January 06, 2004

• It's CC copyright useful under these circumstances? (it's an honest question)
• Josh Marshall is a well respected Washington-based journalist that has written for "The Hill" and New Republic. He also writes the blog Talking Points Memo. His writing on the blog about the Trent Lott story was ripped off. Even journalists who are bloggers aren't safe.
• Zemat, I don't know much about copyright under normal or internet circumstances. I've done as much as I know to do for MoFi with the copyright notices at the bottom of the site, but it seems that anyone with a scruple deficiency could help themselves in any case.
• The reason newspapers do this is that they think they can get away with it - especially as most of the tabloids here think that the internet is evil and scary and that none of their readers use it (the Mail especially, is frightening in its ignorance and hatred of just about anything relating to the internet or computers). Also, for people like me (I don't really have the time and money for court cases) copyright on anything we've put on the web is close to useless. Copyright, whether its creative commons, or normal copyright, only really matters to those who can afford to defend it. (If you're a professional writer/artist, obviously, you almost definitely would try to defend it in court, but, except for letter writing and loudly moaning, I don't think I would, or would be able to. All depends on who's ripping you off, I suppose, and where.)
• Also, here's an article from the Register about the Daily Mail stealing Mil Millingtons stuff and one of their stories too. Mind you, the Mail is a certified luddite. Its pages are frequently filled with anti-Net ranting and its Managing Editor, Lawrence Sear, is too busy to have any email sent to him (at least that's what we were told when we called up to complain). The news desk doesn't like to give out an email address either. It used to be an epidemic about five years ago or more - this story is quite amusing - but you'd hope that these days people would realise that copyright does apply on the internet. And if it doesn't, can newspapers please stop complaining about kazaa... (Also, the Daily Star is one of Britains most wonderful newspapers, being wall to wall soft porn, interspersed with stories about Big Brother, how illegal immigrants should be killed or deported as soon as possible, how fucking great David Beckham is, and how fucking appalling Victoria Beckham is. It really is an excellent read.)
• please don't tar all newspapers/journalists with the same brush! i've been a professional journalist for more than 20 years now, at daily newspapers (including USA Today) as well as (now) a wire service and i can assure you that not one of those outlets would have ever, EVER done anything like this. the vast majority of journalists are quite ethical. we're talking tabloid mentality. i'm pretty appalled by this, and i hope retrocrush pursues this.
• Sorry SideDish. Also, I think American newspapers seem to have higher ethical standards than British tabloids. A story like the Jayson Blair scandal would barely warrant a mention here, I don't think.
• yeah jayson blair was a huge deal because it was such an abberation. that said, this whole issue really concerns me. obviously, bloggers should hold copyright to their own creations. can't they just put a copyright in their info page? isn't that enough? "contents copyright joe schmoe, 2004." anybody out there a copyright attorney?
• Someone posted this at metafilter (in the corresponding thread to this): Ten big myths about copyright explained I don't know how accurate it is, though.
• that's a really interesting link, dng: "If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me." False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. see? i really think retrocrush has a good case. i hope the webmaster pursues some kind of recourse. as frustrating/time consuming/expensive as that might be. but of course that's what the tabloid is counting on, that it's just too much of a hassle.

• Actually, recently in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony.

  I wonder if the various people who got the Retrocrush article off the wire have made $2500 yet. If so the Daily Star might find themselves in trouble. How would jurisdiction work on this, though?
• someone over in mefi suggested seeking help from the NUJ, the national union of journalists in the UK. the husband of a good pal of mine in scotland is the head of that group, so i forwarded the link with a note. (or perhaps, being a scottish pal, i should say, pal o' mine) heh. i amuse myself.
• here's answer from the NUJ... could some kind MeFite post it there also? "The NUJ will only assist people who are members and I reckon your chap isn't. It's a bit like asking an insurance company to reinburse you for a burglarly when you haven't been paying any premiums. "Only thing I would suggest is for the person to write to the Press Complaints Commission in London and sue The Daily Star for breach of copyright, which he would have to fund himself if he isn't a member of a union."
• Talk about your fast response! I just emailed Robert Berry at retrocrush, too, to ask how the legal proceedings are...eh, proceeding. I'm guessing he's probably not a union member, either.
• could some kind MeFite post it there also? Done.
• thank you, kind languagehat!
• You're welcome, and I may as well cross-post the latest development: The thread has disappeared from Fark and the page has gone from RetroCrush. Articles are mostly not showing up using Google News and ShortNews has blocked their entry citing breach of terms and conditions. Anyone know what happened? posted by krisjohn at 9:02 AM EST on January 7
• I wonder if its been removed because of legal action (and if so, by whom) or if its disappeared for some other reason. (I'd also like to know what happened to this site (mentioned here, as well as on metafilter and metatalk) about a soldiers part in the mission to capture Saddam. Was it a hoax? Or if it was genuine, has it been removed because it revealed information the Army didn't want it too? Or, the worst case scenario - has it been removed because Jeremy Botter was killed?)
• oh, man. that's weird about the soldier's site. when i last heard he was planning on photographing himself there to prove it was real. did he ever do that?
• i just checked nexis, there hasn't been an obit.
• He did - I've got a copy here actually. The photo is vague enough that it could be photoshopped.
• This link should work. Sorry. (8 comments out of 22 - I should really shut up now)
• hmmmm. i guess if he died, his blog would still be online but not updated. this is all rather puzzling.
• (8 comments out of 22 - I should really shut up now) I don't have a problem with it, but then again, look at what I'm doing.