Discussions
Copyright | Unauthorized content
Posted by bibitoribio • 3/14/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Copyright : legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same. A legal concept, enacted by most work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time. Generally, it is “the right to copy”, but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other, related rights. Must the story publish on website or news paper have a copyright for the content. Must of the people copy this information, article or publication on the on website without permission of the owner or company. Well today by mistake i didn’t linkback a story that i post in my blog , although it was not my intention of using that informations as mine and just to be clear, if a story is not mine i always make sure to put the name of the source, but today is one of those day that i forgot, and for that mistake i have a reply back of Unauthorized use of content from a website that i won’t mention today because they have been really nice about it and i don’t what to make it more big than what it is, i writing this just to make awareness of this big matter that happen to me today and it can happen to you tomorrow. Still don’t know where this going to end up but i hope for the best. I will keep posting and trying to bring the best i can find and always not forget to linkback. That’s my new thing “LINKBACK” or write my own story, of course, something hard but i will try.
User Comments
-
Advice or comment are welcome and useful!!!
-
It's just such a big paragraph, it's a lot to get through on-screen. That's probably why it's taking folks a while to respond.
It sounds like you had an important learning experience about double-checking to make sure any content you use online is attributed to the original owners.
It's always safer to write your own original material unless the material you're taking is something you've purchased the rights to, or reached an agreement with the author in advance. -
Trust me ! i was burn but is a Lesson Learned
-
It's a good one to share. Credit to you for that, and for fixing the situation.
-
Yeah, I can't read text like that. I need short paragraphs and white space on screen.
-
-
www.creativecommons.org is very good for copyrighting your work. -
Thanks SellyTAPGIRL!
-
i use mostly rss from flicr and youtube videos for my articles plus wikipedia info.On my sidebar i put a message about it. -
What about using google images along with your own text? I don't use them if they say copyrighted but what about other ones?-
They're copyrighted, unless they're over seventy years old or someone has explicitly placed them in the public domain.
-
One exception: thumbnails.
-
[oops]
-
-
Sorry, what do you mean by thumbnail - is that the small version before you enlarge it? And how do you know if its in the public domain?
-
You can use a substantially shrunk version of a copyrighted image.
-
Sorry - got lost in the sea of paragraphs.
Stoneman - How do you know that a thumbnail is in the public domain? I know that you can use exerpts of text and images in the context of a review - is that where thumbnails fall into play?
-
-
What about Fair Use?-
How would that work? Unlike an article or book, with a photo you are using the whole darn thing. Someone explained this issue in detail on an earlier thread this year, if anyone feels like using the search box on the right.
-
one example of fair use-- I use low resolution images of book covers in my book review posts. it is pretty established that using a cover image in a review is fair use, though of course IANAL, etc. -
That's a great example Alan. Reviews also constitute fair use.
-
-
Thanks stoneman, I'll check it out. Don't want to step on any toes.
Hazelnut -
Always, Always, Always give the pingback/trackback, It's just a common courtesy
-
Yeah. I went to the U.S. Copyright's website and what they had to say I'm not sure if it pertains to images as well... I was hoping you had some insight.
www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Err... this was in reply to Stoneman. I clicked wrong. -
Erm does using images from any sites require a linkback?-
You shouldn't be "using images from any sites' unless you have permission or they are more than 70 years old and no longer copyrighted.
-
-
But what if you save the picture and then upload it to your website ?
-
But what if you save the picture and then upload it to your website ?
==== No matter how, downloaded or uploaded it is still copyright infringement. -
Yeah, the only difference with having it on your own website is you are not hotlinking. That's good, but the copyright infringement is still bad.
-
-
I just want to clarify something because I've seen a few people asking about various actions "requiring a link back". The obligation to link back comes in when the copyright holder has authorized duplication on the condition that a link back is provided.
Beyond that, linking back is irrelevant--the issue is that it's illegal to duplicate copyrighted material without permission, except under certain very narrow circumstances. Linking back does not change that.-
Amen.
-
-
Here is a good site
www.ucsc.edu/matman/BusCon/copyrightothers.htm
And recently I came upon this discussion
photonictorpedoes.com/16-what-ive-gleaned-about-us-copyright-law.html
If you scroll down on the following "Lorelle" post there is a section on
"Copyright, Intellectual Property, and Licensing".
lorelle.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/blog-resources-researching-the-research-fi...-
Cooper - Thanks for this. I bookmarked these sites.
-
Jill: You're welcome. Lorelle has great stuff over there.
-
-
Then you have people like me, who won't take credit for work that isn't mine (otherwise known as plagiarism) but I also don't give a rat's patootie about copyright laws.
I use what I find, if it's something that supports my post or writing, and I give others free reign to use my stuff. I will often give credit where credit is due, provided I can find that information....-
Anok, that surprises me. It seems inconsistent with your positions on other issues and your general character that you'd feel free to decide for someone else that his or her rights in his creation don't matter. As a person who makes my living through my writing, I would be far more bothered and hurt by someone taking an article I wrote and reproducing it in a forum I hadn't approved than I would someone stealing my purse. Isn't the real issue the fact that the choice belongs to the creator? It's great that you want to give open license to use your work (though I suspect that you might feel differently if you found it used in a way that supported something you strongly opposed or some such), but that's your right as the creator--that's a different issue entirely from ignoring the rights of others.
-
First, I would state that responsible and fair use is a priority, that fits in with my overall ideology. Or, in other words, as long as it (the privilege) isn't being abused, then it's perfectly OK, and acceptable. Think about this, everyone uses and has used printed works or artworks to support a position they may have or are trying to make - we use it in research papers and dissertations all the time. This is fair use. Like Kiwi said, if people are utterly afraid that someone would use a snippet of their work, then maybe they shouldn't publish it in a medium such as the internet OR they need to apply for a real copyright/patent. (Meaning they have the legal right to use the copyright or patent [trademark] symbol next to their work).
I also think that if someone gives the credit where credit is due, then they are showing that they have no mal-intent for the material, and no intention of plagiarism, which would prove fair use.
One thing I learned about copyright and patent rights is that unless you've actually taken the time to fill out the application, go through the process, and pay the fee the copyright and patent laws that you guys talk about are null in void in a court of law. What most bloggers and/or internet folks have is a "poor man's copyright/patent" which can be thrown out as hearsay.
My husband and I a long time ago had a major problem with this little glitch in the copyright/patent system. We were battling his old band about the inappropriate use of the name (a patent) and the music (copyright). I knew enough about the law to bluff them, but I also knew that if they called my bluff, we'd lose in court. Luckily, they didn't know that.
The other lesson I learned from that was that when the new band tried using the old band's reputation to get gigs, they fell flat on their face. People felt like they had been cheated, because the new band was totally and completely horrid. So, after all that screaming and squirming, their shenanigans is what undid them.
I feel that the same is true with the unfair use of people's work. If someone were to copy my work, and use it for their own gain, as soon as I stopped writing or as soon as someone called them out on their bluff they'd be finished, because it isn't their work, and they can't back it up or continue to write they way they need to.
But let's face it, we write blogs - I for one am thrilled when someone reproduces my posts somewhere else. Alex Jones reproduced one of my articles in full on his truthoutnews website - totally without permission and I was honored! I also don't really see how my posts could be used to support something I am against. My posts are plain, and hard to misunderstand
So even if they went on a site that wasn't using it to praise me....I'd still feel like I'd done something right 
-
Anok, I have to say that you're simply wrong here. This isn't a matter of opinion--what you've expressed about the impossibility of enforcing copyrights if you haven't registered is simply inaccurate. As an attorney, a former journalist, a published author and someone who has done extensive writing in the music industry and dealt with licensing issues in that industry as well, I simply can't let the idea that "there's nothing you can do" stand. I don't know the particulars of your situation, and maybe for one reason or another you would have lost, but the idea that that's always the case if copyrights aren't registered is outrageous.
-
Not according to the laws on the copyright website. There is no guarantee that a poor man's copyright will hold up in a court of law. And anything other than a formal copyright, is a poor man's copyright.
reason being, is that there is no legal way to prove that either party in the dispute can actually lay claim to the material.
Is your book registered with the copyright office? (Does it carry the copyright information on the inner cover like all books do?) Publishers tend to do that automatically, unless they are of the Anarchist mindset
There is a reason for that. The publishers know they have to register the book with the copyright office to have any legal standing whatsoever in the event of a dispute, and no (decent) publisher will take the risk of printed material that could be subject to copyright violations of downright plagiarism.
By the way, you can also copyright a work, provided you have the required criteria even if the other person has a poor man's copyright. If the copyright office doesn't receive a dispute, or rules in favor of the applicant, the other person - even if they are the original creator - is out of luck.
That's why it is imperative that if you want to protect your work you apply for a REAL copyright, and don't rely on a blog publish with a date for a common or poor man's copyright. -
It's too late and I'm too tired to bicker the details right now. I have little tolerance for people who want to lecture me on how what they read on a website contradicts what I learned in three years of law school and several years of legal practice, anyway. I simply hope that no one here will be discouraged from exercising their legally protected rights by your misinterpretation.
The one specific thing I will say is that there is no "guarantee" that ANYTHING will "hold up in a court of law". You are correct that there is an evidentiary advantage to having registered copyrights, but it is nothing like what you suggest here. -
Tiffany is right. If you are going to look at a site, this would be one start with. www.copyright.gov/
Here is the most important part to what you said Anok:
Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See “Copyright Registration.” -
So you went to law school for copyright laws, explicitly? I know my attorney has absolutely zip for knowledge about copyright laws - because that is not what kind of law she practices
If there is no need for formal copyright protection, why do publishers use it, and insist on it? Why does the office even exist? (That question applies for your comment too Rich).
How can anything be copyrighted upon creation? There is no (legal) proof of intellectual ownership without some form of legal or tangible copyright evidence, and that is why copyright battles (Think, music downloads) are so gosh darned hard, long and drawn out. I've been through this personally.
If two people went to court, and one person had registered with the copyright office, and the other didn't, but had mailed a copy to herself or some other form of poor man's copyright - which person do YOU think would win in court?
What if two people went in, had both "published" an online article that was exactly the same, on exactly the same day, how would the court determine who has the copyright? They can't!
Would there be an absolute guarantee? Of course not - particularly if there is one slick lawyer involved...but actually having a legal claim, on paper, registered with the copyright department against say - the claim that you created it first...yeah, that's a slam dunk.
Discouragement not necessary, if people really want to legally protect their work, just apply for the copyright - they can use it for their whole blog, and everything in it. It costs a little money, and it takes about four months - but whalla! Protection issue solved - otherwise be prepared for people to quote you and snag your images, and if need be, just ask the person to take it down if it really bothers you! But all this bother over copyright, honestly...if it's that important, do it right.
But you never answered my question...does your published book have a proper Copyright? Would your publisher have published it without one? If not, why not?
(And, by the way, just because I didn't go to law school doesn't negate the fact that I do understand laws, in fact I've represented myself in court quite successfully, against a rather well known attorney at that - and I beat the law right out of him ) You shouldn't underestimate people just because they didn't take the same path as you -
"If two people went to court, and one person had registered with the copyright office, and the other didn't, but had mailed a copy to herself or some other form of poor man's copyright - which person do YOU think would win in court?"
Actually, I know how this works with trademarks because someone did register something very similar to our company's name before we did. When we requested the competing company allow our trademark (his registration did block ours at first), they attempted to extort a large sum of money because they thought the same thing you did. However, since we could prove our usage prior to his usage, despite not having a registered trademark, we would have taken him to court, won, and prevented him from using the name. When he learned that, he quickly changed his mind and agreed with us that peacefully coexisting was the better choice.
Mostly, I only entered this conversation because some of the ideas are so far from reality that I don't want other people getting themselves in trouble because they thought all content was a free-for-all unless it was registered. That is not true; not on any level. -
First of all, what I'm saying here isn't "out of touch with reality". The fact of the matter is that everything out there, particularly print is subject to fair use. You can quote books, and articles, and dissertations, and research findings, and song lyrics till you're blue in the face and be fully within your legal rights to do so, so long as you cite the source/author. They only way to honestly stop a person from using your work in a way "you don't like" legally, is to have an actual copyright. Meaning, yeah, you can send the person a message asking them to stop, but legally speaking? I'll doubt you'll even get a lawyer to take the case or a judge to hear it. Please bear in mind - I'm not talking about plagiarism here, I'm talking fair use. I'm talking about using a piece of someone else's work to support your own with citations, provided they have them. (on the internet there is no guarantee). The reality is that people who blog really do need to relax a little about this.
However,....There are a few differences here, that I'd like to point out, One, the names were similar not the same - which is different in the business world, two, you probably didn't just prove usage of the name prior to them, but also had to prove that the names were not so similar as to confuse consumers (I'm guessing this is a consumer driven business?) as well as the intent/good faith that the name actually is a business with actual income. For example, you can't register a band name with the patent dept or get a trademark if you have no evidence of sales, or evidence of intent to sell music under that name.
I went through a similar thing with bands (yes, again!). Two bands, with the same name, both used a poor man's copyright/patent by mailing a copy of a recording to themselves. They had no knowledge of each other and, in fact were on opposite sides of the country, when they started out - also starting at the same time (give or take). Both bands were mildly famous. The bands crossed paths one day, realized that fans were getting confused because of the name problem, and they both had some trouble booking shows because of the confusion. I'll let you tell me what you think the outcome was of the drama that ensued over the band's names. Then I'll tell you if you're right
Patents as trademarks are different from copyrights. Copyrights allow for fair use, obviously since a trademark deals mainly with names I don't see how "fair use" could really apply...you either have a legal claim to thename, or you don't.
Either way, you'll not be able to walk into a court room, tell the judge that certain material is yours because you "created it first" and offer up some evidence that is completely unreliable, such as a dated post on a website, or something mailed to yourself. These things are easily manipulated, easily forged, and - from experience - don't hold water in court unless you have something more tangible to back it up, and what you've brought is used as supporting evidence.
Do you remember all those music sharing websites? It took a slew of high priced lawyers funded by MAJOR bands and music labels YEARS to get these music sites to either charge (and pay a fee to the label/artist) for the songs, or to stop operating altogether. I'm talking groups with copyright and trademark protection up the whazoo, and the reputations alone could back them up. The only reason I remember hearing that they won is because they could prove a substantial loss of revenue by these sites - not because people were essentially "taping" their songs of the internet.
You'll also notice tat there isn't ONE major company (literary, music, pharmaceutical, etc) that doesn't automatically copyright and patent everything they put out there.
What, exactly, is everyone trying to protect themselves from anyway? Why is there this huge concern about copyright protection and whether or not just publishing your blog provides you with any legal protection etc?
I said it before, I'll say it again, if what you're putting out there is that important to you that you're actually worried about copyright laws - then get a copyright for real, and sleep well. -
For what it's worth, Anok, I think you have to defer to the expertise and experience of Tiffany and Rich on this matter.
-
Yeah, but neither one has answered my questions I have very particular experiences with this stuff...and obviously strong opinions about it
Although it seems as if we have all stepped back form the debate a little, and that is fine with me. -
A copyright can be as simple as a signature or a notation of the date/year it was created and by who.
I think the thing that you are all getting caught up in is when these works are mass produced and/or mass distributed. When two people claim the right too the very same content or works. It is not fair to say that, "Because it wasn't formally and/or legally copyrighted that it is fair game." In the very least, you should respect the content of anyone's creation anywhere in the world, especially online.
The legal copyrights are most often sought after, acquired, paid for when the author in question plans on selling their published work, or getting notoriety from it. That way - if anyone claims the content with the purpose of robbing the author of their creation, they are able to prove to anyone, without a shadow of a doubt that their content is indeed theirs.
It is not fair to claim someone’s material if it is not copyrighted appropriately. Even if a quote, poem, or story is published as anonymous, you are expect to maintain that authorship as Anonymous. Just because “Anonymous” can not be proven to be a physical human being (where, when, who, what), does not mean that that material is claimable by anyone other than the author themselves.
An easy way to copyright anything you do (Art, stories, music, poems, photography, etc) is to (as soon as possible, upon creation) seal the content in an envelope addressed to yourself. Put it in the mail, and when it comes to you stamped and dated, file it away (unopened), in the unlikely case that sometime in the future, someone steps forward to claim the very same work that you do.
It’s unfortunate that anyone should have to go to these lengths, but if your material or content is that important or of great importance, than that is something the author is expected to do. But that does not make the “poor man’s copyright” any less important, and is just as effective. It’s that shadow of a doubt that you’re fighting against. You want all the proof you can to back your claim that it is indeed your work.
Online content is different. Anything you put online is at risk of being plagiarized. There is really no solid way, 100% guarantee that your material won’t possibly be stolen and used. It’s when you actually catch the person and prove that they have used your material without giving you adequate credit. Someone can use your content and make millions of dollars and you would never know about it.
Regardless of all this, any and all content, material, music, art, or published story should be respected.
If you plagiarize, you will be caught eventually.
-
-
If you put anything on the internet you are putting your work in high risk which people can easily steal your work by print screen, copy, etc. If you want to make sure that no one copy your work, better and never publish it online.
-
IF you do the Linkback you are giving the credit to that person and doing advertisement for them for FREE. I don't understand why they have to get all emotional about it, other people are reading what you wrote that's good, they doing it in another website FINE but a least they are reading your story and they are knowing where it came from. In the internet nothing is from no one, you don't have no control.. What you gonna do arrest all the people that copy and paste! I support 100% what ANOKON it saying
-
But that isn't really the point, is it? It doesn't matter whether you understand why it bothers them, or even whether it's reasonable at all. It's their content, and it's their choice.
Think about it this way...if you go to someone's house and offer to walk their dog, and they say no, that they don't want you to walk their dog, you might think that's a bad decision. The dog could get exercise; all the neighbors could see how cute it was. You might even be right. But it wouldn't matter, because it ISN'T YOUR DOG. -
Well, except the fact that a dog is live creature, inside of your home - and not a written word in the internet blogosphere
-
Or if you don't want to use dogs, use some other kinds of property, like say a car. This is about intellectual property rights, not giving credit to people from whom you stole stuff.
-
-
Most of what I've been reading (thanks for the links cooper) concerns the use of other people's material as if it were your own AND for the purpose of commercial gain.
I don't think anyone on this forum is talking about using another person's work and claiming it as their own. As for commercial use, for myself, I'm only giving opinions and hoping to get feedback, there is absolutely no exchange of $$$.
I guess that means my opinion's worth zip, tee hee. -
I guess it is just a matter of credibility. Also what if the person who worte the post finds something about your blog offensive,be it an ad, a picture an ideology? They may not want their stuff associated with a certain blog. I think they have that right.
I also didn't think you could use full Reuters articles without paying them a pretty steep fee. I see your last article is pulled totally from Reuters. Am I missing something here?-
That's exactly the thing that happened to me, Cooper, that really bothered me. There was an atheist blog reprinting almost everything I wrote, on several subjects, with my byline--it would have appeared to any regular reader that I was regularly writing for them.
-
That's interesting - how could or why would an atheist blog want to reprint a Catholic blog (it was your religious blog, I'm guessing?) and make it appear as if they had you as a regular writer?
What and odd thing, unless they just wanted to present a different perspective?
-
-
Cooper: i agreed with you is true, i wouldn't want nothing to do with a racial blog.. is true what you saying.. about Reuters, yes i'm finding out all that.. but I'm in negotiation with AP(Association Press) to have the permission to publish news from them... let see what happen.. Today have been a teaching day for me... but still lot to learn.
-
Sorry that happened to you. It's easy to get confused about copyright laws. I have also been confused about it before.
As a writer, I had to learn some things about it and know a bit more about copyright infringement because of problems with people stealing my work.
When written material is copyrighted, you can only post a small paragraph of it. You have to then link to the source to provide readers with the rest. If you post it in it's entirety without permission or license from the copyright holder, that is copyright infringement and is grounds for legal action if the copyright holder wants to pursue it.
For pictures, if they're copyrighted, you must get permission or license and credit the photographer.
I hope that helps you figure out what to do in the future. -
Thanks mommoy2lot for the inside..
-
-
hanks for visiting my blog. Just add u.... great site i'll be back -
Mommy2lots is correct....a short excerpt and a link back to the original content is the correct, moral and most logic way to use articles you didn't write yourself. When a writer gets paid to write content for a website based on the number of page clicks, you're cheating that person out of money when you copy and paste their entire content without permission. -
MadameX - I enjoyed your dog analogy. On a semi-related note, how do you prevent scrapers from just stealing your content from your RSS feed to create splogs?
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
