Story Theft Warning

[sr71plt]

Such a sourpuss.

Well, yes. It's frustrating when writers can't get a clue and actually protect themselves.

I can feel at least a bit sorry for someone who didn't do the proper research and got bitten. But after they (or those around them) have been bitten and they still won't do the research and just want to bitch and moan about rights they don't have and shortcuts they took that got them bitten and won't take resonsibility for themselves on even a second round. No, not much commiseration at all.

And then when they, like you did, Zeb, steal someone else's material and repost it here--and lie about having permission to do so--and then continue ranting about someone stealing their stuff. No, no sympathy whatsoever.

 

[sr71plt]

The AH definition of Party Pooper:

It's the fire marshall, who, along with the gate host, informs you that you are the 300th person trying to get into a rock club with a rated capacity of 150 people, a weak floor, only one fire exit, and an amateur band playing that uses pyrotechnics in its act and is working this club tonight because they burned down one last week. And still you push your way in. And then, when you get to the center of the floor, you hear over the loudspeaker a band member holding a lighted torch breathe "Oops" into the mike. And then when you get out of the club half smashed and the other half burned, you get all indignant about what everyone didn't do for you. And it turns out you were in the club that band burned down the previous week too.

"But it was my right to be in that club."

 

[estragon]

Dixie, if the translator made money for the translation, doesn't she owe you some?

 

[Dixiedevil67]

No, my story was not sold, just translated. I was referring to this forum's original post about the person putting their name on stories and selling them.

As an editor I can say that copyright exists from the moment you write or create a work. sr71 is right however that registering a copyright makes things much easier should litigation be involved. However, the fact that something is posted on the “free” Internet does not make stealing the work justified, only easier. There have been free sources of information long before the Internet came along, i.e. libraries, and one could not simply copy work from a book and claim it as their own.

Newspapers and online media have to deal with plagiarism often. I would say that most litigation involving copyright infringement, with the exception of perhaps the entertainment industry, is in the news business. There have even been some high profile cases in the past few years involving the New York Times and I believe the Washington Post. I can’t remember off hand, but I would be willing to bet none of the materials copied had registered copyrights. Of course we’re talking about corporations with a team of attorneys on hand.

I, myself, have had articles stolen and posted on websites, their reasoning that because it was in a newspaper or magazine it is free to post somewhere else. Of course a call from our attorney clarified their reasoning. I personally don’t mind quoting or reposting an old article of mine, just make sure it’s not still in the sales rack first and don’t claim to be the author.

I must say however, if I was to write a novel or book I would have it registered. Most countries have an agreement on copyright law and if it came down enforcement on a stolen work, it would make it much easier in the courts.

Dixie, if the translator made money for the translation, doesn't she owe you some?

 

[Laurel]

Many authors on Literotica and elsewhere post stories for fun, and thus have no reason to file for a copyright on those stories. This doesn't mean it's acceptable for a third party to steal said stories and sell them as their work.

And anyone who thinks that only for-free work gets stolen hasn't visited a torrent site. Even major publishing houses struggle with theft:
http://www.bookhitch.com/archives/032010a-ebookpiracy.aspx
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6162935-7.html
http://www.hpana.com/news.18484.html

Both Amazon and Apple are still getting the bugs worked out of their copyright policing. Many recent articles have mentioned that unscrupulous sellers are bootlegging everything from Harry Potter to Twilight to the latest non-fiction bestsellers. Basically, anything that's ever been published - online or off - has probably already been bootlegged on Amazon and/or Apple's ebook store.

We ourselves have been in contact with Amazon about copyright issues as well, but they seem to be overwhelmed right now with complaints from major publishers, indie publishers, authors, and just about anyone else you can think of. Again, we are hopeful that as the ebook market matures, distributors will find a better way to deal with copyright theft.

 

[sr71plt]

deal with plagiarism often. I would say that most litigation involving copyright infringement, with the exception of perhaps the entertainment industry, is in the news business. There have even been some high profile cases in the past few years involving the New York Times and I believe the Washington Post. I can’t remember off hand, but I would be willing to bet none of the materials copied had registered copyrights. Of course we’re talking about corporations with a team of attorneys on hand.

You would be wrong. Cite a case if you think you're right, please. The news media, because it is almost in real time, has blanket procedures with formal copyright registration. And contracts on use are signed with anybody's writing or photos or recordings they use before they go on air.

Just accept the real world, gang. Don't grasp for false hopes.

Somebody has to hold a formal copyright on the material for it to get a court date. That's the law. No exceptions. The courts don't want to be taken up with coyright cases.

 

[Jake Marlow]

sr71plt is an ass in the way he states things, and clearly likes to be a thorn in people's sides, too many of him on the internet, but dickish as he is, on the facts he is 100% correct. I went through this whole thing over the summer with another Amazon "author" Louise Taylor and after doing all the research found out there's little you can do as an indivdual author. I did take the step of registering a US Copyright for my website, but again you need to prove monetary damages to do anything in court and when we post for free that's a little hard to do.

Yes, it's morally wrong to rip people off, but if that was the only moral wrong going on out there on the internet this would be a much better world. We release these things onto the internet and once they are out there we need to come to terms with the fact that we've given up control. If you're publishing in a way to make a few bucks, be thankful for whatever you get.

BTW, I send Amazon a DMCA takedown request and they did exactly nothing about it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

sr71plt is an ass in the way he states things, and clearly likes to be a thorn in people's sides, too many of him on the internet, but dickish as he is, on the facts he is 100% correct. I went through this whole thing over the summer with another Amazon "author" Louise Taylor and after doing all the research found out there's little you can do as an indivdual author. I did take the step of registering a US Copyright for my website, but again you need to prove monetary damages to do anything in court and when we post for free that's a little hard to do.

Yes, it's morally wrong to rip people off, but if that was the only moral wrong going on out there on the internet this would be a much better world. We release these things onto the internet and once they are out there we need to come to terms with the fact that we've given up control. If you're publishing in a way to make a few bucks, be thankful for whatever you get.

BTW, I send Amazon a DMCA takedown request and they did exactly nothing about it.

Some of us are published authors, including myself in a very small way. I submit five stories per month to groupmvp, and others here are professional authors in a much bigger way. I wonder what would happen if Amazon, or some other pirate site, were to find stories they are trying to sell already available through a different media or a different publisher.

 

[Dixiedevil67]

The cases I remember are cases of plagiarism on the part of journalist at the papers. The Times has had several struggles with this over the past few years. In 2008 and 2010 journalist were caught copying material from The Wall Street Journal and other news sources, and passing it as their own work. The Times has also sued entities for copyright infringement, one the animated show South Park.

As to the media, I was referring to the print news and not televised broadcasts. I have worked for 12 years for three different news groups and been printed in at least 11 different publications. I have never registered a copyright or signed a use contract for any of my articles or photos. I also do not know any other journalist that has signed such a contract. While copyright exist upon the creation of a work, the burden of proof falls on the author. Proof of the creation of the work as well as that of damages. Of course newspapers and other print media have an easier time providing dates of creation simply with publication dates.

The reason you see so many cases involving news media is because there are daily deadlines. The Sunday paper goes to press every Saturday evening whether your work is ready or not. Many times reporters get their information from other news sources. The problem is they are either lazy or pressed on a deadline and a lot of times they end up using half of someone else’s work and putting their name on it.

Don’t get me wrong. I am agreeing with you. I believe if you want to protect yourself, you should be registered, especially books and larger bodies of work. Like I said, the burden of proof falls on the author and should someone try to profit from your hard work it would make defending it a lot easier.

You would be wrong. Cite a case if you think you're right, please. The news media, because it is almost in real time, has blanket procedures with formal copyright registration. And contracts on use are signed with anybody's writing or photos or recordings they use before they go on air.

 

[sr71plt]

The cases I remember are cases of plagiarism on the part of journalist at the papers. The Times has had several struggles with this over the past few years. In 2008 and 2010 journalist were caught copying material from The Wall Street Journal and other news sources, and passing it as their own work. The Times has also sued entities for copyright infringement, one the animated show South Park.

This doesn't constitute citing a case where one of the parties didn't hold a formal copyright registration.

As to the media, I was referring to the print news and not televised broadcasts. I have worked for 12 years for three different news groups and been printed in at least 11 different publications. I have never registered a copyright or signed a use contract for any of my articles or photos. I also do not know any other journalist that has signed such a contract. While copyright exist upon the creation of a work, the burden of proof falls on the author. Proof of the creation of the work as well as that of damages. Of course newspapers and other print media have an easier time providing dates of creation simply with publication dates.

I included the print media in what I was referring to (I was a print journalist for 24 years). You never registered a copyright on your articles because you never owned them. You were working under a work-for-hire contract (and you most certainly did sign one of those) wherein your newspaper owned the copyright from the get go. And, as I noted already, real-time media have blanket copyright registration procedures.

The reason you see so many cases involving news media

What many cases? You still have not provided a court cast citation to a copyright case where one of the parties didn't hold a formal registration.

And you won't be able to. Because the law is clear (and has been repeated here a gazillion times). You can't get a court date unless/until one of the parties holds a formal copyright registration on the material in contention.

 

[Dixiedevil67]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9652OD01
http://www.ap.org/iprights/fairey.html

These two pages tell of the Associated Press going to court over a photo taken of the President by a former AP photographer. Many will recognize the image that was not registered with the copyright office (This is stated in several of the stories about this case). The photo was never used officailly by the AP and was place on Google where it was copied by the artist. Somehow, a court date has been set for the case. I'm not sure how this happened because these cases never go to court.

This doesn't constitute citing a case where one of the parties didn't hold a formal copyright registration.

I included the print media in what I was referring to (I was a print journalist for 24 years). You never registered a copyright on your articles because you never owned them. You were working under a work-for-hire contract (and you most certainly did sign one of those) wherein your newspaper owned the copyright from the get go. And, as I noted already, real-time media have blanket copyright registration procedures.

True, I was a work for hire at several of the papers, but later in partnership with a group. No contracts either way. Sorry.

 

[sr71plt]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9652OD01
http://www.ap.org/iprights/fairey.html

These two pages tell of the Associated Press going to court over a photo taken of the President by a former AP photographer. Many will recognize the image that was not registered with the copyright office (This is stated in several of the stories about this case). The photo was never used officailly by the AP and was place on Google where it was copied by the artist. Somehow, a court date has been set for the case. I'm not sure how this happened because these cases never go to court.

True, I was a work for hire at several of the papers, but later in partnership with a group. No contracts either way. Sorry.

The links you give clearly state that AP claims it held the copyright. Which would be the natural procedure and the photographer was work-for-hire.

So, I haven't the foggiest notion why you are claiming they say something else. If you didn't work under contract at any time and have no idea about what was done about filing for copyright on articles under that arrangement, it was probably just a case of the blind leading the blind and no one having bothered to obtain copyright. And if you didn't try to go to court over copyright on anything in these years, this part is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Dixiedevil67]

Of course they say they hold the copyright. The photographer who took the shot never used the image with AP and did not register it. AP contends that because the photographer was working for them at the time the photo was taken, it is their property, and they hold the copyright. They didn't even know about the photo until someone identified it, after the artwork became famous, as being taken by one time AP photographer Mannie Garcia.

The artist, Fairey, contends that he obtained the image through Google, and that it was under the protection of Fair Use. In several articles on the case the photographer, Garcia, claims he owned the photo in question and did not register it. No one in the case held a "registered" copyright of the photograph at the time the artwork was created, however I believe all three have registered copyright now.

This case is still undecided and is going to exactly what we are talking about here. If there was a registered copyright in the beginning, I don't think this case would be going as far as it is. But, to say a case with an unregistered copyright never make it to court is wrong. Yes, there is registered copyrights now, but at the time of the creation of the work, or when the photo was posted on Google, there was no registration.

There are several more articles on this case.

The links you give clearly state that AP claims it held the copyright. Which would be the natural procedure and that the photographer was work-for-hire.

So, I haven't the foggiest notion why you are claiming they say something else.

 

[sr71plt]

Of course they say they hold the copyright. The photographer who took the shot never used the image with AP and did not register it. AP contends that because the photographer was working for them at the time the photo was taken, it is their property, and they hold the copyright. They didn't even know about the photo until someone identified it, after the artwork became famous, as being taken by one time AP photographer Mannie Garcia.

The artist, Fairey, contends that he obtained the image through Google, and that it was under the protection of Fair Use. In several articles on the case the photographer, Garcia, claims he owned the photo in question and did not register it. No one in the case held a "registered" copyright of the photograph at the time the artwork was created, however I believe all three have registered copyright now.

This case is still undecided and is going to exactly what we are talking about here. If there was a registered copyright in the beginning, I don't think this case would be going as far as it is. But, to say a case with an unregistered copyright never make it to court is wrong. Yes, there is registered copyrights now, but at the time of the creation of the work, or when the photo was posted on Google, there was no registration.

There are several more articles on this case.

We could go around this Maypole forever, you know.

This photographer was under work-for-hire contract to AP on this assignment. Everything he shot already belonged to AP (according to AP's position. He claims he didn't shot the photo, so it didn't belong to AP). AP materials are automatically copyrighted by them through the special media copyright procedures. AP brought suit because they automatically owned anything he shot on this photo suit and they claim he shot this photo--and anything he shot was automatically copyrighted to AP. AP was able to bring suit--and only was able to bring suit--because they held copyright on anything this photographer shot on this assignment. They couldn't bring it to court otherwise. The courts will only give a court date if one of the parties has copyright registration. It's the law. The point of contention is whether he shot it to begin with. It's not a case of something going to court without a copyright registration obtained.

Now, it's your turn to ignore reality and the law and make something up and that makes others falsely feel their stories are protected.

 

[Dixiedevil67]

Yes ... we are wearing out a path aren't we.

None of the parties held a registered copyright at the time the photo was downloaded. It is agreed by all that Garcia took the photo, and he later filed his own suit, claiming he was not employed by the AP in that he was never unionized, recieved health benefits, and had never signed any sort of contract relinquishing copyright to his material (sound familiar?). He also claimed that later the AP unlawfully registered the copyright on the image, using his name. He has since withdrawn his lawsuit, saying he doesn't wish to bother with it anymore.

Nothing is made up here. There are many articles on this case, which is going to trial in March of this year. Like it or not, this is a case where an unregistered photo that was copied on the Internet, is going to the courts.

Your turn to ignore facts. And I agree, as I have all along, that people should protect their works.

We could go around this Maypole forever, you know.

This photographer was under work-for-hire contract to AP on this assignment. Everything he shot already belonged to AP (according to AP's position. He claims he didn't shot the photo, so it didn't belong to AP). AP materials are automatically copyrighted by them through the special media copyright procedures. AP brought suit because they automatically owned anything he shot on this photo suit and they claim he shot this photo--and anything he shot was automatically copyrighted to AP. AP was able to bring suit--and only was able to bring suit--because they held copyright on anything this photographer shot on this assignment. They couldn't bring it to court otherwise. The courts will only give a court date if one of the parties has copyright registration. It's the law. The point of contention is whether he shot it to begin with. It's not a case of something going to court without a copyright registration obtained.

Now, it's your turn to ignore reality and the law and make something up and that makes others falsely feel their stories are protected.

 

[sr71plt]

He also claimed that later the AP unlawfully registered the copyright on the image, using his name.

Ahah, at last you refer to a copyright registration--the existence of a copyright registration, which is the only element that permits this case to be a legal case.

The whole issue here is whether a Lit. author has legal redress without holding a formal copyright registration.

They can't do anything that would go to a court, because the court won't accept a case that isn't hinged on someone holding a formal copyright registration.

Stop trying to make people think they have protections they don't have. This is sillyness--and it doesn't serve anyone's interests to make them believe they have redress that they don't have.

 

[Dixiedevil67]

True ... you have to have a registered copyright to bring it to court. But, if you suddenly find your unregistered work reprinted somewhere, making thousands of dollars under someone else's name, go register your work and sue the hell out of them. It's not hard. It cost $35. This is what the AP did.

The same thing involved the NewYork Times, and the Supreme Court Ruled last year that unregistered works can be brought to court.

http://www.examiner.com/public-poli...ion-for-unregistered-copyrights-federal-court

As I have said, save yourself the hassle of all this if you have a work that you feel should be protected and register it.

Ahah, at last you refer to a copyright registration--the existence of a copyright registration, which is the only element that permits this case to be a legal case.

The whole issue here is whether a Lit. author has legal redress without holding a formal copyright registration.

They can't do anything that would go to a court, because the court won't accept a case that isn't hinged on someone holding a formal copyright registration.

Stop trying to make people think they have protections they don't have. This is sillyness--and it doesn't serve anyone's interests to make them believe they have redress that they don't have.

 

[Darkniciad]

Actually, this case was about jurisdictional mumbo-jumbo, and the opinion didn't address the requirement to file a copyright before going to court -- other than to directly say that it didn't address it.

It was also part of a class-action lawsuit that lumped together registered and unregistered works, so at least some of the works in question did have registered copyright before going to court.

True ... you have to have a registered copyright to bring it to court. But, if you suddenly find your unregistered work reprinted somewhere, making thousands of dollars under someone else's name, go register your work and sue the hell out of them. It's not hard. It cost $35. This is what the AP did.

The same thing involved the NewYork Times, and the Supreme Court Ruled last year that unregistered works can be brought to court.

http://www.examiner.com/public-poli...ion-for-unregistered-copyrights-federal-court

As I have said, save yourself the hassle of all this if you have a work that you feel should be protected and register it.

 

[Dixiedevil67]

This is also true, but it is also another example of unregistered works making it to court. What it should show however is how hard a fight it is if your work is unregistered. Being unregistered severly limits your legal options. In the Supreme Court case, if all the authors had been registered, a settlement would have been reached much sooner.

Actually, this case was about jurisdictional mumbo-jumbo, and the opinion didn't address the requirement to file a copyright before going to court -- other than to directly say that it didn't address it.

It was also part of a class-action lawsuit that lumped together registered and unregistered works, so at least some of the works in question did have registered copyright before going to court.

 

[Belladonna]

Authors post stories on Lit because we wrote something we want to SHARE for FREE (obviously) and anyone who thinks they can cash in on our creation is theft. We, as writers, make no money on our stories here, only get the joy in sharing them. The debate is not about the law that has been broken, or proving it, but making sure the criminal has as few methods of cashing in on our work as possible.
Despite his efforts, I thank the aforementioned "party pooper" for continuing his back and forth banter as it brings this to the front of the message board so more people can read it and hopefully know if the were or were not plagiarized. It should be complained about to the retailers and the publishers of the stolen work to make them aware. I appreciate bringing this specific book of plagiarism to everyone's attention.