What I’m reading: The Violent Bear It Away by Flannery O’Connor
What’s on the iPod: Sign of the Times by The Clarks
Interesting day yesterday. I got a response to a Twitter referral. It was for a magazine I’d been hoping to get into, and my new Twitter contact gave me direct access to the editor. I’ve now sent out my proposal with fingers crossed!
I dug in to the tax forms and came up hours later with a tax bill reduction of $1,000. I intend to go back to it and figure my IRA deduction in once I make up my mind how much I can afford to invest.
Another interesting thing: got an actual response from our blog lifter. His first words were this: “First off, a more civil tone would help your cause greatly.”
He fails to realize cordiality is reserved for people who aren’t earning money off my labor without my permission. And of course he quoted to me his version of Fair Use, which says he can do what he damn well pleases because hey, he’s only using a “snippet” and driving traffic to MY site. No mention of when I get a check for all that ad revenue my “snippets” have earned him.
I saw it for what it was – a clear attempt to deflect the facts by trying to chastise me for my tone and “educate” me on something upon which he remains clueless. So let me spell it out in case he’s still linking:
Fact – you didn’t ask permission. According to Fair Use, you are in violation for a few reasons; you didn’t ask permission and you’re earning money off my stuff. Unless you’re going to share, you’re taking my stuff down. Now.
So instead of biting back via email and prolonging the obvious, which is his attempt to validate his actions, I intend to send this snippet from the US Copyright Office’s Fair Use Policy:
Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
So, blog lifter, to your notion that any lawsuit I file “will fail” – you sure about that?
Seems to be the week for these things, isn’t it?
Writers, thoughts?
16 responses to “A Copyright Primer”
Yes, I got a lot of thoughts. None of them good, at least on his part. I don't think you want to see the words that are going through my mind. I bet you can guess though.
Anyone that has a foot in this industry should know some of the general points of copyright infringement. He should have, at least, looked it up before responding to you about your tone. And, really? What tone should you use for this situation? "Pretty, Pretty, Please, could you find it in your heart to maybe take my content and link down? I would be very grateful." Umm, No!
Wendy, I actually did include the word "Please" in my first contact with him. As in "Please remove all links and references to my site immediately to avoid litigation."
I think the word "litigation" makes me rude. At least he said I was rude.
Strange how people will twist that Fair Use policy to suit them. Yet I doubt a court would disagree that he owes me and all other writers whose stuff is being republished without their permission some of the money he pulls in from that site.
Hmmm….
Maybe I should ask everyone who visits here this –
Did you come here via his site?
That would give the poor boy a basis for his anemic argument.
I didn't know his site existed until a couple of days ago, so I didn't come here from there.
I think you're right. The word litigation hit a nerve with him. I'm surprised there weren't words like "Bitchy" or "PMSing" in the response to you. There usually is in cases like these.
You could check your stats and find out if any of your incoming traffic is from his site. I bet the number is a big zero.
He thinks he can intimidate you into dropping this and going away. Call his bluff.
I've checked my stats regularly for the last two months. Not at all.
Now he's in my email claiming to teach copyright law and telling me the "two year old" statute I'm quoting to him is out of date. I pity his students – the US Copyright Law is CURRENT as of 2009. The amendments currently proposed have not gone into effect, and none of them speak to fair use.
I think the cease-and-desist needs to be coupled with a "do not contact me again" claim. Why not just take the stuff down and act like an adult, dude?
I would love to let the "A-listers" who are on his site know. There are plenty. I think I'll send a link to James at Men With Pens. She's one of his "chosen."
PS-Pretty sad that when I 1st started reading this I had to think Which blog lifter is Lori referring to?"
That's when I'd say "sorry pal, you had your chance." And then report them to Adsense.
Fair use is not clear-cut, which is why it's only a defense in court — not a justification for doing something in the first place. And you do have to look at more than one factor. He might pass one, but fail others, leading to a lost case on a fair use claim. And as I pointed out earlier, some of those "snippets" are actually almost full posts for the shorter podcast introductory posts I saw there.
I'm being easier on this guy than most b/c it's very possible I did give permission early on since I know I let one blogger do this. But the situation with my contributors and with how the site is being run have changed, and if that permission was granted it was now revoked. But he did seem to remove my blog on request. I was pretty short and to the point as well and didn't get any response calling me "rude." So maybe it was just the litigation mention he didn't like. But it's your right to be as firm as you want. Normally I'm far more so than that. I think you were sweet as pie in comparison. Hopefully he'll just remove the rest and be done with it already.
On another note, Google has been recently interested in knocking down these spam aggregation sites that show up in rankings solely by ripping other people's content. So if it doesn't work out and your material isn't removed, you could at least report the site to them and make sure it's penalized for a traffic hit if they see it that way.
Jenn, I think you hit on the larger point. He's getting a good deal of a boost off this content, and that doesn't hurt to sell his Webinars and services. His "doing me a favor" insinuation is bogus for that reason alone. He's doing himself a favor. No matter how shiny the paper you wrap it in, a turd is still a turd.
Cathy, that IS sad! I hope you do alert them. I alerted the few I know.
Jenn, I find it interesting that my original note to him – basically saying you're using my copyrighted content without my permission and remove it to avoid litigation – caused him to react in such a strong way. Here's someone who doesn't enjoy being told no. I didn't get heated – I got factual. And throughout this entire thing, I've remained on the side of the facts. He can call me whatever he likes – fact is I want my stuff removed. He can honor it and be done with it or ignore it and answer to a judge for it.
I won't be pulled into his name-calling or foot-stomping behavior. Professionals don't act like that.
guess what this post has motivated me to do? contact those two subscription sites that sell access to all kinds of scholarly works, including my Emily Dickinson essay, including that passage about fair use – and an invoice. i'll offer them a choice of removing my essay from their site or paying for the rights to use it.
Atta girl, Paula! They shouldn't be using without your permission, and they sure shouldn't be selling anything that isn't theirs to sell.
The lifter who "did me a favor" went as far as claiming it was HIS content that I was stealing, even though there was a date on the page he stole it from that was 14 months before he appeared, and said it was HIS accompanying photo, even though the exif data on the jpg on his site had my name in it! Then he attempted to append the article with "some information came from independent research done by" and a link, but I guess he finally realized how incredibly stupid that looked, and took the whole thing down. And honestly, I probably wouldn't have even gone after the dolt if not for the pride I took in that particular piece. Geez, that was 5 years ago and I'm still steamed off!
Jeez, Joseph! He was a real putz, wasn't he? Lord! That's just laughably stupid on his part!
Go get him, Lori — not only because he's a lifter but also because he's a pompous a**!
LOL! Too bad that's not illegal, Cassie. 🙂