Copyright wally of the week At El Reg we're happy to license our copy, and if you ask nicely, you might even get use of it for free. But this is the most unusual request I've ever received. Subject: Sunny Spain article use for local US newspaper Andrew, Thanks for the hard hitting and brief article on solar power. I would like to submit it to our local …
After a recent article I saw about the US claiming that they invented English, I would use the full force of the vocab available.
Secondly, I'd keep an eye on Bellefontaine, Ohio's website for any sign of the article showing up. Once it's up and viewed a couple of times....SUE THE DUDE!!!!!
After all we invented the law suite culture.......
If I may?
"The official position of this website seems to be that music piracy should be punished by the most meager of legal sanctions."
Actually you will find the position changes depending on the author of each particular piece. However it seems to me that El Reg generally supports meaningful protection of IP along with reasonable and effective sanctions should one breach those protections.
"And that the jury awards against pirates such as Jammie Thomas et al verge on being crimes against humanity. "
The award in the Jammie Thomas case was absurd. Both in the actual amounts and in the amounts related to the ability of the defendant to pay. There is no inconsistency in agreeing something should be punished but decrying excessive punishments.
"Shouldn't you also be campaigning for changes in copyright law that will essentially decriminalize the outright stealing of YOUR ARTICLES TOO?"
This is a non-sequitor. If El Reg (or more relevantly the particular author of each piece) did actually condone piracy then fairy snuff. But they don't. So they don't.
Now, many posters think it is their right to steal any IP they want (cf. freetard) but that is not the stance of El Reg. I am confused as to what basis you formed this opinion.
"Or should it be only music and movies that are exempt from copyright protection? If there are reasons for the theft of music and movies to be penalty-free, but your articles protected by copyright, please explain them, as the situation as it stands now is not clear at all."
Again, you have made assumptions based on something only you seem to have read.
Any confusion or lack of clearedness here is entirely down to you, my friend.
He was asking permission, to get around an onerous requirement by a local publisher - and, as you say, sometimes you see merit in your content being used without a royalty being paid. He did the right thing - he asked for a licence - and got a pretty shirty, sarcastic response back. If you did not want him to use the article, would a simple "I'm afraid that I would not be willing to license your use of my work in this manner" not have sufficed?
You may be the owner of the copyright in the article at law, but, as the Register so often promotes, copyright law is entirely out of touch - the article was built on the learnings, discoveries and writings of others. A definite case of "standing on the shoulders of giants". The requestor was so keen to get the article republished that he was willing to invest time and effort in modifying it, and seeking your approval of the modifications before going to print.
Perhaps a Creative Commons BY-SA licence grant would have been ideal, allowing him to get the article published, with a few minor amendments to circumvent the restrictive policy of requiring a local author, and still retaining attribution etc. (e.g. "This opinion was based on a piece by Andrew Orlowski, available at http://www.theregister.co.uk."). The Register gets its name further out there, for what appears to be very little cost at all - if the target audiencehad not already seen the Register, the attribution might prompt them to do so; if they had, then, they have already seen your store etc.
The 'dude' made no mention of attribution, licences,or anything. He sounded more like one college kid asking another for a favour (or a favor)
Had I received such a message, I would have found his request casual & friendly, but also ignorant and disrespectful of the value of someone else's graft.
Going by his second message, I'd guess he couldn't give a fuck one way or the other and won't even waste valuable drinking time wondering what the guys fucking problem was. A flea in his ear is what was due, the cheeky whipper-snapper. I think he got off lightly.
Bah!
I suggested a (cc) licence, which requires attribution, as a way of fulfilling the request, but also retaining (and, perhaps, increasing) the value to the author. The requester may not have thought of.attribution, so the suggestion of the equivalent of a link back / source reference might be appealing.
"They will print it provided the author shows up and signs a release in person. To get around this, I would like permission to make minor modifications and have a local citizen submit it as their own."
This is the clincher, you plank!
Basically, I know you can't get here to sign it off ( they can't accept a fax and telephone conversion? ) but tell you what, I'll submit all your hard work under someone else's name. They will get the credit and if there is any, the financial reward too!
The phrase, "get around this", which translates in my book anyway, to "circumvent procedure"!
So, he was honest. He asked for help. He had a problem:
"They will print it provided the author shows up and signs a release in person".
How did he propose to get round that ? Ask permission to pass it off so he could go and sign the document.
Yes, it was quite a significant request; aside from telling him to get lost, can you think of how to resolve his issue?
As others have said, he was quite complimentary and, above all, honest. If El Reg regard him as a Wally because of his honest then our society has reached a really sad state.
...accept a written OK? Surely the "appear in person" provision exceeds the due diligance required of a newspaper. On the other hand, perhaps they will pay your airfare and put you up at the local Best Western.
Another option, have one of their editors produce an original opinion piece including a brief attributed quotation, and a link to El Reg. This might double your readership in Bellefontaine, Ohio.
"The official position of this website seems to be that music piracy should be punished by the most meager of legal sanctions. And that the jury awards against pirates such as Jammie Thomas et al verge on being crimes against humanity."
The official policy seems to be to describe copyright violators as 'freetards'. I think that speaks volumes regarding the attitude towards them.
I'm a bit confused about what Tom wants here: Does he want to copy the piece, change it a bit and slap HIS name on it for submission, or someone else's name for submission to support his organisation's point of view? Weird submission procedure too, must be a very local paper.... for local people.
Either way, as a professional writer myself I'd be wanting my name to be associated with my work and, if the piece had already been published (esp. if I'd been paid for it) that publication would have to agree to its republication (even if for free) before it could be released. At the very least I would I would expect to have my byline and the original publication's name at the bottom of the piece (see El Reg's re-pubbed articles as an example.
I certainly wouldn't let someone take my work, re-write some bits, and then re-publish under their name unless I either didn't own the copy (if I'd written something for a company for example and they agreed to the re-distribution) or unless I got paid (or unless i really liked the dude and his ideals).
Sadly, as many have pointed out, most people wouldn't ask and just plagarise the thing anyway, so props to Tom for at least getting in touch.
Put yourself in Andrew Orlowski's shoes or as the editor of The Register...
Why on earth would you dignify this request with any response other than puzzlement?
Regardless of whether its a not-for-profit organisation or any other context, why on earth would a journalistic company offer any of its works without EITHER acknowledgement OR compensation?
I mean seriously guys, what is wrong with you all? You all work or have worked in real life at some point, I assume. Or am I totally missing some hidden point since last time I looked there are very few non-religious people/organisations who work for absolutely NOTHING!
People have been re-publishing things I wrote for computer mags years ago on nostalgia websites for ages. They mostly don't ask permission because they have somehow got the idea that I am dead. But even so, I don't see how they can think I have been dead for the requisite 75 (or is it 50) years. If only they WOULD put someone else's name on it. They pinch my photos too.
"He was asking permission, to get around an onerous requirement by a local publisher"
Really it's not that onerous. The opinion page on papers here in the States is where locals write in, well, opinions on various topics. It's really not intended for reposting other's work -- not because of some copyright issue, that's just not what that section of the paper is really for.
Anyway, *shrug*. I don't really have further opinion on this, he asked and was told basically "no". He's not profiting so if he publishes it anyway I don't see it as deserving of a $150,000 fine for sure, although it wouldn't be cool.
Republishing a work while maintaining attribution is quite different to what "dude-boy" was requesting, which was to republish work as his own (or someone elses) after making minor alterations to the piece (presumably altering names and locations to suit tha target audience).
He did ask, of course. But the fact remains he could have quite easily written his own piece, citing Orlowski as a source. However his response suggests that he's less not in putting in some effort and producing an original work and would much rather copy off someone elses work and alter details to suit his application - kind of like a ready-made CV.
All quite sad, really.
I don't think mocking someone for what appears to be a genuine misjudgement is much to be proud of. And after all we are talking about a short article that could gain publicity for the writer and the Register, not the wholesale plagiarising of War and Peace.
There are plenty of ways to get your name attached to your work besides a conventional by-line. But having received such public humiliation over his polite request, the gentleman in question might be forgiven for simply rearranging a few commas and prepositions in order to safely pass it off as his own work (rather than note 'taken from the excellent article by ... writing in ...). Such deceit does, however, seem quite clearly not to be his intention.
The copyright notice on the Wind-Watch website does say "This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. ", followed by the EFF fair use policy.
Tom Stacy's proposal would fit a careful reading of this policy.
Does this mean the Reg is going to stop recycling stories from OutLaw and places like it?
Would it have been so hard to write back to the guy and say something like "OK, you can re-publish the story provided the changes are approved ahead of publication, full accreditation is given and here's our fee"?
Maybe it was a nice day in SF and the e-mail proved too tempting a seed for yet more phoned-in shite. I'll stay tuned for your next article, though. Rumour has it you have exclusive rights whenever someone in Google parks their Segway '...a bit funny...'
This post has been deleted by its author
Plenty of freelance photographers will be familiar with this, although usually without asking first. I've lost count of the times some local rag has printed my work without permission, credited to someone else. Sometimes its down to the graphics people just picking up whatever is kicking around their HD to fill a hole and using their staffers name, sometimes it's a 3rd party press release using my image (accidently or deliberately) without permission, and the PR company/dept are often named on the photo credit as they've stripped the IPTC info. Getting money out of them is worse than getting a drink out of a Vogon, not least because editors are generally less pleasant.
The ones that do ask are actually worse in many ways, since they always seem to be patronising female copywriters of about 38 years old who suggest the exposure you'd gain in "Bog Roll Industry monthly" will propel your future earnings to dizzy heights. The only thing that seems to actually upset them is when you laugh just after they've made their pitch (timing is everything), so I do.
Frankly the mention of the single issue groups at the bottom makes this smell like he might be trying to use the article to influence opinion rather than just spreading what he thought of as a good article, the complements we cannot confirm are his genuine opinions. Given his intentions are unclear I believe the author did the right thing, and I would also agree that if the local paper in question have a web site it should be checked to see if it appears anyway.
As to comparison with music piracy, as many have said that isn't a accurate summation. Most sensible people agree that music authors should be rewarded for their work however most of the money goes to their label instead. This is not a direct issue to piracy except that their greed means they try slapping huge fines on 15 year olds and the like, something which is disproportionate to their financial means. As stated by others the issue is also that downloads of music and films are "loss of profits" not loss of attribution, the latter is much more virulent in a way. If you know who is responsible for something you like then you can choose to patronise their work again in the future. This in turn encourages their reputation, even if you got the item for free and talked to someone you know about it.
"Given his intentions are unclear I believe the author did the right thing"
Well, passing off is fraudulent behaviour, pure and simple, and then there's copyright infringement.
Are you really unfamiliar with *all* these concepts? It seems so.
There are lots of ways of bringing that article to his readership, but he didn't employ any of them.
"Well, passing off is fraudulent behaviour, pure and simple, and then there's copyright infringement."
Not with your permission it isn't. Which is presumably why he asked.
Implying he may be prepared to commit fraud or infringe your copyright on those grounds is thin, even for you.
Perhaps, being naive to the point of ridiculousness, he believed you might be willing to donate your work to the cause - as something you wrote because you believed in it, rather than as a shill.
...stop calling people 'shill' if you don't agree with their viewpoint?
He didn't ask for permission to use the article, he asked for permission to plagerise the article ...a bit different. As pointed out above, there are many options (and free ones as the article says) which would allow this dude to have the article added to his cause...he happened to make a bizarre request that no content owner in their right mind would ever allow...I guess you have never worked in Academia Steen. Are you one of those middle aged people that didn't need a piece of paper to prove you are the most intelligent person on the planet?
How can it be plagiarism if permission is given to reproduce as your own, dufus?
Of course the request was ridiculous, Implying he might be prepared to flout the law as a response to it is just as ridiculous and pretty defamatory too.
He asked Andrew essentially to assign all rights to the text to him, which in his naivety he wrongly assumed Andrew was in a position to do anyway. And of course Mr O. would be the last person in the history of the multiverses any regtard would ask to do that!
Ever wonder why the local paper seemingly requires the ridiculous step of an author to appear *in person* to sign consent to reproduce?
Here comes the clue-bat - it the mere beginnings of the chilling effect brought about by the culture of fear you and your twat ilk want imposed on the general populace, of course accompanied with the stripping of their rights outside of IP.
"Shill" is an adjective reserved solely for the most egregious propagandists on the payroll, like your good self. "Worked in academia" indeed - well there's an oxymoron.
"Here comes the clue-bat - it the mere beginnings of the chilling effect brought about by the culture of fear you and your twat ilk want imposed on the general populace"
Ah, yes.. I've written many times about the peculiar psychological condition that you illustrate here so well.
You desperately *need* to feel persecuted and victimised. You also *need* to feel you're acting altruistically, almost as if you're saving us from ourselves. In this narrative, you're the hero on the run... from The Man.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/06/nesson_fail/
So far you're merely conforming to the BoingBoing-reader stereotype.
No technology has ever made creators poorer. All technologies have created new markets. Despite your self-interested special pleading, there's no reason to believe this one will.
Why does the paper want you to appear in person, Andrew? Are they afraid there might be counterfeit copies of you going around?
The counter-argument against your shenanigans has little to do with creators as you well know, and as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, is that the case has not been made for chucking centuries of tort law in the bin to satisfy the cravings of "creators" in the persona of rights holders.
"No technology has ever made creators poorer."
Well, you are quite right , You should ruminate on that a little, since asserting that as true destroys any rational argument for a change in the legal status-quo.
ao: "No technology has ever made creators poorer."
sh: "asserting that as true destroys any rational argument for a change in the legal status-quo."
Only if you view historical extrapolations as some kind of immutable physical law, but you strike me as too intelligent to be confused in such an obvious way.
I'll address your wider point.
The people arguing for a significant change in "the legal status-quo" are the groups who (either explicitly or implicitly) argue that creators' rights are unenforceable online, and therefore must be formally repealed. By contrast, copyright term extensions merely reflect the longer life expectancy of creators. They're more of the same, not a new social settlement, which is how the 'tards want to see them. (I am not convinced of the case on term extensions - but that's another story).
This is just one of several mistakes you make in your reasoning.
Another is to view attempts to actually, y'know, enforce creators rights online as some kind of extension of legal power. I can see how, if you think of the internet as a TAZ, free from The Man, you might arrive at such a view. But grown-ups don't think like this - they grow out of such views when they abandon playing with conkers and Action Man.
Now see my earlier comment, which you've chosen to ignore. Freetards *need* to feel *victimised* and *persecuted*. Whether they start out like this and then discover "The Copyright Wars", or whether they become gibbering wrecks from reading BoingBoing every day, I don't know, and it doesn't really matter.
But these two positions are essential to feeling victimised, and they don't reflect a coherent view of technology and markets.
First of all, I can see the humour in this because it looks like an escalation.
This guy must have thought of submitting the article from El Reg, then found a barrier and never quite retraced his steps to see how he got to that position - he only went forward by addressing the problem in front of him, in isolation. I doubt he even fully realised how daft it was what he was proposing so the answer must have unnerved him.
I'd take one step back and ask first of all what magazine makes it impossible to take external contributions. I would have contacted the editor instead and suggested the contact El Reg about reprinting. Simpler, neater, but not as hilarious, of course..
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
