Audible Click
The gap in the plot
I guess the question is: Are you comfortable with the way your article was obtained and also are you willing to let this person post your article. As to the fair use question..I think that would irritate me enough that I'd not give that person the right to use my article.
I don't know. People seem to think they can just take stuff off the internet. Kitten had stuff of hers that was posted on skepchick just appear elsewhere. They gave her credit but she was really shocked by it. Never even contacted her.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
I have two questions:
1) Did you write the entire article on SkeptiWiki, or was it done by several authors?
2) This little blurb at the bottom of the page concerns me:
I followed the link to their copyrights policy and have no clue what they are and aren't trying to protect. Does this makes sense to someone who has better grasp of copyright issues?
1) Did you write the entire article on SkeptiWiki, or was it done by several authors?
2) This little blurb at the bottom of the page concerns me:
WikiSynergy said:
I followed the link to their copyrights policy and have no clue what they are and aren't trying to protect. Does this makes sense to someone who has better grasp of copyright issues?
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
They are trying for a GFDL CC-BY-SA-NC mix which is interesting.
GFDL will mean they want to copy stuff from wikipedia and means that most of their material is avialible under the same terms as wikipedia.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike is where they import stuff under that license and basicaly means the material can be used for anything except comercial use as long as you credit the author.
Axiom_Blade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 2,979
Interesting!
I looked around SkepticWiki, and couldn't find any copyright notices. I think printed works are automatically copyrighted, even if you don't provide a notice, and that extends to webpages. (I Am Not A Lawyer, etc.)
Wikipedia uses the GNU FDL, which pretty much allows you to copy anything, anywhere. I wonder if some people, used to the permissive nature of WP licenses, just assume that if it's on a wiki, it's free to use as they like.
Caveat scriptor!
I looked around SkepticWiki, and couldn't find any copyright notices. I think printed works are automatically copyrighted, even if you don't provide a notice, and that extends to webpages. (I Am Not A Lawyer, etc.)
Wikipedia uses the GNU FDL, which pretty much allows you to copy anything, anywhere. I wonder if some people, used to the permissive nature of WP licenses, just assume that if it's on a wiki, it's free to use as they like.
Caveat scriptor!
Under the law in the USA, everything you write the moment you write it is protected by copyright. There's no publishing requirement. There's no requirement about posting a copyright notice. Unlike a trademark, you don't need to defend your copyright to maintain it. In fact, you need to take active steps to reqlinquish your rights. The only exception is "work-for-hire" which has to do with being hired to write, and that's just a matter of who owns the copyright - you or the entity writing the check.
Well, the copyright notice at Skepdic is pretty clear. I'd tell them to take it off their site unless they want a lawsuit. Personally I wouldn't recommend actually starting a lawsuit over something so minor, but they need to have it made clear that they can't just steal someone else's work.
I think it's especially cheeky of them to email you saying they are asking for your help, when what they're actually doing is informing you that they've already taken your work.
Axiom_Blade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 2,979
Sorry, I'm having a little trouble understanding your position. You're not making any money off of the article, they're not making any money off of it. Why don't you just ask them to take it down, before you start making legal threats? It's probably a simple misunderstanding. I really doubt they would've e-mailed you if they knew what they were doing was illegal.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Send a PM to RSL and/or his better half. Loss Leader did some work for him regarding the cease and desist from Hay House, way back when, so they should have his IRL contact info. LL hasn't posted in a while, so I doubt that PMing him would work.
Cavemonster
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 6,701
The "response" doesn't seem to have anything to do with the "according to skipticwiki" part.
Ducky, if you're not pleased to have your content there (and I wouldn't be if it were mine) I would send them a polite message letting them know that their reposting exceeds fair use, they should have asked beforehand, and they should take it down as soon as possible. Let them know that it is perfectly legal for them to link to your page where users can read your writing in context, but that reproducing large blocks of content out of context and without permission is a breach of copyright and a bit rude.
Ducky, if you're not pleased to have your content there (and I wouldn't be if it were mine) I would send them a polite message letting them know that their reposting exceeds fair use, they should have asked beforehand, and they should take it down as soon as possible. Let them know that it is perfectly legal for them to link to your page where users can read your writing in context, but that reproducing large blocks of content out of context and without permission is a breach of copyright and a bit rude.
The observation of a lack of copyright notice is what drives this. I don't give a crap what some odd nutjob posing as a "fair and balanced" website does, but I do need to find a way to craft a copyright notice that would actually hold weight.
I'm not even sure I care what this person does. I'm not to the point of addressing them, I'm still considering what needs to be in place to protect the wiki.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Under US law copyright notices hold exactly as much weight as you are prepared to put behind them. If you really wanted to put some weight behind it you would have to register your copyright. The cheapest way to do this is at the end of the year you create the stuff burn everything you want to protect onto a single CD and send it to the copyright office with your 50$ fee. That will allow you to apply for statutory damages in a court case.
In practice if you want the stuff taken down just ask them and if that doesn't work send a DMCA notice.
Axiom_Blade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 2,979
I think most wikis use GNU FDL, or some kind of Creative Commons license.
I'm assuming that you're the webmaster for SkepticWiki, correct?
If you use standard copyright, doesn't that mean that any content I add to your wiki automatically becomes your property? What's my motivation to contribute, then?
Which is the reason I'd prefer to have a copyright in place that isn't all-or-nothing, and hence my need for a lawyer to help me word it. While I'd like to keep other sites from doing what these guys did, I don't want to own your work.
Axiom_Blade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 2,979
Please check out the link to the CC licenses in my post.
Unfortunately, they all allow redistribution, so you couldn't stop websites from copying your wiki. However, if you used CC-Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives, that would deter other wikis from copying (because wikis create derivatives, almost by definition).
Copyright is already complicated enough, but when you add in the multiple authorships of a wiki...OY VEY. I suggest picking one of the CC licenses and saving yourself the grief.