Comments on: My Copyright Is The Same As Your Copyright

By: Hg

Hg — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:34:26 +0000

Andrew – I’d be happy for it to be mentioned in a general context (in a piece on copyright, or on the relationship between web & print media, for example). At this point, I’d see it as counterproductive if it was highlighted solely in a “JUSTICE FOR HYDRAGENIC” type article.
Pix & Paul – considering my options. I really have to decide in the next few days whether this is a battle I want to fight, or whether having highlighted the issue publicly is enough. The choice: forge ahead on principle, or be realistic and plough my energies into other more positive endeavours instead.
Ken & Gert – yeah, I think it really is a Big vs Small phenomenon. And Gert, you’re right, that’s not a distinction that the concept of copyright really addresses (though I think in practice most copyright holders deal with minor infringements on a pragmatic basis, as I have done in other instances).

By: Gert

Gert — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 11:25:00 +0000

If I had read that in the Scotsman, I would assume that you were yet another blogger-turned-journalist, that you had been commissioned to write (or reproduce) a piece for them. I would also assume that they would have paid you.
And I suppose that’s where the Big v Small applies.
On the rare occasion where I use other people’s materials – usually photos – without a credit/link-back, I put in a disclaimer saying that copyright owners can contact me (either for removal or credit).
I’ve had my photos copied by other bloggers with a credit/linkback,and someone has incorporated them, uncredited, into a YouTube video. I am absolutely fine, in fact verging on the delighted, about both situations. But I would object very very strongly to anyone making money out of my creation. And I think that is very important, albeit not necessarily fully recognised in law (ie if I use copyrighted material, me not making a profit from blogging is no defence)

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:09:31 +0000

Interesting thread, and another point on the “we’ll steal stuff off the web because its there and free”.
I’ve been thinking of what I’d do if it happened to me (not that its very likely; although one of my site has been scraped by sploggers). I’d probably not bother taking it further due to the hassle involved and the low impact it would have on me.
However, if it was my goal to be recognised as a writer in whatever form, then I probably would try to take them to a small claims court, or whatever legal option exists.

By: Ken Davidson

Ken Davidson — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 10:47:41 +0000

To Hg and Pete: my comment regarding The Scotsman ‘doing the blog a service’ is entirely grounded in thinking from the other chap’s POV. I think from the tone of my comment, you can glean I don’t agree with it.
What I should’ve said was that I bet they’d use that if called upon to defend their position. And *that* hypothetically would underline their presumed Goliath (to Hg’s David) mentality.
Pete: I’m not sure about the notion that the average blogger wants to have a limited audience. Well, they may //desire that// but surely would know they run the very real risk of exposing everything they write to millions of people? It’s all very interesting: the tipping point between two states – that of publishing in obscurity just by dint of the fact you are one voice in millions, versus the potential for opening Pandora’s Box just by using a topical phrase or subject.

By: pixeldiva

pixeldiva — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:06:03 +0000

An interim solution to going to the small claims court might be to get a solicitor to write them a recorded letter, see if that gets their attention.