Tag Archives: copyright infringement

Publishing: How To End Your Career In Five Easy Steps

Here’s how you do it:

  1. Steal articles from other writers
  2. Publish those articles
  3. When the writer finds out and asks for an apology and compensation send an arrogant reply
  4. Have a Facebook page where people start posting, because that writer wrote about it on her blog
  5. Don’t say anything and watch your career go up in smoke in 24 hours

The internet has sped up the access to information but it has also sped up karma. On November 3rd, Monica Gaudio http://illadore.livejournal.com/30674.html posted on her Live Journal how she’d been ripped off. A magazine called Cooks Source took her article,which she posted on this website: http://www.godecookery.com/twotarts/twotarts.html and wholesale printed it in their magazine, without her permission and without compensation. When she found out she contacted the editor Judith Griggs and had a bit of to and fro in emails. Next, she says:

After the first couple of emails, the editor of Cooks Source asked me what I wanted — I responded that I wanted an apology on Facebook, a printed apology in the magazine and $130 donation (which turns out to be about $0.10 per word of the original article) to be given to the Columbia School of Journalism.

What I got instead was this (I am just quoting a piece of it here:)

“Yes Monica, I have been doing this for 3 decades, having been an editor at The Voice, Housitonic Home and Connecticut Woman Magazine. I do know about copyright laws. It was “my bad” indeed, and, as the magazine is put together in long sessions, tired eyes and minds somethings forget to do these things.

But honestly Monica, the web is considered “public domain” and you should be happy we just didn’t “lift” your whole article and put someone else’s name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me… ALWAYS for free!”

Let’s break down this lovely and arrogant reply:

  1. She claims she knows copyright laws, however they are long and complicated and as she goes on, she doesn’t know the first thing about copyright, let alone its convolutions.
  2. She says the web is considered public domain. Again, that is absolutely wrong as there is original graphic art, books, songs, magazines, etc. posted on the web and many people’s personal blogs like this one, and none of it is public domain unless it says so.
  3. She claims “it” as in copyright infringement happens a lot especially in the workplace and on college campuses. Perhaps it does, but workplaces fire people and campuses boot students who are caught plagiarizing someone else’s works.
  4. She says Monica should be happy they didn’t lift the article and put someone else’s name on it. So I guess it’s okay to lift an article and keep Monica’s name on it.
  5. She tells Monica her article needed editing and now Monica can use it for her portfolio, forgetting that in most cases the author can still approve edits, should the author know the magazine is using the story.
  6. As well, she can’t understand why Monica would want money if they edited her article, forgetting that this is the job of an editor, when they have bought a piece and that the author is still paid. Though somehow, this editor thinks Monica should pay her because she stole the article, printed it, edited it without permission and then Monica should be grateful.
  7. She then goes on to say she never charges writers for advice. Thank god for that because her advice sucks.
  8. Oh and the writers always write for her for free. Wow, because writing is worth so little and no one should be paid and she is so mighty and her magazine so godlike they should just grovel in the mud and feel blessed to be noticed by such an entity.

Wow. The sheer arrogance in this and lack of any real apology or understanding of copyright or the editing process has buried this woman in hellfire. How do I know? As I post this, I think back to only 24 hours ago when I first read Monica’s piece, then checked out Cooks Source’s meager webpage and their Facebook page. I was the third person to post there in regards to their appalling behavior.

In the last day about 3,000 people have posted and Cooks Source is the laughing stock (just like soup but with less taste) in many writing circles, not to mention the newspapers. How to kill your mag. Of course, good ole Judith thinks it’s great. Here’s what she posted about 16 hours after the debacle ensued:

Well, here I am with egg on my face! I did apologise to Monica via email, but aparently it wasnt enough for her. To all of you, thank you for your interest in Cooks Source and Again, to Monica, I am sorry — my bad!
You did find a way to get your “pound of flesh…” we used to have 110 “friends,” we now have 1,870… wow!

Best to all, Judith

(Should we edit her supposed apology and point out she misspelled “apparently” and then get her to pay us for it?) I guess she doesn’t realize that most of us don’t give a damn about the magazine, that she owes Monica more than an apology, not to mention all the other authors that she’s stolen from, which has come to light because of this. These friends should be enemies and the magazine has sunk itself or at least Griggs’ career. Will she surface again? Oh sure, just like the scum in the proverbial barrel. But any smart writer will not come within 100 feet of anything she’s involved in. Interestingly, their meager webpage now has nothing listed under the “About” or “Contact Us” pages.

Karma is a bitch.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under crime, Culture, news, people, Publishing, Writing

Writers Losing Rights

This is of concern to all writers in Canada, and really elsewhere though the issue of moral rights is called differently in other countries. Following is a letter I drafted and sent to various organizations (PWAC, Canadian Authors Association, League of Canadian Poets, Canadian Writers Union, Writers Guild of Canada, Canadian Poetry Association). If you are a writer in Canada and want to maintain the integrity of your piece and the right to have your name attributed to it, then you should be very concerned with CBC’s rules in their contest and the taking of moral rights. If you are part of a writer’s organization, please voice your concerns to your executive.

Dear members of the writing community;

 

CBC has long supported the arts with various programs including contests. Last year I noticed a contest for a poem on Mark Forsyth’s BC Almanac (Radio One). But when I read the rules and regulations CBC asked for all rights, including moral rights. I thought and hoped that this might just be an error, not to be repeated.

 

However, this year, CBC has been advertising Canada Writes, geared specifically towards writers. The full rules and regulations can be found at: http://www.cbc.ca/canadawrites/rules.html. The paragraph that concerned me was found under 4. Registration:

 

Entry forms become the property of CBC, free of any compensation or charges, and will not be returned to contestants. All submissions must be original and not infringe copyright or the rights of any other party, individual or otherwise, including but not limited to any person, group, entity, or company. By entering the contest, each participant shall waive any and all moral rightsover his/her entry and grant CBC an irrevocable licence to use of the work on-air or online: the entries may be read and aired on CBC Radio One in whole or in part, or online, on any websites or platforms related to the CBC, without any compensation being payable to the participant.

 

While it is not uncommon for some contests to ask for all publishing rights in return for a contest prize, it is highly unusual to ask for moral rights. Any reputable publisher will not ask for such rights and CBC taking this precedent is dangerous. The issue of rights is a complicated and often confusing one. I am no copyright lawyer but as a writer and artist I am concerned with this requirement by CBC. Below is a definition of moral rights:

 

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/D4718204-9904-42DF-8A5C84A64827173D/alpha/M/

In copyright law, rights guaranteed authors by the Berne Convention that are considered personal to the author and that cannot therefore be bought, sold or transferred. Moral rights include the right to proclaim authorship of a work, disclaim authorship of a work and object to any modification or use of the work that would be injurious to the author’s reputation.

 

This is of such concern to me that I cannot conscionably sit back as either a writer or as the president of SF Canada without bringing it to people’s attention. On January 19, I emailed CBC expressing my concerns. I heard nothing. Again I wrote on January 30, asking for a response and should I not receive one by February 6 I would contact as many Canadian writers’ organizations as possible. (If you would like to see a copy of those letters, please contact me and I will send them.)

 

If we ignore this, we set up a precedent for artists losing moral rights, where their works can be altered or attributed to someone else at the whim of the owner. If your organization has already been in contact with CBC and has any news on this issue, I would be interested in hearing what is happening.

 

Over the years, in various ways writers’ works and rights have been jeopardized. With a united voice I believe we can stop this trend and educate people before it becomes entrenched. I must say on a personal level that I am shocked and saddened that CBC would stoop to this level and I sincerely hope it is just the work of overzealous lawyers and can be circumvented.

 

I look forward to talking more with you and finding a solution.

 

Regards,

 

 

Colleen Anderson

President

SF Canada

 

2 Comments

Filed under art, Culture, entertainment, erotica, fantasy, horror, news, people, poetry, Publishing, science fiction, Writing

Moral Rights

On Sunday, Jim Gunn talked about an essay for an old SF collection and how one author wouldn’t sell his piece because he would have to waive moral rights. Jim seemed to think this was silly, to not sell a story over moral rights. Maybe he was talking about that particular case only, where the essay was written specifically for that anthology. Earlier last year, on my blogspot blog I wrote about CBC radio having a contest and taking all rights. Also checking out Radio One’s program “This I Believe” they said: By clicking on the “submit your essay” button below, you are transferring to CBC all rights, including copyright, in your essay and are waiving your moral rights in the essay. As owner of copyright CBC, and third parties authorized by CBC, will have the exclusive right to make unlimited use of all or part of the essay in any and all media in perpetuity worldwide.

CBC wasn’t paying for these pieces. “Fill our programming for us for free. After all, it is our national radio station.” By writing for CBC, you’re volunteering it to these programs. Yet, many artists donate or volunteer their works for a particular show or event or book. So what’s the difference between donating a piece, giving copyright for a specific time and waiving moral or all rights?

The owning of copyright is a complicated thing and there are lawyers and agents who specialize in the fine print. Basically, by transferring all rights it means that you can no longer use that piece of your writing in any way. You cannot send it to be published or shown anywhere else. You really can’t even ask permission since CBC now owns it completely. Take a person who sells a sculpture. Someone else owns the sculpture but the artist might still have prints or photos of the sculpture sold or put in books. In the case of writing, many writers make a living from reselling their pieces to different publications.

Although in most cases of publishing one sells specific rights (and often specific media rights such as electronic or print publication) for a limited time, there are cases where you sell all rights, which still does not include moral rights unless they say so. But should you sell a book to a publisher, the rights give that publisher the exclusive right to publish your book for a period of time, compensating you as is laid out in your contract. If you sell to a magazine, you are paid for the piece, by article, word count or column inches and can after a time, resell that piece to other publications. Greeting card companies do it as a matter of course because they want to own the slogan in perpetuity.

There are first world rights, English only rights, print only, first North American, electronic and a motley assortment of many other combinations, often with a nonexclusive right to put in a print anthology (if you sell a short story to a magazine), which only gives that publisher the first right to ask you if they can put it in but you have the right of refusal.

In most cases rights revert to authors as per the contract, and the majority of authors will not write something in which they do not retain rights. I have never sold anything where the rights did not revert to me. Exceptions are for anything you write while in the employ of a company. In that case, they own it but you can still get writing credit for it and have your moral rights.

Moral rights are the most important to keep and it’s shocking that CBC resorted to such tactics. Waiving moral rights means that a company/magazine/publisher can take your piece and alter it, making it unrecognizable, printing pieces out of context and otherwise changing your words, and you will have no recourse. If I was a painter and sold a painting of a house to someone and waived my moral rights, they could then paint in a dead dog and a person dismembering someone else and I could say nothing. I’m not sure but it’s possible moral rights might also mean your name is no longer attached to your work. In the above example you would probably be happy if they left your name off but anyone who takes your moral rights can destroy what you’ve created and say you made it.

Of all rights, moral rights are the most important and the most worrisome when a big corporation like CBC is asking for them. When moral rights go missing it’s immoral. Any artist, whether writer, painter or jeweler, as well as any person who appreciates any form of art should consider very carefully what it means when you sell all rights and waive your moral rights.

I, for one, could not morally let this happen. There is no reason that anyone would need moral rights if they’re above board. An awful lot of money would have to exchange hands for me to waive these rights. Whether you sell a story or a photograph, you have the right to keep your moral rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_right

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture, fantasy, Publishing, science fiction, Writing