Pete, is that you?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| thenixedreport May 28, 2007 1:44 AM EDT |
Well, somebody responded claiming that I violated their copyright.... one problem: how do I verify that they do indeed own the copyright? Only one way: If they can validate that they are the individual in question. Interesting indeed. |
| dinotrac May 28, 2007 3:24 AM EDT |
So...I have a question for you: What is it that they claim is copyrighted? You should darn well know if you copied some or all of somebody else's work. As to verifying ownership, it's not like patents or trademarks. Copyrights are automatic. You don't have to verify them and you don't have to record them. You simply have to create something that qualifies. There is a right of fair use, which allows you, for the purpose of commentary, to excerpt parts of another work. There are no hard and fast rules as to what constitutes a permissible excerpt because every work is different and the principle is that you don't diminish the value of the copyright holder's interest. I'll bet the LXer editors have some guidelines they could share with you, but, for prose pieces, you should be ok if you use the lesser of 10% or 1000 words and attribute the source of your excerpt. |
| purplewizard May 28, 2007 3:43 AM EDT |
True copyright is automatic but in order to enforce it (ultimately in court) you have to be able to prove ownership. Perhaps if I used a section of something then yes I would know I copied it, I might be claiming it's reasonable as fair use. Hence before I take any notice of them telling me to stop it I would need them to prove they are who they claim. I might not (almost certainly wouldn't if they could prove who they are) go as far as saying prove you own the rights over the thing I am citing. Proof might be as simple as posting a short article on the blog or site that I most probably sampled from. |
| bigg May 28, 2007 5:03 AM EDT |
> There is a right of fair use, which allows you, for the purpose of commentary, to excerpt parts of another work. If you want some examples, see Penguin Pete's website. |
| dinotrac May 28, 2007 5:29 AM EDT |
>Hence before I take any notice of them telling me to stop it I would need them to prove they are who they claim. They don't need to do anything. The onus is on you. If you copied something, you can be pretty sure it is copyrighted and, if your use does not meet the criteria for fair use, you are infringing somebody's copyright. Your position is just plain silly because the problem is so easy to fix. If you copied something from somebody else, adjust it a bit to fit the 10% or 1000 word criteria (more or less - it's not hard and fast) and provide attribution. How painful is that? Why on earth wouldn't you do it? |
| bigg May 28, 2007 6:16 AM EDT |
The comment says "Your copying of my content as an image without attribution" Dino is right (as we should expect given his training). Beyond any legal issues, however, this is a case of blatant plagiarism, which does not help the reputation of your site. |
| dek May 28, 2007 6:26 AM EDT |
I visited the site and didn't see any images. What gives? |
| bigg May 28, 2007 7:03 AM EDT |
@dek: The image is the quote in the middle of the page. It is not a text quote, but rather is a screenshot of PP's blog. |
| dek May 28, 2007 7:18 AM EDT |
@ bigg: The image doesn't seem to be there now, it's all text and there is an attribution to PP. Maybe * changed it after dino and you called him on it? |
| dinotrac May 28, 2007 7:40 AM EDT |
>changed it after dino and you called him on it? We didn't "call" anybody on anything. He brought the issue up and we offered a few thoughts. Clearly, nixed ain't trying to plagiarize anybody. In fact, his response to the original comment on his blog can be viewed as attribution: By asking "How do I know you're Penguin Pete", he is also saying that Penguin Pete is the source of any copied material, which, to my poor old brain, sounds a lot like attribution, albeit in unconventional form. |
| thenixedreport May 28, 2007 9:38 AM EDT |
Yeah in a sense in was. Besides which, if one person moused over the graphic for a few seconds his name would have popped up again. Then he appeared to at first want to accept my debate challenge (at 4 or 5 in the frickin' morning when I was about to go to sleep, but oh well... that's how the cookie crumbles... lol). It also intrigued me that I was no longer banned from his site. Oh well. ;) He did verify it was him by posting in his own blog (he could have simply called himself Penguin Pete as one of the users of my blog too... that would have been fine). He claims I want attention... So does he. I think I feel another blog post coming though as part of what I posted has inspired me to be more informative of the idea that all information should be free for individual access. :) Either way, I'm pretty sure one of the main editors behind this site does not like his name being dragged through the mud. |
| thenixedreport May 28, 2007 9:55 AM EDT |
By the way, I did do a word count in OpenOffice, and it's around 184, so it's under 1,000 words. |
| dinotrac May 28, 2007 9:26 AM EDT |
>He claims I want attention Ummm....Isn't that kind of the idea of a blog? What's the point of putting out on the internet if you hope nobody reads it? >and it's around 184, so it's under 1,000 words. Just to reiterate, that's only a guideline and it's the the lesser of 10% or 1000 words. |
| thenixedreport May 28, 2007 11:14 AM EDT |
Well thanks for the feedback dino. Chances are, it's less than 1,000 and 10%, so I'm probably safe either way. Honestly, I don't think he's going to waste his time with a copyright infringement complaint of any kind other than the one he gave me. Of course I'd like for people to read my blog. That's the whole point of them isn't it? That's precisely the same point of Pete's blog, or the blog of helios, or this site, or other sites and blogs for that matter. It's an attempt to share thoughts, feelings, information, etc with the whole world. And I just did another blog post. Man, am I feeling productive today. Heh. :) |
| dcparris May 28, 2007 1:01 PM EDT |
I saw the text, but didn't know it was an image - I only knew that from reading this thread. I highly recommend making a note about the fact that you used an image, and its source, in the future. I thought you had simply adjusted the fonts for the quote. Dek says he only saw text, not an image, which means I'm not the only person fooled by your image into thinking that it was really text. Whether you're a professional journalist or a hobby blogger, you should definitely make clear the sources of your information. It was not very clear in this case. It is apparent that you have corrected the problem, so you should be fine now. We all goof, but dino is correct - it doesn't really matter who brings an issue like this to your attention, you really should make sure your attribution is clear. My $0.02 |
| tuxchick May 28, 2007 1:17 PM EDT |
Nice to know we can count on pee pete to be an uncomplimentary body part in any case. |
| thenixedreport May 28, 2007 1:33 PM EDT |
Yeah, you're right and for that I apologize. |
| ottawalonndon May 28, 2007 6:47 PM EDT |
>> you really should make sure your attribution is clear. What a capital idea! Well now, guess that I should really give proper attributtion to the REAL Penguin Pete, as in his very own recent column, and also seeing as that it does seem to pertain to DCParris directly, now doesnt it!? : 'An Open Letter to DC Parris about Tux500' |
| tuxchick May 28, 2007 7:37 PM EDT |
Why should Don even care? Open Letters aren't about communicating, they're grandstanding. peepete knows how to contact Don directly. |
| bigg May 28, 2007 7:46 PM EDT |
Frankly I'm getting tired of this nonsense. This has nothing to do with Linux or open source. Why don't you go troll somewhere else? |
| jdixon May 28, 2007 8:41 PM EDT |
thenixedreport: As a general rule, if there is any doubt, or if (as in this case) the original author has objected, the best thing to do is not to copy their content at all. Instead, rephrase that content in your own words. That way, there's no risk of copyright infringement. You can provide a link or a footnote to the original source for those who wish to read the original. Note that links from sites Pete doesn't agree with don't tend to work after a while, so a footnote might be better. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!