Paul Myers Is Teaching and If You Ain't Listenin' Then You Too Could Be An Idiot.

TB,

I don't usually distribute the stuff from the newsletter to anyone but subscribers unless I turn it into a paid product. This one might be useful here, though.

I have to say, I'm not sure about that whole, "sign up if you're an idiot" thing, though.

Bretski,

Nothing for sale here, and the promotion was already done by someone else.

Anyway... the article follows...

"Mom, Apple Pie, and ... Plagiarism?"

This could easily qualify as an installment for the "Stupid
Email Tricks" series. It's certainly an appropriate follow-up
to last issue's, "Stoopid Misteaks" section.

Seems there's this woman who wrote an article back in 2005 on
apple pie in the Renaissance period. A friend recently told her
it had appeared, with her byline, in a cooking magazine. Ms
Gaudio, the writer of the piece, was somewhat surprised.

You see, no-one had bothered to ask her permission.

As the story is told, Ms Gaudio engaged the editor of the
magazine (Cooks Source) via email. She asked for two things: An
apology and a contribution of $130 to be made to the Columbia
School of Journalism.

That's a fairly measured response, I think. Ms Griggs, the
editor who is said to have been on the other end of the
exchange, expressed a somewhat different opinion. Among other
things, she is claimed to have included this little tidbit in
one of her replies:

"But honestly Monica, the web is considered 'public domain'
and you should be happy we just didn't 'lift' your whole
article and put someone else's name on it."

She then suggested that Ms Gaudio ought to pay HER for the
edits the magazine made to the article.

As it turns out, this was a Very Bad Move.

Can you say "Nerd Rage?"

....

By the way, the thing has exploded past what I've covered here
since I started this piece. Google the phrase "Cooks Source"
for a remarkable lesson in the power of an outraged virtual mob.

Anyway... Back to our story.

....

Ms Gaudio posted about this to her blog. Some people saw it and
commenced to telling world+dog about the editor's nasty
attitude and questionable journalistic practice. Bloggers
carried the banner for her.

And then the spit hit the fan page.

Cooks Source went from 110 'friends' to thousands, literally
overnight. The magazine's Facebook wall was flooded with
comments from their new pals, none of them flattering. And the
crowd started digging, posting links to alleged examples of
copying by Cooks Source from The Food Network, CNN, Martha
Stewart Living, NPR, and dozens of other sources.

Advertisers started to drop their placements.

The story hit Time Magazine's "NewsFeed" column, the
Washington Post, the Guardian, and the Los Angeles Times. So
far. Cooks Source pulled their phone number from their web
site.

And, if the crowd is right and there was copying from The Food
Network, Martha Stewart Living or any of the other alleged
sources, there's a good chance the magazine will be hearing
from a blather of lawyers.

That's sort of like a murder of crows, but not as cheerful.

....

Now, I'm not an attorney, so take this with whatever amount of
salt you think appropriate.

I suspect those publications register copyright on their
material, which could mean rather large punitive damages if the
magazine is sued and found to have infringed those copyrights.
If this whole thing turns out to be true, those are some
serious consequences. They could have been easily avoided, in
several ways. And those are what this issue is really all
about.

The first is to simply not use someone else's material without
their permission. One would think a paid editor and writer
would have chosen that route by default. Unfortunately, even
some experienced people have the ridiculous notion that
everything posted on the web is public domain.

Note that I didn't use the word 'professional' there. A pro
would never make that claim.

....

The second would have been for Ms Gaudio to register the
copyright to her work. Then, when she found it had been used by
the magazine, she'd have had legal grounds to go after punitive
damages, without the very difficult process of having to prove
actual damages. Faced with that reality, most people and
companies will not return fire with ill-conceived and poorly
worded retorts. They will look for ways to deal with the issue
that don't involve defending an expensive case they can't win.

If the recipe was up on the magazine's web site, another
approach would have been for Ms Gaudio to file a proper DMCA
takedown notice with their web host. That could be used in
conjunction with any of the other responses, of course.

Yet another would have been for the editor to have
acknowledged the wrong, apologized, and made the requested
donation.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Ms Gaudio should have ever needed
to take those kinds of steps to protect her property. She did
nothing wrong. She found the problem and tried to address it in
a responsible and civil fashion. And she got verbally slapped
in the face for her courtesy.

Rudeness online isn't all that remarkable. Sometimes it's even
appropriate. It's not usually much of anything to get annoyed
over. But when someone is attacked for being polite to a person
who has demonstrably wronged them (attacking the victim), all
bets are off.

And the gloves come off, too.

Nerd rage is an ugly thing.

....

What's this got to do with you?

A lot of people who do business online depend on their own
creativity, or that of their paid employees and contractors, to
build the content and systems that grow their businesses. And a
lot of people steal content that belongs to others as a means
to shorten the process.

If you're one of the latter, there are some things you need to
understand. The biggest being that you have no right, legally
or ethically, to use anyone else's content, graphics, ad copy
or other intellectual property without their express
permission.

We're not talking here about "fair use doctrine." Most of the
folks using other people's work don't have the faintest clue
how that works, and shouldn't bother trying to get around it.
If you think that's an overstatement, Google the phrase
"copyright trolls," without the quotes. That should give you
nightmares.

You don't get to use someone else's work and give them a link,
and then claim that's all you needed to do. It isn't. You need
permission.

You don't get to steal someone's material and get away with it
because they didn't put a copyright notice on it. Everything is
copyrighted, as soon as it's rendered in a fixed medium.

You don't get to take someone's lengthy content and just
reword it with impunity, without changing the structure or the
ideas and techniques. If you believe that's okay, I recommend
doing a search on the phrase "derivative work."

You don't get to compile posts from a discussion forum into a
product, under the idea that such posts are "public domain."
They are not.

If you doubt any of this, I recommend talking to a good
intellectual property lawyer before doing this stuff. It's a
lot cheaper than the lawsuits you could end up facing.

Not to mention the consequences of violating the "angry
villager" rule.

....

If you're a content creator, there are some things you will
want to keep in mind. The first is that you simply can't keep
100% control over your content. There are countries that just
don't care about copyright in any way that matters. And there
will always be people who can hide better than you can seek.

Get used to the idea.

What can you do? First, you can register your work with the
copyright office in your country. I can't speak for the rest of
the world, but that provides a lot more leverage for creators
in the US.

Without that registration, you can only legally expect/hope to
get infringers to stop using your material, and possibly sue
for actual damages. Those are notoriously difficult to quantify
and prove. With the registration, you can also sue for punitive
damages, which can be significant. That's a much more effective
deterrent to would-be thieves.

You can register copyrights in the US quite inexpensively
online, at http://www.copyright.gov/eco/

If you find someone using your content online without your
permission, you have several options. The simplest is to send
their web host a properly constructed 'DMCA takedown notice.'
(Google that phrase for an explanation and instructions.)

You can also have your attorney send them a cease and desist
letter, if a simple request for removal of the infringing
material doesn't work.

You can expect one of a few over-used responses most of the
time. The most common will be some variant of the editor's
response above: "It's alright to use it, since it was posted on
Teh Interwebs." If you get that response, stop talking to the
person and escalate. They're convinced they're right, because
they read it somewhere online.

Another very common response will be, "I paid someone to
create the content for me, and had no idea they copied it."
Sometimes that's just a convenient lie, but it's also sometimes
true. If you pay people from some countries to write or design
graphics for you, you're almost as likely as not to get stolen
content for your money. It's somewhat less likely for
contractors in North America and much of Europe, but it's still
more common than you'd think.

It can be difficult to monitor this. One step you can take to
reduce your risk of getting stolen content from workers is to
provide your writers or designers with very clear outlines for
what you want, and make sure they stay close to those
specifications.

Another is to check the delivered product using
http://www.copyscape.com (You can also use that site to look
for people stealing your content online.)

There's no way to be certain that you're not paying someone
who's just copying another's work and taking your money for it,
but some vigilance can reduce the odds significantly.

If you're outsourcing to another country, contracts aren't
likely to help. If you're hiring within your own country, I
recommend getting a lawyer to draft a contract that specifies
that all work must be original, that it's a work for hire
(which means you own the copyright), and that the contractor
agrees to indemnify you if they deliver infringing work.

That last one may be meaningless if you get sued and can't
collect from the contractor, but that's why you need to talk to
a competent contract attorney.

It's worth the effort.

....

If you create your own content, it's easy. Just don't copy
someone else. At all.

That doesn't protect you completely. There are all sorts of
games being played online, including some in which a person
ends up being sued by an infringer. That one can be beaten by
simply registering the copyright to your work, before someone
else takes it and registers it themselves.

Yeah. That happens.

What can I say? The world is full of thieving scumbags, who'll
do anything at all to grab someone else's work or money. And
they're not all as obvious as spammers, identity thieves, or
pickpockets.

The biggest thing you can do to protect your intellectual
property is to be aware of the issues. Spend a little time
reading on these subjects, even if it's just a half hour or so
each week. Or get a book on copyright and trademark topics, and
read it from cover to cover. That won't make you an expert (or
even close to it), but it will help you to know where the
pitfalls might be.

That can make all the difference.

Be careful out there.