copyright. If someone else took the picture or wrote the article, the fact that you uploaded the picture or article does not make you the copyright owner. In fact, you would need the copyright owner's permission before uploading the picture or article.

Citizen journalist websites have their own policies regarding copyright issues and this may vary from site to site. You should be familiar with these policies (sometimes referred to as "Copyright Policy" or "Terms and Conditions of Use" on the sites) before using the sites.

Often, citizen journalist websites expressly require you not to be in breach of copyright law when you upload material. Thus, you should be careful to upload only copyright material that you own, or for which clearance has been given, or where an exception applies. Through their stated copyright policy or terms and conditions of use, citizen journalist websites also typically obtain your license to reproduce and distribute the material you uploaded without the need to check with you each time they do so.

It depends. For instance, live sports events in themselves are not protected by copyright. Hence, you will not infringe copyright by taking and uploading photos and videos that you took at the sports event itself. On the other hand, broadcasts of sports events are protected by copyright. If you take videos of these broadcasts, and upload them onto your personal website/blog, you will infringe copyright in the broadcasts.

As for live concerts, if you take videos at the concerts themselves, you run the risk of infringing the underlying musical and literary works when you upload them onto your website/blog. The exception is if it is a situation of "fair dealing " as determined by the Court or if it is done for the purpose of criticism or review, which may be relevant in relation to websites/blogs where opinions are often expressed. In the latter case, you need to make a sufficient acknowledgement of the work used. Further, if the copyright owner takes legal action against you, it is for the Court to decide whether on the evidence, you have genuinely uploaded relevant parts of the material for the purpose of criticism or review such that the exception applies.

The above acts involve making copies of the copyright-protected music, songs, videos and movies. Hence, copyright will be infringed unless it is a situation of "fair dealing " as determined by the Court or if it is done for the purpose of criticism or review, which may be relevant in scenario (a) where opinions are often expressed. In the latter case, you need to make a sufficient acknowledgement of the work used. Further, if the copyright owner takes legal action against you, it is for the Court to decide whether on the evidence, you have genuinely uploaded relevant parts of the material for the purpose of criticism or review such that the exception applies.

If the abovementioned exceptions do not apply, you should proceed only with consent from the copyright owners. Otherwise, you run the risk of infringing copyright.

You may do so if the terms and conditions of use so allow (e.g. "You may use this image for personal, non-commercial purposes but please always acknowledge my copyright and include my contact details in your use"). Look for these terms and conditions on the website.

If the terms and conditions do not address your intended use of the images, you may also contact the copyright owners directly for consent. This is needed because copyright in images includes the right to make copies and to communicate them, such as when you upload them onto your website/blog. Doing so without the copyright owner's permission will infringe his exclusive rights.

The exception is if it is a situation of "fair dealing " as determined by the Court or if it is done for the purpose of criticism or review, which may be relevant in relation to websites/blogs where opinions are often expressed. In the latter case, a sufficient acknowledgement of the image by its title/description and author is needed. If the copyright owner takes legal action against you, it is for the Court to decide whether on the evidence, you have genuinely uploaded the images for the purpose of criticism or review such that the exception applies.

Articles from newspapers, books and other forms of publications are protected by copyright. You generally need the copyright owners' consent to make copies on your website/blog. The copyright owner may be the publisher, or the individual author, especially if he/she is a freelancer. You should check with the publisher if in doubt. Merely acknowledging the source will not be enough to avoid infringing copyright in the publications.

The exception is if it is a situation of "fair dealing " as determined by the Court, or if it is done for the purpose of criticism or review. For example, if you share an opinion on a particular magazine feature in your blog, you may upload and refer to relevant parts of that feature under the latter exception. In such a case, you will need to identify the title and author of the magazine feature. If the copyright owner takes legal action against you, it is for the Court to decide whether on the evidence, you have genuinely uploaded the article for the purpose of criticism or review such that the exception applies.

Original internet content is protected by copyright, just as other original content in printed form. You generally need copyright owners' consent to copy their internet content. Check whether any policy or terms of use on the website/blog address this.

On the other hand, you can copy the content without the express consent of copyright owners if it is done for purposes of research or study.

However, the amount copied must be a "reasonable portion" of the original work. Under our copyright law, this means you can only copy up to 10% of the number of pages, words or bytes on the one hand, or one chapter on the other hand, whichever is more.

If you copy more than a "reasonable portion" of the internet content for your research, this may still be allowed if it is a situation of "fair dealing " as determined by the Court. As a practical point, if you need to copy more than a "reasonable portion", it is prudent to contact the copyright owner for clearance at the outset, if the policy or terms of use on the website/blog do not address this.

Generally, a tribute video would reproduce parts of the films in the series as well as perform part of the underlying script; further uploading it on YouTube involves communication, which is the copyright owners' exclusive right. If the parts used are substantial in terms of their distinctiveness and importance to the original series, it may be a case of copyright infringement.

On the other hand, tribute videos may be allowed, without the copyright owners' consent, if the Courts find that they qualify as "fair dealing ".

From a practical perspective, the stance of different copyright owners in relation to tribute videos will vary. Some may believe that tribute videos enhance the value of their original works and boost sales. Such copyright owners are more likely not to do anything against you. Then there are others who want to safeguard the integrity of their original works, exercise stronger control and not tolerate unauthorised versions or adaptations in circulation. These may take legal action to enforce their copyright.

Copying images and text from the movie/book infringes copyright if the parts taken are substantial. Further uploading them onto your blog/website could also infringe because that involves communication, which is the copyright owners' exclusive right.

The exception is if it is a situation of "fair dealing " as determined by the Court, or if it is done for the purpose of criticism. For example, if your parody expresses a criticism of the work from which the character is parodied, you may be able to upload your parody under the latter exception. In such a case, you will need to identify the title and author of the source. If the copyright owner takes legal action against you, it is for the Court to decide whether on the evidence, you have genuinely uploaded the parody for the purpose of criticism such that the exception applies.

In general, the maker of a video owns the copyright to it. When a video-recording is posted onto a website, a copy is made. This involves the reproduction right of the copyright owner.  Further, the communication right is involved as the video is made available on the Internet. Thus, if you want to post the video-recording onto websites like YouTube and you are not the maker of the video, you should get the consent of the copyright owner.

Apart from copyright concerns, you may also want to consider Internet safety and personal privacy issues before posting the video-recording for the world at large to view.

When you upload a photograph onto your personal website/blog, you are both making a copy of a copyright work, as well as communicating it to the public. Since these actions are exclusive to the copyright owner, you should obtain his/her agreement before uploading.

Who is the copyright owner? Usually, the person who takes the photograph owns the copyright. For example, if the shot is from your friend's personal travel album, he is the right person to approach for consent. However, if your friend was commissioned to take the photograph by another person who pays him, that other person is the copyright owner, not your friend, unless their contract states otherwise. In the latter case, your friend will have no right to "agree" to you uploading the photograph onto your website/blog.

One has to exercise caution in relation to content available on the Internet. Not everything free is legal; and not everything technically possible is legally in the clear. It is easy for almost anybody to make content available on the Internet. Some of these are legitimate copyright owners or their licensees. Others, however, are not. For example, there are those who steal broadcast signals from authorised sources and transmit them online illegally.

This has an impact on you because when you watch content online via streaming technology, a temporary copy of the programme is made on your computer. You may recall that reproduction is one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights. If the programme is communicated without the copyright owner's consent (e.g. in the example of signal theft above), then the temporary copy on your computer infringes copyright. In other words, if the source is infringing, the temporary copy on your computer will also be infringing. If the source is authorised, the temporary copy on your computer is recognised as an exception under our copyright law and is therefore non-infringing.

In view of this, you should be careful and check before watching content available online. It may not always be possible to tell if the source is legitimate. If you do not receive a clear and satisfactory response from the people responsible for putting up the content, it is best to avoid watching it.