Estimated reading time: 23 – 38 minutes

Copyright Essentials for Writers
Twice in as many weeks, I have run across items that were clearly not written by the ?writers? who claimed them as their own. I?ve had my writing stolen, ?misappropriated,? used without my consent, and I?ve seen so many examples of blatant disregard by one writer for the rights of another that I tend to get just a little hot under the collar when I see it happen.
Stealing another?s work and calling it your own is plagiarism. That?s an ugly word, but so are words like cheating, stealing, and lying. It?s like taking someone else?s car and passing it off as your own. It may be a fairly common make and model, but sooner or later, someone?s going to notice the unique VIN number and turn you in to the authorities. (This is what happens when you rip off an ordinary bit of writing, or paraphrase something ? putting essentially the same sentences in your own words, even though it wasn?t your own idea.) If you steal the one-of-a-kind Lamborghini that was parked in your next door neighbor?s driveway and have the nerve to tell everyone on the block what a cool, sexy new driving machine you just bought on a Yugo budget, well, you?re just stupid. (This is what happens when you have a high school education but you rip off something like Michael Crichton?s .)
Misappropriating someone?s work and giving them credit is called copyright violation. It?s still stealing, but now it?s like saying ?I?m going to take your car now, park it in my driveway, and let my friends drive it without asking your permission, but I?ll be sure to tell everyone it?s really yours.? To those who think the harm is offset by the ?additional exposure? given to the work or the ?free publicity? given to the author, that?s like saying ?Never mind that it was important to you when you bought the car that you be the first to drive it and decide to whom you wanted to loan it; we thought you?d appreciate us showing it off all around town until the new models came out.?
In recognition of the fact that this astonishing disregard of the law is largely due to ignorance, not malice, and with faith in the old adage that ignorance is curable, I?m going to explain the basics of copyright law, what it means to writers, how to avoid trampling on someone else?s rights, and how to protect yourself from the callous elephants who would trample on yours.
This article deals primarily with copyright law; however, in a broader sense it deals with ethical issues every writer should carefully consider. Trademark, patent, and other forms of intellectual property law are beyond the scope of this article. NOTHING HEREIN SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. If you have specific questions or issues regarding intellectual property law, please consult a qualified attorney in your area.
What is ?intellectual property??
Intellectual property is the product of your imagination, your creativity, your innovative thinking, your research discoveries and conclusions, or your invention.
Examples of intellectual property include:
-
The design for a car?s engine;
-
A new process for making disposable Latex gloves;
-
A novel, a movie, a cartoon character;
-
The lyrics to a song;
-
The distinctive look of a basketball shoe;
-
A photograph;
-
A corporate logo.
Special legal protections under copyright, patent, and trademark laws are granted to the authors, designers, and inventors of such things.
What is ?copyright??
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of ?original works of authorship,? including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
-
To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
-
To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
-
To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
-
To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
-
To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
-
In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
(from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci)
How long does copyright last?
Your work (assuming it was created in 1978 or later) is protected for your lifetime, plus 70 years. Like any other property, you can leave it to your children, grandchildren, agent, publisher, or others in your will. In the case of a collaborative work, copyright protection extends 70 years after the last author dies. For more information, refer to http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hlc.
What is ?fair use??
In some cases, you may quote portions of copyrighted work without permission for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research. Bear in mind that ?fair use? is a defense in a suit against you for infringement, and it is best to avoid being sued in the first place. The court will look at several factors to determine whether your use of another?s copyrighted material comes under the ?fair use? provisions of the law.
Why did you use the material? Was it for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research? Or was it more of a commercial use ? in other words, were you primarily out to make money?
What is the nature of the copyrighted work? Is it appropriate and relevant to the purposes you are claiming? Is the copyrighted work going to be lessened in its own value by your use of it? While value is generally interpreted to mean monetary worth, it is fair to note here that copyright protects an author?s right to control how, when, where, and by whom the work is used. That control, in itself, has value.
Did you use a huge chunk of someone else?s work, when maybe a sentence or two would have made your point? Did you reproduce it in its entirety? Perhaps you are writing a book review. It would be bad form to give away the ending, wouldn?t it? Because then your readers might have no reason to run out and buy a copy of the book for themselves. Is a substantial portion of your work actually just their work?
All of these are things that will be considered by a court, should you be sued for copyright infringement. Unfortunately, there are no black and white rules about what you may use, how you may use it, and how much of it you may use before it constitutes infringement. Originality is the safest course.
For these factors as set forth in the law, see ?Copyright Law of the United States of America,? Title 17, United States Code, Section 107; http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
What is ?public domain??
Basically, any writing that is no longer protected by copyright is in the public domain. You can, for example, retell a classic fairy tale like Cinderella. But beware ? Disney?s ?Cinderella? is not in the public domain. You cannot use the characters, illustrations, or original plot points added by Disney to the story, because those are still under copyright. You must go back to the public domain version and create your own derivative work.
Just because something is in the public domain doesn?t automatically give you the right to use it, as noted in ?What is Public Domain?? by Jerry Robinson (http://www.geocities.com/rsw-news/pubdomain.html).
It is a common, but mistaken belief that anything placed on the Internet and not somehow “copy protected” (for example, encrypted or right-click disabled) becomes “public domain.” This is untrue. It?s a bit like saying that if I fail to lock my front door, you have the right to enter my house and help yourself to my belongings. The DMCA provides a bit of protection for Webmasters and ISPs; so long as they take down the infringing material once they’re told it exists,?and agree to?serve notice to the person posting it, they won’t be held liable. That’s fair enough – otherwise, we’d have no one foolhardy enough to host our Web sites and blogs and what-not.
See http://ittimes.ucdavis.edu/v8n1oct99/dmca.html .
What is a ?derivative work??
It is an original work derived from (based on) another work by you or someone else. Disney?s ?Cinderella? is a derivative work. Since the original Cinderella story is in the public domain, you may create your own derivative version of it; however, you may not have a cute, rotund little mouse named Gus-Gus helping Cinderella to sew pearls on the dress she is making for the Prince?s ball, nor may your story feature an ill-tempered black cat named Lucifer.
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work.”
(Title 17 Code, Chapter 1, Section 101, “Definitions.”)
Examples of “derivative works” would include: a book made into a movie; a movie turned into a stage play; a second edition of a book, edited and annotated and containing extra scenes; a sculpture based on a painting, a painting based on a photograph. The Supreme Court has held that, in looking into whether a work falls under the “fair use” provisions of the law, “enquiry focuses on whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or whether and to what extent it is “transformative,” altering the original with new expression, meaning, or message. The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use.” (CAMPBELL, aka SKYYWALKER, et al. v. ACUFF ROSE MUSIC, INC.; text copied from http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS.html)
It is clear, then, that some weight is given to creativity and originality ? and therein lies the fine distinction between “inspired by” and “based on.” Imagine a photograph of a woman reading a book. Now, take a look at Picasso’s “Tete D’une Femme Lisant,” at http://www.allposters.com/gallery.asp?aid=576251&item=153351. Do you think that a photographer could argue that the painting violated his copyright in the original photo? If you transform the original so that it is a substantially new expression, with different meaning or message, then you at least have a defense against a claim of infringement. But again, it is best to stick with your own original ideas wherever possible.
Another interesting notion ? since Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” is in the public domain, could you run out and copyright it? No. Could you create your own work, inspired by “Romeo and Juliet,” and copyright that? Of course, provided that your work adds some creative element not present in the original; in other words, so long as your work is not merely a slightly-altered copy of “Romeo and Juliet.”
Chilling Effects Clearinghouse, “Derivative Works,” for Internet & Society. http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative/
Chilling Effects Clearinghouse, “Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers) about Derivative Works,” Berkman Center for Internet & Society. http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative/faq.cgi#QID382
Cook, Amy, “‘Unauthorized’ Writings,” Writer’s Digest. http://www.writersdigest.com/articles/cook_unauthorized.asp
Ovenall, Sarah, “Derivative Works.” http://www.funnystrange.com/copyright/derivative.htm
What is not copyrightable?
There are many things that are not protected by copyright law. The hardest thing for many writers to accept is that ideas are not protected. You cannot copyright your brilliant idea for a story. You must first write the story, because it is your own, original expression of that idea that is protected under law. If you have a brilliant idea for a story, you?d best keep it to yourself until you do.
You cannot copyright a name, an individual word, a letter, or a symbol. Can you imagine the trouble that would cause, if you could? Be careful, though ? some names, such as Coca-Cola? and McDonald?s?, are reserved and protected under trademark law. If you use them in a story, you must use them correctly (e.g., Kleenex, not kleenex), and you may need to obtain the owner?s permission before using them at all.
Facts, such as individual listings in a phone book, the height of a pyramid, or the temperature at which water boils cannot be copyrighted.
Inventions, processes, systems of operation, and proprietary information cannot be copyrighted, although there are other protections for these things under patent and trademark law.
What can I do if someone violates my copyright?
You can sue them, of course. You can sue for actual damages (lost sales, lost royalties) and, if you?ve registered your work in the Copyright Office, you can also be entitled to receive statutory damages in addition to money for any losses you?ve actually incurred.
Unless the work has significant monetary value or you are utterly determined to pursue a lawsuit on ?the principle of the thing,? it may be more satisfying and cost-effective simply to write a note explaining how wrong and immoral it is to plagiarize or violate another person?s copyright, and demand that the person immediately stop using your material. On the Internet, it can be very effective to copy the person?s ISP (because doing so puts them on notice of the violation, and if they fail to act, they become a willful violator, as well, and can be sued right along with the infringer).
Whatever you do, don?t just quietly stew about it, because unless we work to eradicate the problem through education and censure, it will only get worse. As more and more people get by with trampling on the rights of writers, artists, and other creative individuals, they develop a sense of entitlement ? a sort of backwards logic that convinces them that your work is, or really ought to be, free for them to use as they see fit.
For more information, see ?Copyright Law of the ,? Title 17, United States Code, Chapter 5. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
Additional Copyright Information and Articles
?Copyright Law of the ,? Title 17, Code. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
Friends of Active Copyright Education (FA?E), Copyright Society of the . http://www.law.duke.edu/copyright/face/home.htm
Harper, Georgia K., ?The Copyright Crash Course,? http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/IntellectualProperty/cprtindx.htm
Legal Information Institute, ?Law About…Copyright,? . http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/copyright.html
Library of Congress, United States Copyright Office, http://www.copyright.gov/
Masciola, Amy, ?Copyright Timeline,? Association of Research Libraries, http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html
O’Mahoney, Benedict, Copyright Website, http://www.benedict.com/
Robinson, Jerry, ?What is Public Domain?? Haven Publications, http://www.geocities.com/rsw-news/pubdomain.html.
Stanford University Libraries, Copyright and Fair Use, http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
Templeton, Brad, ?10 Big Myths about copyright explained,? http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
Templeton, Brad, ?Linking Rights,? http://www.templetons.com/brad/linkright.html
United States Patent and Trademark Office, ?What is Intellectual Property?? http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ahrpa/opa/museum/1intell.htm
White, Claire E., ?Basic Copyright Concepts For Writers,? Writers Write: The Internet Writing Journal, http://www.writerswrite.com/journal/sept97/cew2.htm
Wikepedia: The Free Encyclopedia, ?Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works,? http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention
Wikepedia: The Free Encyclopedia, ?Copyright,? http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
Wikepedia: The Free Encyclopedia, ?Digital Millennium Copyright Act,? http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS.html
Wikepedia: The Free Encyclopedia, ?Fair Use,? http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Wired News, ?A Mickey Mouse Copyright Law,? Lycos, Inc., http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,17327,00.html
Author’s note: If you spot a dead link or know of an even better resource that should be included above, please send me a message.
Copyright 2003-2009 H. Jahangiri.





Proudly powered by
Strikethrough indicates dead links. I will update these as time permits.
.-= Holly hopes you will read…Copyright Essentials for Writers =-.
OK, I read it, but I have to be honest and will be back for the second part (fair use onwards). Nevertheless, I can already see that this is really a very comprehensive no BS straight to the point essentials that everyone needs to be aware of. Echo bound definitely…
.-= DiTesco hopes you will read…Amazon’s Make Money With Twitter Program =-.
@DiTesco, thanks! I wrote this because a lot of the copyright violations I see aren’t really deliberate. They’re the result of a misunderstanding – usually the notion that anything posted on the Web is “public domain.” That’s just not true. And there are people who think it’s okay to copy something and republish it, provided they cite the source properly. What’s okay for a college term paper (educational; fair use) isn’t necessarily okay on a Web site (personal or commercial use). Even the fact that you’re not gaining a financial benefit from the use of the material isn’t enough, because copyright law recognizes the creator’s right to control the publication or performance of the work.
I would argue that small excerpts and links back to the original source are usually okay – either because it would be defensible under the fair use doctrine OR because most people publishing work on the Web want to be read or seen, and you’re helping to promote that. But “excerpt” is the magic word. Not whole posts, poems, stories, artwork, or photos unless the creator has given written permission.
Oh, did you know that U.S. government publications do not have domestic copyright protection? (Note that there are a few exceptions, such as works by contractors and artwork by the USPS after 1978.) Cool, huh? Well – as long as you’re in the U.S., that is. After that, it starts to get confusing.
Anyway, it’s an interesting subject, and I wanted to explain it in an accessible way – not couched in confusing legalese or dry, academic prose.
.-= Holly Jahangiri hopes you will read…NaNo Nine: How to Gear Up for NaNoWriMo =-.
@Holly Jahangiri, Hmmm, that’s interesting about the magic word being an “excerpt”. Since we are at it, what do think am i doing on allied bloggers? Am I doing something that can not be considered as an “excerpt”? Should I do it differently? I would love to have your thoughts on this. I mean I think everyone has “implicitly” given authorization to post excerpts to whoever manages that site:)
.-= DiTesco hopes you will read…DiTesco’s Weekly Echo #10 =-.
@DiTesco, it’s the “implicitly” that’s a problem. Here – let me clarify my position: I EXPLICITLY give you permission to post excerpts (not full feeds) of my posts on the site in question.
I think if you’re willing to exclude anyone who takes issue with it, you’re fine there.
.-= Holly Jahangiri hopes you will read…Copyright Essentials for Writers =-.
Great comprehensive coverage, Holly. You made this an easy reading although there are parts that deserve a second look. I can’t believe anyone can make me slap my thighs in glee reading articles on copyright, but you just did. Very entertaining and educational at the same time.
.-= jan geronimo hopes you will read…Read My Lips: Twitter Lists Are Meant to be Exclusionary =-.
@jan geronimo, that’s high praise, indeed! Thank you.
.-= Holly Jahangiri hopes you will read…Wordy Wednesday (October 28, 2009) =-.
Wonderful, comprehensive article on Copyright law from somebody who’s had to deal with a lot of these issues personally.
It’s rough not to be able to copyRight ideas. Then AGain, if we could then somebody would most likely have copyrighted everything before we did, and we’d never be able to write anything.
I wonder if you can mention characters under copyright in a book. For instance, can you have a character dress up like Han Solo? Hmm…
.-= Heather Kephart hopes you will read…My Feet by Joe Joe =-.
@Heather Kephart, sure you can have a character dress up like Han Solo. Just don’t write a book purporting to be ABOUT Han Solo. In that case, it’s more likely you’d run afoul of trademark law – something I’m not even prepared to deal with here, except to say that if you say nice things about a brand or trademark, it’s free advertising – if you say nasty things, it could be libel. In other words, if it’s a yummy, tasty, healthy burger, you can name your favorite burger joint – if it causes kids to die a hideous, protracted death due to e.coli, I suggest you make up a fictional fast food joint (and do a trademark search just to be really, REALLY sure you didn’t inadvertently pick on a real restaurant). Just a thought.
.-= Holly Jahangiri hopes you will read…Copyright Essentials for Writers =-.
OK. Now I read the whole thing and I have to admit that this was the only article I enjoyed reading about this subject. It is not only well written, I really like the examples you give, such as allowing yourself inside a house with the front door open. It makes us understand what it is all about… things that we might get “sued” for. This goes into my “permanent file”. Updating this, will be extremely useful and every time I would like to say something about this, rest assured that this will be the place where I will be pointing people to look at. Great job Holly.
.-= DiTesco hopes you will read…DiTesco’s Weekly Echo #10 =-.
Wow. Very comprehensive post. Might very well be a small book Holly.
Like a manual.
…
Hehe.
Yes I know it’s your job!
.-= reyjr hopes you will read…Leonids Meteor Shower! How could I not blog about it? =-.
@reyjr, it is my job – but I was HOPING this would be a little more entertaining than the average manual.
@Holly Jahangiri, gah. I didn’t mean that it wasn’t. :p You get my drift. Hehe.
I’m still wondering though about that 70 years cap. I mean, why 70, not 60 or 48.21 years?
.-= reyjr hopes you will read…Leonids Meteor Shower! How could I not blog about it? =-.
@reyjr, I think it’s a Mickey Mouse law. Seriously. No, wait – it’s a Sonny Bono law. Check this out: http://www.sethb.com/weblog/archive/000205.html
I agree with the dissenters, in this case – much as I approve of strong copyright protections for the CREATORS, I see little reason to extend those protections to their heirs, their estates, or their corporate successors. These entities have little or no moral claim to the work. It has a chilling effect, at that point, on further innovation – which is completely opposite to the purpose of protecting an original creator’s copyright for a limited term.
Reference:
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/s505.pdf
.-= Holly hopes you will read…Copyright Essentials for Writers =-.
P.S. Tuesday morning humor: I just had to moderate my own comment! Too many links!
Copyright violation is something we blogger as well as online content writer should care about. Their are some free service for example copyscape which allow us to monitor who copying our content. Though sometime I use a fair use policy when I love someone content and want to tell about it to my community, however I never face an issue with it and the writer always thanked me for that. Still I discourage other to copy others content even a portion without permeation.
Like us most advertising company and hosting company dislike this and any report can take the blog away from blogosphere.
.-= Arafat Hossain Piyada hopes you will read…Fastest Way To Convert and Download YouTube Video Right From YouTube =-.
Thanks for the visit and the comments, @Arafat Hossain Piyada. I think it’s important to be respectful, not fearful, when it comes to using material found on the Web. Excerpts that promote the original content where it lives should be okay – that’s kind of the “spirit” of the Web. Quotations and small excerpts, properly credited in a larger article that is intended to educate people (not sell something or put the quoted material out of context) should also be fine. A parody is also fine – but be sure it’s a PARODY, not merely a non-funny insult. (Think Saturday Night Live.)
If in doubt, ask. Most writers, artists, and musicians are reasonable people who enjoy sharing their work – in the proper context and so long as it isn’t robbing them of revenue (because none of these are especially lucrative professions, believe it or not, on average). You’d be amazed at their generosity, at times. Just don’t listen to the naive newbies who gush at the “honor” and “flattery” of having their work ripped off and reposted in its entirety. They’re still too starry-eyed and inexperienced to know better, and you shouldn’t take unfair advantage of them, because the next one won’t be – and as you say, they’ll make sure the blog is removed from the blogosphere.
Hello Holly,
A well researched and excellently written article. It was very academic, I thought I was in school. But that was meant as a compliment. Because even if it is, it is also entertaining – a killer combination. School reports are usually BOORRRING!
Going back to your topic, I often used quotations and sometimes, I was too lazy to research for the author. I don’t claim it as my own, though. There were times also that I forgot to place quotation marks. I had no intentions of claiming the words as my own but I was just too lazy to research. This maybe one of the reasons.
My article was once rejected by Helium.com because of an alleged copyright violation. They had found the same article in my Kalinga blog with my pen name and they thought it was a different person. So I had to prove to them that it was the same – “good ol’ me”….he he he…through legal documents like IDs and my birth certificate…whew.Just sharing my experience.
Thanks for the rich information you have provided us. Way to go!
.-= Jena Isle hopes you will read…Bookshop and Reading =-.
@Jena Isle, now there’s a confession worth its weight in gold… j/k. You’re human. Funny you should mention that about Helium; when I joined Writing.com, I had every intention of writing under a pseudonym. Then one day, I felt compelled to post one of my old poems – one that had been previously published. I added a copyright line to it with my real name, because I didn’t want some well-meaning person to turn me in for violating my own copyright! (The site owner would have known; I’d registered under my real name.) I also alerted someone else to a possible copyright violation – turned out, she was doing the same thing. I made her email me under both email addresses, using both user names, so that I could verify it was the same person. She’d made some minor edits to the poem, so it was not the same on both sites. I was a little embarrassed, but she was glad someone was looking out for her! Fortunately, I had not accused her of anything – just questioned it.
Speaking of legality. I have this post and I’ve just notice that someone commented …
“I recentyl add this post on my blog post http://dofollowblog.port4l.com/2009/11/whos-you…”
Is this legal Holly? He copied all my text and post it to his blog. Although he put a link to my site as source.
Thanks.
.-= Jhong Medina hopes you will read…How to use Mozilla FireFox ? FireFTp =-.
@Jhong Medina, of course it isn’t legal. If you didn’t give him permission to copy your entire post, no one’s allowed to publish it on their blog. Even if you are given credit for it. YOU, as the author, have the right to control how, when, and where your work is presented or performed. Your blog has a different audience (presumably) than others – therefore, other blogs represent new readers. While previously unpublished material is usually preferred by publishers, they do sometimes buy reprint rights. They may have value (or not – it’s largely theoretical, but doesn’t change the fact that your copyright is violated when someone takes your work and posts it on THEIR blog or site without your consent). Now, the fact that he was kind enough to let you know where he did this indicates ignorance of the law; no doubt, he MEANT it as a complement and thinks you should be flattered. So my suggestion is to be kind – refer him to this post, if you like.
Actually, if you gave me the correct link, it’s already been removed.
The point here is that most people who do this sort of thing (not counting automated scrapers and splogs and totally mindless zombie things that roam the Internet in the dead of night) don’t do it to be hurtful or malicious. Most of them truly think they’re doing a nice thing for you, giving you more “exposure.” Well, most of us like to eat, too. This notion of “exposure” makes me think of writers lurking in back alleys, wearing trench coats, flashing readers.
You mean you don’t want me to copy your blog posts for my blog? Huh! What kind of friend are you? (Just kidding, anyone reading this.)
I certainly agree and understand what you’ve written, Holly. I find some of my works in the most unusual places with the strangest additions. You know you’ve found the same thing with some of your writing.
Stealing is stealing.
.-= Vivian Zabel hopes you will read…Just in time for Christmas – The First Miracle =-.
@Vivian Zabel, I’d probably forgive you. But then again, I’d be utterly shocked if you didn’t ask me first.
Yes, we have found our work in strange places, haven’t we? I’ll be honest – on one or two occasions, the scrapers and sploggers have done a halfway decent job of promoting our books, and I haven’t been as diligent about stopping them as I might be, otherwise. Especially if they’ve copied my Amazon affiliate link into their post, and their splog wasn’t totally tasteless and disgusting…
But as most contracts say, “failure to enforce any provision of this contract does NOT render it null and void…” It’s still my choice whether to let them do it or not, and I’d rather be asked FIRST. I can be kind of mean, otherwise.
.-= Holly Jahangiri hopes you will read…Delicious Irony: Mattel, Target, Wal-Mart Make Headlines Again =-.
Wheew! – reaction after reading up to the end but minus the links.
I think, this entry is somehow a text book type. O, ya… a reference to be exact.
Worth the time indeed. Thank you for sharing. I really need to be educated with copyrights technicalities.
Question and needs your opinion (asking a favor):
I have a blog entry that is giving too much hits for a week now. I am concerned about it because I copied and pasted it.
Before I put the link, I would like to ask your permission if I could put the link pointing to the blog entry so you could take a look of it? – a case study maybe if it is in violation?
Thanks.
.-= darbs hopes you will read…Ibong Malaya (Free Bird) another youtube entry =-.
@darbs, I’ll be happy to take a look and give you an opinion. Not legal advice, mind you – really can’t do that, legally. But sure, post up the link and I’ll take a look!
.-= Holly hopes you will read…Delicious Irony: Mattel, Target, Wal-Mart Make Headlines Again =-.
@Holly can I first say, yeheeey! Thank you, for your immediate reply. I understand that it is not a legal advise but at least you will recognize if something fishy based on your understanding of the subject.
Actually, the first part of the blog entry is mine but after that… up to the end is copy and pasted
Here is the link:
http://exodians.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/fiction-or-non-fiction-the-story-of-mrs-rizal-the-widow-of-dr-jose-rizal/
Thank you!
.-= darbs hopes you will read…Ibong Malaya (Free Bird) another youtube entry =-.
@darbs, overall, this would seem to be “educational.” Keep in mind that the Fair Use Doctrine provides a defense against a charge of copyright violation and does not convey an absolute right.
With regard to a newspaper article that is over 100 years old, I wouldn’t be too concerned.
With regard to comments made by an individual, or forwarded emails, etc., then yes – I believe that part would technically constitute a copyright violation. If I post a comment on your blog, I am not giving your friends a license to copy it on theirs without my permission.
Practically speaking, it’s unlikely the original author will object. As a matter of courtesy, I’d make an attempt to contact him for permission (even after the fact), or I would limit the use to small quotations and a link back to the original comment. The more you intertwine the quotations with your own personal analysis and opinion, the more “fair use” comes into play. There is no set quantity or percentage of an original work that is considered acceptable under “fair use,” but a general rule of thumb would be “only as much as is necessary to make your point.”
I found it educational and interesting.
I wasn’t sure, at first, where you were going with that post. But it looks like a little revisionist history got uncovered there. Nothing new under the sun, after all, hm?
What is it they say? “History is written by the winners”? Or, as Orwell wrote in the novel 1984, “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”
@Holly Jahangiri, First of all thank you very much for giving the time to review the blog entry.
Ouch! My suspicion is confirmed. I usually asked permission to copy and paste materials but this time I did not.
Ouch! I usually paste a small portion and create a link back to the original post but this time I did not.
Therefore, I have to follow the right path. There are two choices:
1. Contact the author.
2. Limit the quotation and link back to the source.
Thy will be done!
Thank you! thank you!
.-= darbs hopes you will read…Four-month road show to teach responsible francising =-.
@darbs, you know what? We all goof sometimes. This just serves as confirmation of what I said earlier – most copyright violations are not intentional or malicious at all. (And what I suspect you’ll find is that the original commenter is happy to let you repost their comment. The good thing about doing that is that it won’t be lost and leave YOUR post out of context if the original is ever removed.) But it’s right to ask, or to carefully limit the amount of the original that you quote. And you are setting a great example here. Thank you.
Thank you Holly. I also consider the experience a “Case Study”.
Sometimes I need to copy and paste everything because as you know people here in the net will come and go. Who knows, the article might be gone without prior notice.
No response yet as of this time. I know you know what am talking about right?
.-= darbs hopes you will read…STATEMENT: Lawyers group condemn massacre of journalists and fellow lawyers =-.
Right, @darbs! As you say, people on the ‘net will come and go; this one may be long gone, for all I know. Do you have the date of the original comment? Still, the woman who posted my poem without my permission? I actually gave her over a year from my first email asking her to provide a link back to my site, and to separate my poem from the purloined graphics – after about a year, her complete lack of response struck me as rude. Once I ascertained that she HAD, in fact, been active on her site recently, I reported the copyright violations. So you never know – after all, copyright lasts for life of the author, plus 70. That’s a long time. And having written for permission, at least it could be said that one had made a diligent effort. Thanks for the update!