Guest guest Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 Argh! Katy! You're killing me! No, you are absolutely not free to reprint something you find on the Internet. This is the copyrighted work of someone or other - it doesn't matter whether there's an actual copyright notice included or not - and, by simply reprinting it without permission, you are stealing it, just as surely as if you walked into Staples and stole a box of paper on which to print your newsletter. $50 is cheap! Someone worked for this. He or she deserves some compensation if you reprint the work. Why is it so widespread that people do not value what writers, photographers, and artists do? Dan On 2/6/04 4:52 AM, " Katy Sinclair " <katy.sinclair@...> wrote: > I need some information please. > I read an article on the LPA site and wanted to re-print it in our newsletter. > I wrote to the journalist and was given permission but was told to ask the > actual newspaper for permission. > I was quoted a fee of US$50.00. > I declined to pay this amount! > > If you find something on the internet...is it free to re-print? > > Someone tell me what's ok and what's not! > > Katy Sinclair, Liaison Officer > Little People of New Zealand > P.O. Box 14050, Mayfair > Hastings, New Zealand > Tel/Fax +64 06 878 7506 > katy.sinclair@... > www.vil.co.nz/lpnz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 From: " Dan Kennedy " <dkennedy@...> > Argh! Katy! You're killing me! I never knew you two were an item? Does Barbara/Ian know?????? > > No, you are absolutely not free to reprint something you find on the > Internet. This is the copyrighted work of someone or other - it doesn't > matter whether there's an actual copyright notice included or not - and, by > simply reprinting it without permission, you are stealing it, just as surely > as if you walked into Staples and stole a box of paper on which to print > your newsletter. > > $50 is cheap! Someone worked for this. He or she deserves some compensation > if you reprint the work. > > Why is it so widespread that people do not value what writers, > photographers, and artists do? > > Dan O.K., can I play Devils Advocate here a second. Yes, what you say is absolutely right - as theory AND practice goes. BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What exactly would the author of the 'stolen' piece, do about it? 1. He/She is probably in a different country to Katy (New Zealand), so legal action could be complicated AND expensive. 2. As I understand it, Katy wants to use the piece in the New Zealand Newsletter. Now, as much as I admire greatly that extremely high quality, glossy paper, colour photo centre piece, eighty page, four times a year newsletter (LPA/RGA are you listening?); it has a relatively small circulation (something like 100+). So, the chances of the author even finding out about it would be slim. And even then,,,,, WHAT, exactly is the author of the stolen piece gonna do? He/she would be out of pocket if he/she sued (sp) Katy OR Little People of New Zealand. He would (presumably) get bad publicity for himself/herself, by taking this little biddy charity to court. And at the end of the day, what good (apart from bolstering the authors pride and making a stand against such horrible thieves) would it do him/her? Surely, in such a case, the theory doesn't necessarily reflect the practice? What the author COULD (in theory) do, and what he PROBABLY would do, are more likely to be two different things? Yer honour, I rest my case:-) Fred, for the defendant! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 Dan, I have a few questions, not arguments, just wondering and needing clarification. Katy says she saw an article on the LPA website, had contacted the author and received permission to reprint in her LPNZ news letter, but was advised to request permission from the actual newspaper. I am assuming this was one of many articles with " links " on the LPA site. Question.... did LPA have to pay for the articles or because it is just a link to the actual site was there no fee involved? If this is the case, can Katy included in her news letter the " address " on the internet for the particular article and suggest that it would be something her members might be interested in viewing. I also note in an LPA Today (Fall 2002 issue-new issues have been loaned out) that LPA Today copy right allows other " International short stature organization and other non-profit groups to reprint parts of LPA Today without prior permission, but with full credit to LPA " . I think this is great for LPA to be willing to share this information, but fully agree with you concerning compensation due the originators of the work unless otherwise noted. (as in LPA Today). Just wondering and needing clarification. Thanks, Bruce, Proud Grandpa of Brenden Re: what's right? > Argh! Katy! You're killing me! > > No, you are absolutely not free to reprint something you find on the > Internet. This is the copyrighted work of someone or other - it doesn't > matter whether there's an actual copyright notice included or not - and, by > simply reprinting it without permission, you are stealing it, just as surely > as if you walked into Staples and stole a box of paper on which to print > your newsletter. > > $50 is cheap! Someone worked for this. He or she deserves some compensation > if you reprint the work. > > Why is it so widespread that people do not value what writers, > photographers, and artists do? > > Dan > > On 2/6/04 4:52 AM, " Katy Sinclair " <katy.sinclair@...> wrote: > > > I need some information please. > > I read an article on the LPA site and wanted to re-print it in our newsletter. > > I wrote to the journalist and was given permission but was told to ask the > > actual newspaper for permission. > > I was quoted a fee of US$50.00. > > I declined to pay this amount! > > > > If you find something on the internet...is it free to re-print? > > > > Someone tell me what's ok and what's not! > > > > Katy Sinclair, Liaison Officer > > Little People of New Zealand > > P.O. Box 14050, Mayfair > > Hastings, New Zealand > > Tel/Fax +64 06 878 7506 > > katy.sinclair@... > > www.vil.co.nz/lpnz > > > > === > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 Fred, So because the author might not find out, or probably wouldn't do anything about it because of the costs involved in persuing a case, that makes it OK to steal his work? The question asked by Katy was " what is right " not " what can I get away with " . Granted those working for the " defendant " often share the same view as you.... that's why O.J. and the like are still walking free. I rest MY case. Bruce, Proud Grandpa of Brenden, and for what's right. Re: what's right? > > From: " Dan Kennedy " <dkennedy@...> > > > > Argh! Katy! You're killing me! > > I never knew you two were an item? Does Barbara/Ian know?????? > > > > No, you are absolutely not free to reprint something you find on the > > Internet. This is the copyrighted work of someone or other - it doesn't > > matter whether there's an actual copyright notice included or not - and, > by > > simply reprinting it without permission, you are stealing it, just as > surely > > as if you walked into Staples and stole a box of paper on which to print > > your newsletter. > > > > $50 is cheap! Someone worked for this. He or she deserves some > compensation > > if you reprint the work. > > > > Why is it so widespread that people do not value what writers, > > photographers, and artists do? > > > > Dan > > O.K., can I play Devils Advocate here a second. Yes, what you say is > absolutely right - as theory AND practice goes. > > BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > What exactly would the author of the 'stolen' piece, do about it? > > 1. He/She is probably in a different country to Katy (New Zealand), so > legal action could be complicated AND expensive. > 2. As I understand it, Katy wants to use the piece in the New Zealand > Newsletter. Now, as much as I admire greatly that extremely high quality, > glossy paper, colour photo centre piece, eighty page, four times a year > newsletter (LPA/RGA are you listening?); it has a relatively small > circulation (something like 100+). So, the chances of the author even > finding out about it would be slim. And even then,,,,, WHAT, exactly is > the author of the stolen piece gonna do? > > He/she would be out of pocket if he/she sued (sp) Katy OR Little People of > New Zealand. He would (presumably) get bad publicity for himself/herself, > by taking this little biddy charity to court. > > And at the end of the day, what good (apart from bolstering the authors > pride and making a stand against such horrible thieves) would it do him/her? > > Surely, in such a case, the theory doesn't necessarily reflect the practice? > What the author COULD (in theory) do, and what he PROBABLY would do, are > more likely to be two different things? > > Yer honour, I rest my case:-) > > Fred, for the defendant! > > > > > === > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 On 2/7/04 2:07 PM, " Bruce F. Bachmann " <bfbmrb@...> wrote: > Katy says she saw an article on the LPA website, had contacted the author > and received permission to reprint in her LPNZ news letter, but was advised > to request permission from the actual newspaper. I am assuming this was one > of many articles with " links " on the LPA site. Which tells me that the article was written a member of the newspaper's staff, and that the newspaper, rather than the writer, was the holder of the copyright. That is similar to my situation with the Boston Phoenix: I don't own the rights to stuff I write for the Phoenix, because I'm on staff. > Question.... did LPA have to pay for the articles or because it is just a > link to the actual site was there no fee involved? If this is the case, can > Katy included in her news letter the " address " on the internet for the > particular article and suggest that it would be something her members might > be interested in viewing. Yes, absolutely. She can publish the link and then readers can go find the article by following that link. > I also note in an LPA Today (Fall 2002 issue-new issues have been loaned > out) that LPA Today copy right allows other " International short stature > organization and other non-profit groups to reprint parts of LPA Today > without prior permission, but with full credit to LPA " . I think this is > great for LPA to be willing to share this information, but fully agree with > you concerning compensation due the originators of the work unless otherwise > noted. (as in LPA Today). This is the policy of LPA Today, and everyone knows that ahead of time. I agree with you that it's a good policy. But it is not the policy of, say, the New York Times. ;-) Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 Can't miss my chance to play devil's advocate either! On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Dan Kennedy wrote: > No, you are absolutely not free to reprint something you find on the > Internet. Define " free " . Is she free to choose to do it? Actually, yes she is. Is it right? Maybe, maybe not. Is it lawful? Technically, no. > $50 is cheap! Someone worked for this. He or she deserves some compensation > if you reprint the work. Wait a sec -- the journalist gave permission without asking for money. The journalist has already been compensated by the newspaper. Also, compensation does not necessarily have to be monetary. Perhaps a By-line is enough; perhaps even just the warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that someone in need appreciates your words. Also, " cheap " is relative. For a non-profit organization, $72 is not cheap. > Why is it so widespread that people do not value what writers, > photographers, and artists do? Obviously she values it enough to want to reprint it. Lost in this capitalist world is the idea that things can have value other than monetary. But the bottom line is, I agree with Fred. She'd get away with reprinting it with no negative repercussions. -Dave > On 2/6/04 4:52 AM, " Katy Sinclair " <katy.sinclair@...> wrote: > > > I need some information please. > > I read an article on the LPA site and wanted to re-print it in our newsletter. > > I wrote to the journalist and was given permission but was told to ask the > > actual newspaper for permission. > > I was quoted a fee of US$50.00. > > I declined to pay this amount! > > > > If you find something on the internet...is it free to re-print? > > > > Someone tell me what's ok and what's not! > > > > Katy Sinclair, Liaison Officer > > Little People of New Zealand > > P.O. Box 14050, Mayfair > > Hastings, New Zealand > > Tel/Fax +64 06 878 7506 > > katy.sinclair@... > > www.vil.co.nz/lpnz > > > > === > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 On 2/7/04 3:30 PM, " Bradford " <dbradfor@...> wrote: > Can't miss my chance to play devil's advocate either! > > On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Dan Kennedy wrote: > >> No, you are absolutely not free to reprint something you find on the >> Internet. > > Define " free " . Is she free to choose to do it? Actually, yes she is. Is it > right? Maybe, maybe not. Is it lawful? Technically, no. > >> $50 is cheap! Someone worked for this. He or she deserves some compensation >> if you reprint the work. > > Wait a sec -- the journalist gave permission without asking for money. > The journalist has already been compensated by the newspaper. Also, > compensation does not necessarily have to be monetary. Perhaps a By-line > is enough; perhaps even just the warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that > someone in need appreciates your words. As I told Bruce, the journalist must have referred her to the newspaper because he does not own the rights. Therefore, he must be on staff. Therefore, he doesn't have the power to give permission. If he owns the rights, then he wouldn't have referred her to the newspaper. > > Also, " cheap " is relative. For a non-profit organization, $72 is not > cheap. To go back to my earlier analogy ... does Staples have a sliding scale of prices for paper depending on whether you're a nonprofit organization? No one is making Katy pay $50 or $72 or whatever. She doesn't have to publish the article. >> Why is it so widespread that people do not value what writers, >> photographers, and artists do? > > Obviously she values it enough to want to reprint it. Lost in this > capitalist world is the idea that things can have value other than > monetary. You're right! I'm going down to Verizon Wireless right now and tell them I want a nice new cellphone with a built-in PDA. And that I want them to let me have it for the psychic value of making me happy. Gosh, why didn't I think of that? > But the bottom line is, I agree with Fred. She'd get away with reprinting > it with no negative repercussions. Yes, indeed. Digital theft is very easy to pull off and very hard to punish. People generally get away with not paying their taxes for many years without the IRS catching up, too. For that matter, counterfeiting $20 bills can be quite lucrative if you're really good at it, and if you don't get too greedy. - Dan > > -Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 From: " Bruce F. Bachmann " <bfbmrb@...> > Fred, > So because the author might not find out, or probably wouldn't do > anything about it because of the costs involved in persuing a case, that > makes it OK to steal his work? Hold on Bruce, that is NOT what I said, nor did I imply it. I was merely dicussing the logistics between theory and probable practicality. The question asked by Katy was " what is > right " not " what can I get away with " . Neither did I discuss, or imply, any degree of 'getting away with'. I was, as I said at the beginning, merely playing " Devils Advocate " . As with any law, it is one thing to have the law, it is another to enforce it. That in no way, on my part, suggests or implies any right or wrong. Granted those working for the > " defendant " often share the same view as you.... that's why O.J. and the > like are still walking free. Ouch! That is surely liable-us:-) > > I rest MY case. And I mine. > Bruce, Proud Grandpa of Brenden, and for what's right. What is right, and what is wrong, is so often fudged by the use of absolutes. LPNZ's newsletter is an extremely small fish in a huge ocean of publication. It is not the New York Times out to make a fortune from each and every edition. It is not trying to profit (Financially) from the use of this article. It IS trying to profit its readers BY offering them the knowledge held in this article. Is it any more wrong of her to do so, than it is of the person wanting to gain financially from the information they have written, to such a very, very, small degree? Fred, STANDING on his case in order to see eye to eye with the Proud Grandpa of Brenden:-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Dan Kennedy wrote: > To go back to my earlier analogy ... does Staples have a sliding scale of > prices for paper depending on whether you're a nonprofit organization? No > one is making Katy pay $50 or $72 or whatever. She doesn't have to publish > the article. I'm not sure about Staples, but many commercial entities offer deep discounts to nonprofits. For example, LPA recently acquired 10 licenses of Microsoft Office Professional 2003, direct from Microsoft, for $17 per license. Normal price is around $500 per license. > > Obviously she values it enough to want to reprint it. Lost in this > > capitalist world is the idea that things can have value other than > > monetary. > > You're right! I'm going down to Verizon Wireless right now and tell them I > want a nice new cellphone with a built-in PDA. And that I want them to let > me have it for the psychic value of making me happy. Gosh, why didn't I > think of that? Apples and Oranges. Under such a scenario, Verizon is out-of-pocket their cost for the cell phone. It's not going to cost the publisher anything if Katy prints 100 copies and sends them to her friends. If it did, they wouldn't put the article up for public consumption. Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against the legitimacy of copyright law. In principle I fully support it. I'm just saying that in this specific case, enforcement is a moot issue. I believe that even the publisher would concede this (albeit strictly off the record). > Yes, indeed. Digital theft is very easy to pull off and very hard to punish. > People generally get away with not paying their taxes for many years without > the IRS catching up, too. For that matter, counterfeiting $20 bills can be > quite lucrative if you're really good at it, and if you don't get too > greedy. Yes, there are always gray areas between what is legal and what you can get away with. Your argument seems to be that taking advantage of these gray areas is always evil, or at least the net effect is always evil. My argument is that gray areas can also be used for net good. I think Katy's is such a case. Unfortunately the courts don't weigh net effect. So it comes down to individual judgement and choice. Is she going to do what is right, or is she going to do what is legal? Or both? Or neither? -Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Whatever happened to the concept of doing the right thing...because it's the right thing to do. Bill (a professional writer who needs to eat, pay bills and take care of his kids like everyone else) Re: what's right? On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Dan Kennedy wrote: > To go back to my earlier analogy ... does Staples have a sliding scale of > prices for paper depending on whether you're a nonprofit organization? No > one is making Katy pay $50 or $72 or whatever. She doesn't have to publish > the article. I'm not sure about Staples, but many commercial entities offer deep discounts to nonprofits. For example, LPA recently acquired 10 licenses of Microsoft Office Professional 2003, direct from Microsoft, for $17 per license. Normal price is around $500 per license. > > Obviously she values it enough to want to reprint it. Lost in this > > capitalist world is the idea that things can have value other than > > monetary. > > You're right! I'm going down to Verizon Wireless right now and tell them I > want a nice new cellphone with a built-in PDA. And that I want them to let > me have it for the psychic value of making me happy. Gosh, why didn't I > think of that? Apples and Oranges. Under such a scenario, Verizon is out-of-pocket their cost for the cell phone. It's not going to cost the publisher anything if Katy prints 100 copies and sends them to her friends. If it did, they wouldn't put the article up for public consumption. Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against the legitimacy of copyright law. In principle I fully support it. I'm just saying that in this specific case, enforcement is a moot issue. I believe that even the publisher would concede this (albeit strictly off the record). > Yes, indeed. Digital theft is very easy to pull off and very hard to punish. > People generally get away with not paying their taxes for many years without > the IRS catching up, too. For that matter, counterfeiting $20 bills can be > quite lucrative if you're really good at it, and if you don't get too > greedy. Yes, there are always gray areas between what is legal and what you can get away with. Your argument seems to be that taking advantage of these gray areas is always evil, or at least the net effect is always evil. My argument is that gray areas can also be used for net good. I think Katy's is such a case. Unfortunately the courts don't weigh net effect. So it comes down to individual judgement and choice. Is she going to do what is right, or is she going to do what is legal? Or both? Or neither? -Dave === Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.