Thursday, August 27, 2009

Nine tenths of the law?

////////////ADDENDUM 29 Aug 2009: this is what I posted on Thursday. Since then I received an email from somebody named (possible link) who said it was an error and that their post was removed, and it has been removed. Although I am probably entitled to some of the (ill-gotten) revenue they got from the ads they posted on MY WORK, I recognize it's probably unrealistic to pursue it, in terms of cost/benefit, so I'm not planning to do so. //////////////////////////// ///////////

Somebody named Elizabeth(link) at a web site called Human Trend decided to nab my entire "Sanford an the Son" post from earlier this summer, which I posted at Hugo Zoom, here, and at Dead Horse, here.
I left a comment as follows:

Elizabeth, if that is your name,
please tell me why you decided to steal my post(from Hugo Zoom and Dead Horse), but did not feel you needed to give me proper attribution. This isn’t an excerpt, but the entire post, even my photo-editing work.

Perhaps ironically, my comment is awaiting moderation as I write this. I don't know if she thought that leaving the "cross-posted at Dead Horse" bit at the bottom constitutes sufficient attribution, or she just meant to steal this cleanly and forgot to lop off the bottom. For the record, No, I DON'T think it's sufficient attribution. Although I'm not necessarily against someone posting an entire post of mine(with attribution, which also means a link back to the source) IF it's a really short one, say under 50 words. But this wasn't a short post, and I wasn't asked or mentioned.

For longer posts I'd think any time you're venturing over 50 per cent of the original you're definitely going over the line, maybe even sooner if the excerpt is really long in itself. And I always give attribution. So should you, Elizabeth.

Labels: , ,