"Copyright Ownership and Transfer, 203: Termination of - - -" Finally!

"Record Industry Braces for Artists' Battles Over Song Rights"
Larry Rohter (August 15, 2011)

"Since their release in 1978, hit albums like Bruce Springsteen's 'Darkness on the Edge of Town,' Billy Joel's '52nd Street,' the Doobie Brothers' 'Minute by Minute,' Kenny Rogers's 'Gambler' and Funkadelic's 'One Nation Under a Groove' have generated tens of millions of dollars for record companies. But thanks to a little-noted provision in United States copyright law, those artists - and thousands more - now have the right to reclaim ownership of their recordings, potentially leaving the labels out in the cold.

"When copyright law was revised in the mid-1970s, musicians, like creators of other works of art, were granted 'termination rights,' which allow them to regain control of their work after 35 years, so long as they apply at least two years in advance. Recordings from 1978 are the first to fall under the purview of the law, but in a matter of months, hits from 1979, like 'The Long Run' by the Eagles and 'Bad Girls' by Donna Summer, will be in the same situation - and then, as the calendar advances, every other master recording once it reaches the 35-year mark.

"The provision also permits songwriters to reclaim ownership of qualifying songs...."

Why should the Lemming care what some rock star's lawyers may be doing? 'Those people' make gazillions of dollars and deserve nothing by envy and/or contempt, right?

First, for every rock star who makes and spends several million a month - and might get called a 'creative genius' after dying of an overdose - there are a whole lot of performers to travel from one gig to another for decades, earning a living while studio brass travel from one luxury resort to another on 'company business.'

Steady, now - the Lemming needs to calm down.

Creative, Marketing, Distribution, and Fairness

A few folks are good at being creative, selling what they create, managing a network of distributors: and hyperactive enough to do all that on their own.

But not many.

The point is that entertainment studios serve an important function, taking care of the business end of music, movies, and media: giving the 'creative' types time to be creative. That's the way it should work, anyway.

In the real world:

• Responsible studio folks go prematurely gray
  • Wondering if this performer will stay sober enough to finish a tour
  • Trying to find the superstar who stormed out of a recording session
    • And hasn't been seen since
• Responsible 'creatives' develop ulcers
  • Arguing with the studio over travel expenses
  • Trying to explain why "sunny" doesn't rhyme with "orange"
    • Even if "Sunny Orange" is an important sponsor

More seriously, folks who create and perform deserve tangible rewards; and so do folks who run the business side of entertainment: in the Lemming's considered opinion.

January 1, 2013: 35 Years Later

A rather dry bit of United States law reads, in part:

"(a) Conditions for Termination. - In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978, otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions...."
(§ 203 . Termination of transfers and licenses granted by the author³)

January 1, 1978 plus 35 years started a little over two and a half weeks ago. From the Lemming's point of view, intellectual property rights changed for the better in America.

More:

• "Copyright Law of the United States of America
  and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code
  Circular 92"
  • § 203 . Termination of transfers and licenses granted by the author³

Related posts:

• "Lemming Tracks: Instagram; Intellectual Property; and Underage Models"
  (December 21, 2012)
• "Lemming Tracks: SOPA, Tech-Savvy Folks, Hollywood, and Congress"
  (January 9, 2012)
• "SOPA, Censorship, the Twits in Washington, and a Ranting Lemming"
  (December 28, 2011)
• "COICA: A Federal Official Deciding Who Gets to Stay Online"
  (November 19, 2010)
• "Intellectual Property Rights: Yes, They Matter"
  (June 13, 2010)

Copyright Infringement Case: Over a Tattoo?!

"Studio Might Alter Tattoo in Hangover DVD Release"
David Kravets, Threat Level, Wired (June 10, 2011)

"Warner Bros. says it would digitally alter the tattoo on a character in the upcoming DVD version of its new comedy, The Hangover: Part II, if the studio is unable to resolve copyright litigation surrounding the ink design.

"A lawsuit brought by a Missouri tattooist asserts the movie features a 'virtually exact reproduction' of a copyright tattoo he inked on former heavyweight boxing champ Mike Tyson in 2003. The tattoo appears on the Stu Price character played by actor Ed Helms.

"The judge presiding over the Missouri federal copyright-infringement case allowed the movie to debut last month, but kept the lawsuit by tattoo artist Victor Whitmill alive...."


(from Threat Level, Wired, used w/o permission)

The Lemming thought this lawsuit was the result of celebrity temperament and an ethically-challenged lawyer tangling with a production company that didn't do its homework. That opinion changed, when the Lemming discovered that it wasn't Mr. Tyson who was suing: it was Victor Whitmill, who created Mr. Tyson's tattoo.

Judging from the photo, there may be differences between the tattoo on Stu's face and Mr. Tysons. But those differences are quite likely due to Ed Helms, who plays Stu in Hangover II, having a head that isn't quite the same shape as Mr. Tyson.

Art, Movies, Scripts, and Getting a Grip

The Lemming has no problem with Stu waking up one morning with furry eyeballs and a tattoo he can't remember getting. Stu might be the sort of person who would be in that situation.

Stu's mystery tattoo being virtually identical to Mike Tyson's isn't implausible, either. It isn't, the Lemming thinks, that big a stretch of the imagination to think that Stu stumbled into a tattoo parlor one night. Clutching a magazine with Mr. Tyson on the cover, he demanded a tattoo "just like him!" The tattoo artist might, plausibly, determine that Stu had cash to cover the job - and duplicated the tattoo.

So far, no problem.

The problem, in the Lemming's opinion, is that apparently nobody working with director Todd Phillips, or Warner Brothers, had the presence of mind to find out who did the tattoo, and get a release form signed.

Sure, Mr. Whitmill might have insisted on having his name in the credits, a more-than-token payment for use of his artwork, or both - but the Lemming thinks that would have been less expensive than what Warner Brothers is spending on the lawsuit.

A Copyright Tattoo: Ridiculous? Maybe, Maybe Not

Wired has "The Courts, The Ridiculous," listed as Categories for this piece.

"The Courts" makes sense, since what could have been a simple business transaction is now a court case. "The Ridiculous," not so much - in the Lemming's opinion.

But the Lemming is biased. Tattoos may not be the sort of art that rich snobs gush over, but the Lemming things that the things are, arguably, art. An artist may decide to waive copyright: and hats off to the folks who do so. But an artist also, in the Lemming's opinion, have some protection from folks who want to use the artist's work without compensation.

Or, apparently, credit.

In the Lemming's opinion.

The Lemming's, again, is biased. One of the Lemming's kids is an artist and writer, another a writer: and the Lemming does both. That puts the Lemming closer to Victor Whitmill's position, than Warner Brothers'.

Apparently nobody's tried enforcing copyright on a tattoo in American courts - and succeeded. Well, there's a first time for everything.

Finally, is the Lemming a hypocrite, criticizing Warner Brothers for copying a tattoo, and then posting a photo of Mr. Tyson and Ed Helms? The Lemming doesn't think so - the photos are an illustration from the Wired article, identified as such, and are relevant to this micro-review: which links to the Wired article, and a data page about Hangover II. The Lemming's no legal expert, but that seems to come well within "fair use."

Related posts:

• "Google, Bing, Microsoft, 'Original' Work, and Getting a Grip"
  (February 2, 2011)
• "Intellectual Property Rights: Yes, They Matter"
  (June 13, 2010)
• "The New York Times and the Information Age: Culture Shock?"
  (June 10, 2010)
• "RIAA, MPA and Verizon Against Information Pirates - I Hope"
  (January 21, 2010)
• "The Associated Press, Fair Use, TechCrunch, and Common Sense"
  (June 22, 2008)

More posts by the Lemming, about intellectual property:

• "Intellectual Property Rights "

Planet eBook - Classic Literature For Free

Planet eBook

"Classic literature for download as free eBooks"

"Welcome to Planet eBook, the home of free classic literature. All our novels and books are entirely free for you to download and share with your friends, classmates, students, anyone! Scroll down the page to see the full list of free eBooks...."

Another website where you can get books that are not, or are no longer, covered by copyright. My favorite is still Project Gutenberg, but that's partly a matter of personal taste and familiarity.

European Commission Extends Sound Recording Copyright

"Copyright gets 'Use It Or Lose It' clause"
The Register (July 16, 2008)

"The European Commission today approved an extension to the life of sound recording copyright, from 50 to 90 years - but with a twist.

"The EC has insisted on a "use it or lose it" clause, which allows the recordings to revert to the performer if the producer or record company has no desire to market the recording. It's designed to prevent recordings gathering cobwebs in record company vaults, and the new clause can be invoked a year after the 50-year term expires.

" 'The clause will empower performers to market their early songs themselves,' the Commission wrote in a statement.

"The EC argued that term extension was justified on the basis that poorly-paid performers, rather than large record companies, were morally justified. Because most CDs fail to recoup, performers who are paid by a percentage of sales rarely see a dime over their session rate. However, when a sound recording is broadcast, the performers get 50 per cent of the resulting royalty. (For their part, the songwriters and composers earn money from another copyright, which remains unchanged at life plus 70 years.)..."

The way it's presented here, this extension seems to make sense. I think it's reasonable for whoever created a work (sound recording, written article, photograph, whatever) should get compensated for use of that work.

Obviously, there's going to be quite a bit rewriting of intellectual property rights law, as the legal system adjusts to Information Age technologies.

What interested me the most in this decision was that it was intended to level the playing field: giving non-megastar performers a chance to profit from their work. That leveling seems to be a characteristic of these first years of the Information Age. These days, publishing and performance is much more in the hands of people who don't have power or position.

I like it.

Related posts, on Intellectual Property Rights

Dealing with Content Theft: A Pretty Good Idea

"One tactic for dealing with content theft"
BlogCatalog Discussion Thread (started July 6, 2008)

"Many months ago, Dane Morgan offered some seemingly unorthodox advice about dealing with content theft. We should build internal links into our posts that lead back to our blogs should the content be stolen.

"I don't like how someone stole my guest post on the BlogCatalog blog, but the fact that the links lead...."

I think anyone who puts original content on the Web would profit from reading this thread. Eight hours after it started, there's been a pretty good discussion about the link idea, and related topics.

(If you've been following "Apathetic Lemming of the North" for a while, you already know this, but: I'm part of the BlogCatalog online community - and like it there. You'll find quite a wide variety of people and ideas.

The Grand Shaft at Dover

• "White Cliffs Country - Heritage -The Grand Shaft"
• "Dover Lock and Key of the Kingdom: The Grand Shaft"
• "the grand shaft - amazing military engineering"

From the Napoleonic era.

On a separate topic, notice the combination of original(?) photos and text 'shared' with another page in "the grand shaft - amazing military engineering."

Copyscape: Very Good Tool Against Content Thieves

One of the better tools for content creators who have had their work stolen is Copyscape. You'll learn more at my post, "Plagiarism-Finder Site: Copyscape" (August 9, 2007), or better yet, go directly to Copyscape.

The BlogCatalog.com member whose posts were stolen suggested clicking on the "Plagiarism" section, for guidance on how to protect your blogs.

Update, same day.

"Someone is publishing my posts ditto" is a discussion thread on BlogCatalog.com, with some potentially useful links.

"All the Myriad Ways" - Tribute or Violation?

"All The Myriad Ways" is both a moderately typo-free copy of Larry Niven's short story, and, as far as I can tell, a violation of intellectual property rights. The short story was published first in 1971, in a collection of short stories of the same name. The collection is out of print, but currently available at Amazon.com, in the Del Rey 1985 edition.

The person who copied Mr. Niven's story was good enough to retain the original title, and give Larry Niven credit as author. It would have been more of a tribute, if the copier had proofed the story and fixed the typos.

A somewhat more respectful (at least) website devoted to Larry Niven's work is "Known Space: The Future Worlds of Larry Niven."

(What follows is a sort of mini-rant. Feel free to ignore it.)

I'll admit I'm biased. I like copyright, patents, and residuals. The latter is something that I may be more concerned about than some actors. Ray Bolger, American entertainer, supposedly said, when asked if he had gotten any residuals from his role as Scarecrow in the 1939 "Wizard of Oz," "No, just immortality. I'll settle for that."

I see his point.

As if to demonstrate an inverse relationship between scholarship and eloquence, a learned judge laid this syntactic egg. The judge in question is Alex Kozinski, U.S. 9th Circuit Judge, with whom Circuit Judges O'Scannlain and Kleinfeld join, in not agreeing with the decision in the case of "VANNA WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC."

"Creativity is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it's supposed to nurture." (from The Unofficial Judge Alex Kozinski Site.)

I wish the judge had been a better writer. He's actually got a point, relevant to the apparently nut-house case that came before the bar, involving Vana White and a robot that she claimed had taken her identity.

You can't make this stuff up.

Even though a brilliant actor/singer/dancer decided that a sort of immortality was a fair trade-off for no residuals, and Vanna White got a review of her strange claim, I think that intellectual property rights are important.

I wouldn't go as far as some, insisting on approval and payment for use of terms like "Coca Cola ®," "Superman ®," and "Kleenex ®," providing that the terms were acknowledged to be registered trademarks.

But I would like to see authors, and their estates, get the income they deserve for creating works like "The Lord of the Rings," "Ulysses," and "Love Story."

Related posts on Apathetic Lemming of the North:

• "All the Myriad Ways" - Tribute or Violation?
  (September 4, 2007)
• Stealing Intellectual Property Isn't Nice
  (August 29, 2007)
• Mis-Matched and Unattributed: Double Whammy for These Blog Posts
  (August 26, 2007)
• Intellectual Property Rights: A Borderline Post?
  (August 22, 2007)
• Intellectual Property Violation: What to Do
  (August 15, 2007)
• Intellectual Property Violation: This Time With Laughs
  (August 10, 2007)
• Copyright Material Ripped Off? You're not alone.
  (August 9, 2007)
• Plagiarism-Finder Site: Copyscape
  (August 9, 2007)
• Another Abuse of Copyright: If This Isn't Illegal, it Should Be!
  (August 9, 2007)
• Copyright: a List You Shouldn't Myth
  (August 8, 2007)
• Copy, Steal, Rob, Whatever: Another Violation of Intellectual Property Rights
  (August 3, 2007)
• Copyright Infringement, YouTube, and Video Sharing
  (July 28, 2007)
• Sploggers: Intellectual Property Thieves
  (July 28, 2007)

Stealing Intellectual Property Isn't Nice

An earlier post today, "Worst High School Analogies, plus Gilbert and Sullivan," introduced me to a good parody of a Gilbert and Sullivan song.

It also introduced me to another example of Internet users' fast-and-loose treatment of intellectual property rights. The lyrics of "I am the very model of a Newsgroup personality" are funny, and for the most part well-written. They've also been spread across cyberspace, sometimes without an author being claimed. "Tom Holt" may have written the piece, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,"(1) but I wouldn't want to be flattered this way. It's not just pride of authorship, although that's a factor. I'm trying to support my family, partly through income generated by my writing. Writers, particularly those who are so 'inartistic' as to desire monetary rewards for their efforts, may not want their work to be distributed without

• Consent
• Acknowledgment of authorship
• Pay

For professional writers, and writers trying to make a career of using their talent and skill, this sort of casual theft can be a serious matter.

A Google search for "I am the very model of a Newsgroup personality" yielded over a thousand hits. Google's de-duping system pared it down to 22. Here are the links that were still working, and had lyrics at the linked page.

• http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=997390
• http://www.luxumbradei.com/parody/newsgroup.html
  (Tom Holt credited)
• http://sillysoft.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9749&view=next
  (this post acknowledges that the words were "found online.")
• http://www.talkaboutagriculture.com/group/uk.business.agriculture/messages/151534.htm
  (poster acknowledges source! "Newsgroup Ditty - original poster (Australian newsgroup) unknown")
• http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.asia/browse_thread/thread/90d69feaaf5f2fa6
• http://sniff.numachi.com/pages/tiNEWSGRP.html
  (another "Tom Holt" credit)
• http://sniff.numachi.com/pages/tiNERDSONG.html
  (without "Tom Holt" credit)
• http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t75374.html
  (the poster acknowledges, "This appeared on usenet many, many years ago.")
• http://world.std.com/~mhuben/gsonline
  (Kudos! The poster is open, and curious: "This turned up in my e-mail. If anyone knows of the original source or a site that really hosts this ditty, I'd like to find out. M. Huben")
• http://p70-144.acedsl.com/xywrite/2000/msg01131.htm
  ("Subject: 'Roadkill' Gibson sings Gilbert and Sullivan")
• http://www.talkaboutculture.com/group/soc.culture.thai/messages/506150.html
• http://www.c4vct.com/kym/humor/rns.htm

I ran the last entry, "c4vct," past the free version of Copyscape. The results were interesting: 10 hits, with a promise of more with the paid version of the service.

Related posts on Apathetic Lemming of the North:

• Stealing Intellectual Property Isn't Nice
  (August 29, 2007)
• Mis-Matched and Unattributed: Double Whammy for These Blog Posts
  (August 26, 2007)
• Intellectual Property Rights: A Borderline Post?
  (August 22, 2007)
• Intellectual Property Violation: What to Do
  (August 15, 2007)
• Intellectual Property Violation: This Time With Laughs
  (August 10, 2007)
• Copyright Material Ripped Off? You're not alone.
  (August 9, 2007)
• Plagiarism-Finder Site: Copyscape
  (August 9, 2007)
• Another Abuse of Copyright: If This Isn't Illegal, it Should Be!
  (August 9, 2007)
• Copyright: a List You Shouldn't Myth
  (August 8, 2007)
• Copy, Steal, Rob, Whatever: Another Violation of Intellectual Property Rights
  (August 3, 2007)
• Copyright Infringement, YouTube, and Video Sharing
  (July 28, 2007)
• Sploggers: Intellectual Property Thieves
  (July 28, 2007)

(1) Charles Caleb Colton, "Lacon," volume I, no. 183

Intellectual Property Rights: Creative Compiling,or Rip-Off?

The post about robots that I discussed recently, "Ten (10) High Technology Robots That May Change The World," posted by someone called Marvin, was accused of copying material, and maybe the entire post, from other sites.

One of the more recent comments read, in part "The comments on ripping off sites and copywrite etc, when are you people going to learn the whole interesting aspect of the internet is the fact it is unregulated and uncontrolled, by now people should realise there isnt such a thing as copywrite in the virtual world that is the internet."

That wasn't so much an accusation, as a celebration of lawlessness. And, I'm not at all sure that the claim that "there isnt such a thing as copywrite in the virtual world...." is accurate.

Lack of enforcement, yes. Lack of copyright and other intellectual property laws and regulations, no.

I used a handy plagiarism-checking site, Copyscape, and found no indication that Marvin's post was a straightforward cut-and-paste of someone else's post.

I did, however, find that Marvin had copied rather extensively from two sites, at least:

• LiveScience.com : Image Gallery: Cutting-Edge Robots (text and image copied)
• Robots: An Exhibition of U.S. Automatons from the Leading Edge of Research (text copied)

Marvin's post is original, in the sense that the combination of text and pictures is unique to his post. However, he did use images and substantial sections of text from other sites.

Some of the pictures have their origin identified as part of the image, but that's the only acknowledgment I found in the post.

Other than one of the comments, which identified the source for some of the post's information.

I have no idea whether Marvin's post crossed the line, and violated the intellectual property rights of the authors of his post's components. I'm not saying that he didn't create a more visually pleasing and readable list than the sites he copied material from: just that his lack of acknowledgment is disquieting.

I do know that he danced closer to the edge than I'd want to.

Related posts on Apathetic Lemming of the North:

• Intellectual Property Rights: A Borderline Post? (August 22, 2007)
• Intellectual Property Violation: What to Do (August 15, 2007)
• Intellectual Property Violation: This Time With Laughs (August 10, 2007)
• Copyright Material Ripped Off? You're not alone. (August 9, 2007)
• Plagiarism-Finder Site: Copyscape (August 9, 2007)
• Another Abuse of Copyright: If This Isn't Illegal, it Should Be! (August 9, 2007)
• Copyright: a List You Shouldn't Myth (August 8, 2007)
• Copy, Steal, Rob, Whatever: Another Violation of Intellectual Property Rights (August 3, 2007)
• Copyright Infringement, YouTube, and Video Sharing (July 28, 2007)
• Sploggers: Intellectual Property Thieves (July 28, 2007)

---

Creative Commons: People's Panacea or Corporate Imperialist?

Probably neither.

This post is about Creative Commons, and about intellectual property rights. There are no links to a blog here, but if you're a blogger, or put anything online, you should be interested.

I was reminded of Creative Commons by a rather strident article, "Software tool promises 1-click colonialism." The article's tone was set by the first sentence: "The music industry has a long and shameful history of robbing black artists of their rights."

Apparently, the author believes that Creative Commons is going to integrate Liblicense with MIT Media Lab's One Laptop Per Child initiative (OLPC) in order to subjugate the oppressed masses of the world.

That accusation got me interested in Creative Commons. I discovered that it was another of San Francisco's contributions to the online world, that some people were opposed to it, and that it had ardent supporters.

I ran into several supporters in a discussion thread on (you guessed it) BlogCatalog.

I don't use Creative Commons myself, and don't plan to in the foreseeable future. Not because I know anything bad about it, but because I don't know anything that makes it worth my while.

The worst criticism I encountered of Creative Commons that was plausible was that it was a solution to a problem that didn't exist: that it was irrelevant.

But, I could be wrong.

My own approach to protecting intellectual property rights is to post copyright notices, periodically check for copies of my work, and read the TOS of places where I post my work.

Creative Commons, based on comments I've read that came from people whose opinions I've learned to respect, seems to be a potentially useful organization. But, like any other organization, it's just common sense to read the TOS (Terms of Service), and any other information the organization provides, about what they think can be done with whatever you give them.

Creative Commons
Creative Commons FAQ

Intellectual Property Violation: What to Do

One thing to do, anyway.

I'm following up on an earlier post. Massive amounts of content had been copied by a "blog," Pretty Paws Stylin', and posted in Pretty Paws Stylin'. After being confronted, PPS cited sources for some of its more recent posts, and sent a rather shrill email back to the content's creator.

Aside from the ethics of the, ah, creative posting strategy employed by Pretty Paws Stylin', there was the matter of advertising revenue.

The person who wrote the content that Pretty Paws Stylin' ripped off has added a comment to the discussion strong, which includes a message from AdSense, detailing a procedure for sending an official complaint about stolen content.

The AdSense procedure is at (or near, by now) the bottom of this rather long discussion.

Related posts on Apathetic Lemming of the North:

• Intellectual Property Violation: What to Do (August 15, 2007)
• Intellectual Property Violation: This Time With Laughs (August 10, 2007)
• Copyright Material Ripped Off? You're not alone. (August 9, 2007)
• Plagiarism-Finder Site: Copyscape (August 9, 2007)
• Another Abuse of Copyright: If This Isn't Illegal, it Should Be! (August 9, 2007)
• Copyright: a List You Shouldn't Myth (August 8, 2007)
• Copy, Steal, Rob, Whatever: Another Violation of Intellectual Property Rights (August 3, 2007)
• Copyright Infringement, YouTube, and Video Sharing (July 28, 2007)
• Sploggers: Intellectual Property Thieves (July 28, 2007)

Copyright Material Ripped Off? You're not alone.

And, more to the point, there's something to be done about it.

Instead of rambling on myself, here's a link to Content Theft - How I Recently Had To Deal With That, a detailed and practical account of how a smart non-expert handled unauthorized use of his copyrighted material.

He lists tools and services he found useful. That post is a valuable resource.

Copyright is important, and there things you can do. Besides cry and bang your head on the table, that is.

Related posts on Apathetic Lemming of the North:

• Plagiarism-Finder Site: Copyscape (August 9, 2007)
• Another Abuse of Copyright: If This Isn't Illegal, it Should Be! (August 9, 2007)
• Copyright: a List You Shouldn't Myth (August 8, 2007)
• Copy, Steal, Rob, Whatever: Another Violation of Intellectual Property Rights (August 3, 2007)
• Copyright Infringement, YouTube, and Video Sharing (July 28, 2007)
• Sploggers: Intellectual Property Thieves (July 28, 2007)

Plagiarism-Finder Site: Copyscape

Unauthorized use of intellectual property on the Internet is a real problem. Plagiarism can draw traffic away from the creator of content, robbing the author of whatever revenue might have come from a visit to the original page.

A friend of mine on an online community brought up what looks like a pretty good method of at least finding pirated materials" Copyscape "Search for copies of your page on the Web."

I've tried a free, online, service of Copyscape, and found that, so far, the pirates seem to be neglecting me. I can't say I'm disappointed.

I believe that this is an effective service. It doesn't protect your copyright material, but Copyscape makes it practical to find those who are copying it.

It even pulled out one of these quickie-review posts that some sites use to attract visitors. That sort of thing I don't mind, since the ones I've seen have universally included a link back to my page. Unauthorized, yes. Free publicity, also yes.

The original discussion, where I learned about Copyscape, is Copyscape and plagiarism.

[Post script - Another, similar, resource has been brought to my attention, Numly (Beta).]

Related posts on Apathetic Lemming of the North:

• Another Abuse of Copyright: If This Isn't Illegal, it Should Be!
• Copyright: a List You Shouldn't Myth
• Copy, Steal, Rob, Whatever: Another Violation of Intellectual Property Rights (August 3, 2007)
• Copyright Infringement, YouTube, and Video Sharing (July 28, 2007)
• Sploggers: Intellectual Property Thieves (July 28, 2007)

Another Abuse of Copyright: If This Isn't Illegal, it Should Be!

Yet another intellectual property rights violation.

This time, it's an attractive blog, Pretty Paws Stylin', with a picture of an adorable puppy at the top. At least, that's what was there when I visited a few minutes ago.

The blog posts are, as far as I can tell, ripped off from places on the Web that actually produce something.

I assume that profits from the AdSense advertising on "Pretty Paws Stylin' are going to the fellow who registered the URL.

Too bad there probably aren't more than a few words of original content there.

The, ah, author of this blog was caught recently, by one of the people he's ripped off, and started acknowledging the actual creators of posts. The recent ones, anyway.

As of this post, he hasn't gotten past this month. July posts are still unacknowledged.

The guy who runs "Pretty Paws Stylin'" has quite a sense of humor. At the bottom of each page he's put declaration, "Copyright © Pretty Paws."

The domain was created on May 26, 2007, according to Network Solutions' WhoIs service. The administrative and technical contacts are anonymous. The domain is registered through GoDaddy.com. In seems that Pretty Paws is run from Guadalajara, Mexico.

In order to follow GoDaddy's TOS with a comfortable margin of error, I won't give the sort of detail you can get through GoDaddy's WhoIs service, entering prettypawsstylin in their WhoIs. The link to this service is in a set of text links near the bottom of GoDaddy's home page.

Taking the creative work of someone else, posting in on your own blog, declaring it as your own copyrighted material, and making money from it: I'm no legal expert, but that sounds illegal. Unethical, at any rate.

Related posts on Apathetic Lemming of the North:

• Copyright: a List You Shouldn't Myth
• Copy, Steal, Rob, Whatever: Another Violation of Intellectual Property Rights (August 3, 2007)
• Copyright Infringement, YouTube, and Video Sharing (July 28, 2007)
• Sploggers: Intellectual Property Thieves (July 28, 2007)

Copyright: a List You Shouldn't Myth

Sorry about that title.

Misconceptions about what copyright covers, and doesn't cover, are common. Knowing what's true and what's not about intellectual property rights is important: especially with so much free-floating misinformation, like:

• 'I found it on the Web, and anyway, I'm not charging for it, so copyright doesn't apply, right?'
• 'Everybody's doing fanfics. If I write my own story about Captain Kirk and Dr. McCoy, that's not copyright infringement, right?'

Wrong on both points, according to 10 Big Myths about copyright explained, written by Brad Templeton, publisher of an electronic newspaper. Updated in 2004.

It's a pretty good summary of copyright, despite being 3 years old. The author isn't a legal expert, but he seems to have a firm grasp of what's so and what's not.

Knowing about copyright is important for bloggers: especially those whose blogs refer to what other people have written. Although starting with "10 Big Myths" - or using it a sort review - is a good idea, I recommend reading more than Mr. Templeton's page.

Related posts on Apathetic Lemming of the North:

• Copy, Steal, Rob, Whatever: Another Violation of Intellectual Property Rights (August 3, 2007)
• Copyright Infringement, YouTube, and Video Sharing (July 28, 2007)
• Sploggers: Intellectual Property Thieves (July 28, 2007)

Intellectual Property Rights: Handled Two ways

This may be an excuse to share to amusing videos.

Or, it could be contrasting examples of how intellectual property rights are handled.

ASIMO robot falls down stairs: a short video of an ASIMO robot demonstration gone wrong. The backstage staff's reaction was remarkably similar to what's done when a race horse is injured. It's not clear whether the person who posted the video is the one who recorded it.

Animator vs Animation 2: a rather long animated video. I found it somewhat tedious, but technically well-done, and worth waiting for the (punch line? moral?) at the end. Best of all, author and copyright information is at the end of the video.

Copy, Steal, Rob, Whatever: Another Violation of Intellectual Property Rights

The Internet is still a bit like the Wild West of American history and legend. The attitude toward intellectual property still seems to be "ah stole this, fair and square!"

A recent case in point is a blog post on domain parking, How To Park Domains and Sell Them (Tuesday, July 24, 2007) 12:17 PM (site's timestamp). The author of this blog noticed that someone had copied her story and posted it without alteration. And, I understand, without attribution.

About 11 hours ago (it is now about 12:30 central time in the USA), the author started a discussion on BlogCatalog, Someone stole my article!! - which eventually drew this matter to my attention.

By the time I reached the pilfered article, the copier, "robstroy" (an appropriate online moniker), had added, before the article, "Net Hustlin’ or Crystal, a 21 year old student from New Jersey and currently studying for a bachelors degree in English wrote an article about how to park domains and sell them. She was so freaking out why I posted it here… and posted thread at Blog catalog…

"Here’s her article:"

After the article is this string of text, "Okay, ayan na… sana naman masaya kana… nag email ka nalang muna sa akin bago ka nag freak out dyan… madali naman akong kausap eh… naka limutan ko lang lagyan ng credit mo for the article… Naintindihan mo ba ako?"

I don't know this language. The rest of the page, advertisements included, is in English. I presume that the copier used this language for the epilogue as a sophisticated ruse to both demonstrate superior linguistic ability, and adequately express whatever thoughts were written.

The copied article, now with attribution, plus whatever the copier wrote as an epilogue, is How To Park Domains and Sell Them (Revised version, with attribution to author, Dated Friday, August 3, 2007, 2:59 pm (site's timestamp))

I did a Google search, and found another copy of this article, with a few added sentences, at How To Park Domains and Sell Them (Tuesday, July 24, 2007) 6:08 PM (site's timestamp)

I'll admit that I'm old-school. I don't copy someone else's work and present it as my own. Ethical and moral considerations aside, my self-esteem wouldn't tolerate it.

I do copy other people's work, but with attribution.

There's a dusty old academic quip about this. "If you copy and name your source, it's scholarship. If you copy and don't name your source, it's plagiarism."

Right now, there don't seem to be many ways for an author to protect work that's been posted online.

Benjamin Franklin introduced the patent system in order to give people incentive to develop new technologies. Copyright exists partly to encourage authors to create useful new works by making it possible for writers to profit from their writing.

I don't have a solution to this issue. However, I'm going to start nosing around for copies of my work.

Someone in the BlogCatalog discussion provided a translation of robstory's non-English statement: "Okay, ayan na… sana naman masaya kana… nag email ka nalang muna sa akin bago ka nag freak out dyan… madali naman akong kausap eh… naka limutan ko lang lagyan ng credit mo for the article… Naintindihan mo ba ako? "TRANSLATION: It's ok now, I hope you are happy,...you should have e-mailed me first before freaking out. I could have readily understood...I just forgot to credit you for your article. Do you understand me?"

I doubt that the victim of robstory's unauthorized copying understood that statement, unless she happens to understand that particular language.

For the multiculturaly sensitive among visitors: I have no problem at all with blogs being written in Spanish, Urdu, Wu, or Swahili, or any other language. However, if I write a blog post in English, with advertising in English, and with host instructions in English, I would not add a few sentences of, say, Gaelic, and expect those sentences to be understood.

Copyright Infringement, YouTube, and Video Sharing

YouTube to Implement New Technology Against Copyright Infringement: a subversive plot by Big Video (Big Oil, Big Tobacco, why not BV?) to rip off the masses by oppressing video sharing; or a sensible step toward keeping folks who make a living making videos from being ripped off?

I vote for the latter.

And yes, I know about residuals, RIAA lawsuits (Recording Industry Association of America), and the now-nearly-defunct studio system in Hollywood.

I still believe that people who go to the trouble of creating 'intellectual property' should be rewarded for their efforts.

Sploggers: Intellectual Property Thieves

"Thief" may not be the correct legal term, but I think it's the simplest, most accurate description.

A splogger is someone who runs a splog, or spam blog, according to Whatis.com. One of the tricks of sploggers is to use search engines, RSS feeds, and set-and-forget software to steal content from blogs. (There's more at Whatis.com.)

I'm no expert on this topic. I've been a webmaster for several years, but don't remember running into the term "splog" before: Not too surprising, maybe, since my experience with blogs started last month.

As a blogger and webmaster, I'm interested in the problem of splogs and sploggers. There's a pretty good discussion of a particular splog attack in a discussion thread on blogcatalog.com, How Do I Stop A Splogger?

I realize that this might be controversial, since quite a few people seem to believe that anything they find on the Internet is free for their own use. Others, or maybe it's the same people, believe very strongly that there is something distasteful, degrading, and/or unethical about monetizing Web pages and blogs.

My view is that intellectual property rights need to be defined and respected, and that making money isn't evil/insensitive/bourgeois/whatever.