• silverwhisper said on Apr 27, 2007....

  this should be a violation of the terms of use.
  
  ed

• Frlncwrtr said on Apr 29, 2007....

  So Ed, What (if anything) will they do about it?

• silverwhisper said on Apr 29, 2007....

  i really don't know--theoretically, soulcast can delete those blog entries. frankly, i think that's the appropriate response here.
  
  ed

• Frlncwrtr said on Apr 29, 2007....

  I aggree to a point, Ed. 
   
  I think they should definitely delete the posts, but I also think a warning against further abuse is in order.  If that should fail, I think they should boot him out of here.  I cannot see leniency with plagerism at all.

• silverwhisper said on Apr 30, 2007....

  nor i.
  
  ed

• SoulCast said on Apr 30, 2007....

  There is no tolerance for plagerism.
  
  Zayda, please tell use which part of your post he copied. The less work we have to do the faster we can act.
  

• silverwhisper said on Apr 30, 2007....

  the second link in the original post is at least one place.
  
  ed

• Zayda said on Apr 30, 2007....

  In his blog, the parts of that post that are italicized are my original words. I
  
   am assuming that he thinks if he italicizes them that it attributes them to me.
  
  In this post by Gumpy, the last 4 italicized lines are copied from the last four paragraphs of this blog post of mine, my erotic fiction.
  
  
  In the same post by Gumpy that I linked above the whole first section that is italicized is from this original post of mine.  If you look at my original post the whole bulleted list that is in my post as well as the two paragraphs proceeding it have been copied directly into his post with no attribution that is my writing.
  

• Zayda said on Apr 30, 2007....

  Further, in this post by Gumpy, he copies this original post of mine, in it's entirety, in one of his comments on his own post.  He also copies this original post of mine in the comments on that post.
  

• Zayda said on Apr 30, 2007....

  The parts that are in italics in his posts and comments that I linked are from my posts. He's added his own writing (not in italics) around mine.

• SoulCast said on Apr 30, 2007....

  This isn't plagiarism because he isn't passing it off as his own. He is quoting it to critique in each example I looked at. Why would this not be fair use?

• Zayda said on Apr 30, 2007....

  Why would it be fair use if he's not attributing it in any way to the person to whom it originally belongs? It is plagiarism if he does not cite the source that it originally came from. And he most definitely does not do that.
  
  
  Plagiarism is "copying the ideas and/or the words" of someone else without properly attributing those words or ideas to the person you got them from. This can be done in either the form of paraphrase, direct quote, or summary.
  
  
  Further, in order for something to be fair use, he still has to identify the source that the original material came from, which he does not do.

• SoulCast said on May 01, 2007....

  So if I stick your name at the end of the quotes it will be ok?
  
  Let's be honest here. Are you really upset that he quoted you without attributing the quotes to you or are you upset that he's insulting you?
  
  Do we really want to cross a line where we delete things that don't meet strict academic standards? He makes it clear that he's quoting someone. He isn't passing it off as his own work.
  

• Zayda said on May 01, 2007....

  No, I'm upset that he's copying me.
  
  
  And frankly, even if it doesn't meet what you think of as strict academic standards, it's still not properly attributing a source and it's plagiarism, whether this is an academic piece or not.

• Zayda said on May 01, 2007....

  And in regards to fair use, from the U.S. Copyright Office:
  
  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. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

  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.”
  
  
  He didn't just copy excerpts; he copied an entire blog post in one case.  And he didn't request permission to copy any of it.
  

• silverwhisper said on May 01, 2007....

  this has nothing to do with academic standards and everything to do with legal standards.
  
  and those have clearly been shown to have been violated.
  
  ed

• SoulCast said on May 01, 2007....

  So if I change the quotes to links to your respective blog that will be fine?
  
  Also, the only issue here is the amount quoted? If I shorten the quote will it be ok?
  

• Zayda said on May 01, 2007....

  Are you talking about substituting a link for the quoted material or just adding a link?
  
  
  If you are just talking about adding a link, then no.
  
  
  You aren't the author of that blog are you? So, no; the point is, he didn't request permission to copy any parts of my blog and use in his. And linking to my blog is still not covered by fair use if he has copied an entire blog post of mine into his or comments on his.
  
  
  

• silverwhisper said on May 01, 2007....

  did you miss the entire permission thing?
  
  ed

• Zayda said on May 01, 2007....

  Actually, the only issue is not the amount quoted. He has copied parts of my fiction; so there is the issue of the potential impact on the commercial value of my fiction.

• SoulCast said on May 01, 2007....

  you don't need permission for fair use. the only issue that you can make is the amount quoted.
  
  He didn't copy it, he quoted it (with italics instead of quotes). How would this impact value?
  

• SoulCast said on May 01, 2007....

  "Fair use allows consumers to make a copy of part or all of a copyrighted work, even where the copyright holder has not given permission or objects to your use of the work.
  
  

  There are no clear-cut rules for deciding what's fair use and there are no "automatic" classes of fair uses. Fair use is decided by a judge, on a case by case basis, after balancing the four factors listed in section 107 of the Copyright statute. The factors to be considered include:

  
  
  1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes -- Courts are more likely to find fair use where the use is for noncommercial purposes.
  2. The nature of the copyrighted work -- A particular use is more likely to be fair where the copied work is factual rather than creative.
  3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole -- A court will balance this factor toward a finding of fair use where the amount taken is small or insignificant in proportion to the overall work.
  4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work -- If the court finds the newly created work is not a substitute product for the copyrighted work, it will be more likely to weigh this factor in favor of fair use.
  
  from the EFF
  
  
  

• Zayda said on May 01, 2007....

  A. What Is Fair Use?
   In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. Another way of putting this is that fair use is a defense against infringement. If your use qualifies under the definition above, and as defined more specifically later in this chapter, then your use would not be considered an illegal infringement.

  So what is a "transformative" use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and varying court decisions. That's because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit the definition of fair use. They wanted it--like free speech--to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.

  Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: commentary and criticism; or parody.

  1. Comment and Criticism

  If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work--for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:

  • quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
  • summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
  • copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
  • copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.

  The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. Additional examples of commentary or criticism are provided in the examples of fair use cases in Section C.

  2. Parody

  A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to "conjure up" the original.

  From the Stanford Collection on Copyright and Fair Use accessible through the Stanford Libraries, which your link to the EFF refers to.
  
  1) While you claim he is using it to critique; he is not critiquing or reviewing the original work itself but using the original work as a critique of something else entirely. This does not fall under fair use; it's a copyright violation that can be pursued through legal channels.
  
  2) Copying an entire blog entry is not quoting a short passage; it's quoting an entire piece of my work.
  
  3) Reproducing my work without my permission, even by quoting it and making it publicly available (even though I have made it publicly available on the web), is a violation of fair use, btw.
  
  As a professor I cannot reproduce an article in any format and put it on a class website that is accessible by the entire world, without getting permission to reproduce that entire article. If I do, it doesn't fall under fair use. I should know, I go through this permission process every semester for materials for my course packets and materials on my course website.
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

• SoulCast said on May 01, 2007....

  the ones I read he was clearly commenting and criticizing. They were vile and baseless insults to be sure, but that is my point. We do not intend to get dragged into the middle of such things.
  
  We will absolutely delete anything where a user tries to pass off another's work as their own. We are not going to be dragged into the middle of personality clashes on the pretense of legal hair splitting.
  

• SoulCast said on May 01, 2007....

  I asked before if you would be content if we reduced the size of the quotes. Would you?

• Zayda said on May 01, 2007....

  Yes, they are commenting and criticizing me as a person, my teaching, and my intellect. They are not a critique of the writing itself. And therein lies the difference. When you copy/quote something for the purpose of critique under fair use it is to critique the written work, not critique something else.
  
  
  No, I would not be satisfied if you reduced the size of the quotes because it is still a violation of fair use since it is not the written work itself he is critiquing but something else.

• Zayda said on May 01, 2007....

  BTW, according to this, simply acknowledging the material that is quoted was originally mine does not protect Gumpy from copyright infringement violations:
  
  
  What If You Acknowledge the Source Material?
  
  Some people mistakenly believe it's permissible to use a work (or portion of it) if an acknowledgment is provided. For example, they believe it's okay to use a photograph in a magazine as long as the name of the photographer is included. This is not true. Acknowledgment of the source material (such as citing the photographer) may be a consideration in a fair use determination, but it will not protect against a claim of infringement. In some cases, such as advertisements, acknowledgments can backfire and create additional legal claims, such as a violation of the right of publicity. When in doubt as to the right to use or acknowledge a source, the most prudent course may be to seek permission of the copyright owner.
  
  
  From Standford Collection on Copyright and Fair Use.
  

• SoulCast said on May 01, 2007....

  If that were the case every episode of The Daily Show, and most cable news, would be a violation of fair use. I'm not a lawyer, but that distinction doesn't seem to hold in our society.
  
  I agree with you that his insults were vile and base. However, we aren't going to spend hours of our time everyday arbitrating issues revolving around insults and hurt feelings.
  

• Zayda said on May 01, 2007....

  And I'm not asking you to arbitrate issues about hurt feelings.
  
  
  I'm asking you to do something about obvious copyright infringement.  Those are my words and my work he is copying and not citing the source to.
  
  
  The Daily Show, btw, falls under the exceptions for Parodies, which is not the same as critique.

• SoulCast said on May 01, 2007....

  We are not going to make such fine legal distinctions.

• Zayda said on May 01, 2007....

  Fine; then I will pursue other avenues to have them removed.

Comment on "Another User Copying Parts of My Blog"

Currently tagged	customer service intellectual property (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously