Copyright Infringement Claim against BCA Chapter *DELETED*

[Mark Shaw]

Post deleted by Mark Shaw

[Guest brh]

Copyright is a pretty gray area, owning words is pretty tough to prove, or expensive to persue. Don't know much about the specific legal issues but you do admit this is that person's work. I'd watch that were I you. Secondly, if the person the letter, invoice and whatever else was sent to is not the party that sent the work in, I would send everything back and inform them they have the wrong individual, thank them for bringing this to your attn, all material has been removed as you were unaware. Just my opinion. I am not a lawyer. Most legal stuff is sent return signature requested.

[Reatta Man]

1. After doing a Google search on the phrase "If My Body Were A Car" there were numerous Web pages with articles, comments or other work using that title or phrase. Looking for EXACTLY that phrase by putting the phrase in quotation marks produced 785 sites with that phrase or article. In other words, you could easily make a case that the article was picked up by numerous Web sites, and the author's name was somehow unintentionally not passed along by whoever submitted it. This shows you had no ill will or intent to defraud or deny financial gain by the author.

2. It is not unusual for someone to be 'fishing' for money with these demands. Often what they have to prove if you don't immediately give in is whether you benefitted financially from the use of the protected work. It sounds as if you are dealing with a problem of misplaced attrition to her as the author of the work, not using it for financial gain.

3. I would send a letter back, thanking them for pointing out that she claims to be the author of the article, you have not gained any financial compensation from using it, and since the owner and originator is IN QUESTION, you have removed it from your Web site. They will then have to go to the expense and hassle of actually suing you in order to get any money. Since this really is a hassle, very few if any lawyers would advise her to sue a hobby club or Web site in order to ultimately gain very little money.

4. Welcome to the world of author's egos.

Joe

[Mark Shaw]

Post deleted by Mark Shaw

[Centurion]

Post deleted by Centurion

[Guest BJM]

Question: What was so appealing about this ladies article that it was so well circulated? Also, why would she be offended that it was being used extensively? If I had a similar effort, and it gained such notoriety - and that was NOT my intention to make money initially - then I would be excited that I was so famous, not upset it was being used - mostly, as I understand it - in not-for-profit venues, correct?

[imported_buick5563]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Copyright is a pretty gray area, owning words is pretty tough to prove </div></div>

With all due respect, no it isn't. Paraphrasing is one thing, but printing someone's work (even with creative editing) does need to be credited. I agree that perhaps she wrote the essay without financial gain in mind. The same way if you lose a pet somebody always sends you that "Rainbow Bridge" poem (author unknown).

Mark, I know you were just printing in your newsletter and weren't trying to make money off of it, I know that, but she may very well have been put in other "compilations" without compensation and they are just trying to lay claim to her property. If it was written recently enough for her to still be alive, it isn't in public domain. I agree with the others who wrote saying to basically beg ignorance and explain that it wasn't for sale, no money was made, please forgive us.

I realize this is a completely different circumstance and I'm not a lawyer either, but I made a living as a musician for 15 years. Music law states that nobody can record a song until it has been sold. Once it has been recorded it is open for "covering", but credit (and royalties) must be given.

Good luck,

Respectfully,

Mike

[Mark Shaw]

Post deleted by Mark Shaw

[JohnD1956]

Luckilly our Chapter has not had such a situation. Just offering a sign of support and wishes that this turns out okay for you.

John D

[imported_buick5563]

Hey Mark,

I would make that page two. Page one (on your lawyer-friend's letterhead) should be the explanation that when you were notified you stopped and deleted. I guess that would be the internet version of cease and desist.

I googled the essay and found that Ellen Degeneris is credited for it. There are t-shirts with different slogans on it. I can see now why she copyrighted it. There is actually money to be made by it. I GUARANTEE Ellen paid, and you know Mrs. Amstutz is getting a cut from Lillian Vernon or whoever else is selling $20 t-shirts.

It IS ridiculous to sue a non-profit organization.

Mike

[NTX5467]

A few thoughts . . .

--- I would suspect that "Ozark Senior Living" magazine would be a copyrighted publication, which would make THEM the one that should be involved in any financial compensation, not the author of the article who submitted it to them for publication (for which financial considerations might have been exchanged), either as a contracted article or a free-lance article.

If I understand things correctly, when an author submits an article to a magazine (either as a contract item or a free lance item), they sign a waiver that gives the publication all rights to distribute the article (with authorial notations) as they see fit. Of course, if the article is submitted and not used, that's another thing. But when it's used, then the particular chain of events is put into action (with financial compensation usually happening somewhere along the line) to get the article in print.

If the author had published the article on their own, then copyrighting it (up front) would be a definite necessity. In this case, the author would OWN all of the rights to the distribution and publication of the article--not the publishing house that published the article. Just like a news service copyrighting all of the articles that its staff generates and sends out for publication in newspapers/magazines/websites worldwide.

The timeline from when the article was originally published and then the author copyrighted it herself is a little interesting, unless there is some sort of issues with expiration of the magazine's suspected copyright situation. Of course, as the shortened/edited article was published (I suspect) after her approved copyright application, that would seemingly make the "infringement" situation "real". Still, many legal issues can also be related to "intent", which might carry some weight in this and similar situations.

--- There might be some issues with the fact that your published article was less than 50% of the original, hence "not the same" as it had been (by your admission) edited prior to your using the article. I would hope the editor, in that case, would have credited the original author's work from when the shorter article was generated. It would seem that cutting about 50% of the total word count from an article and it still have relevance would not reflect the best light on the original author, with all due respect. Still, "paraphrasing" or "summarizing" is different than "copying", but could still be somewhat related to taking credit for someone else's work.

--- Any author should be proud enough of their work to want credit for it, which is understandable. I suspect it might be an even higher honor to have it reprinted and distributed to many areas where it originally did not go, but with proper credit, of course. How these priorities are weighted might be determined by the author, though, and the retained legal team.

--- I've seen many things in car club newsletters (including original artwork!) that was copied from "somewhere", whose authorial identification was obviously lost somewhere. Just as there is "clip art" and "public domain items", there are also "copyright protected" items, which must have permission (from appropriate operatives) to use them PRIOR to their use. Of course, we've all seen the many lists for various things. Somebody somewhere had to author them, but no author is listed, typically, but sometimes with "Author Unknown" noted.

--- This whole deal might be a good reason to print only "original items" generated by chapter members in our chapter newsletters. If a neat article is found, it could be discussed at the chapter meeting and passed around for those present to read and such. That way, you're only passing around information and not printing or (seemingly) taking credit for it.

--- From a "pockets" orientation, going after those responsible for publishing the article (in the chapter newsletter) would make more sense than going after the person that submitted it to the chapter's newsletter editor (who had discretion as to whether to print it or not) . . . OR the other author/editor that shortened the original work to result in the article that was reprinted. A matter of details, it seems.

Still, the author's request for payment has to be addressed somehow or another, by someone with a genuine legal background in these matters. Contact with the orignal magazine which published the particular article might be something to consider, too. Definitely going to be some "homework" to be done in further getting all of the necessary details nailed down.

Other than removing the particular newsletter from your chapter's website, it might be advisable to print an "Additional Information on ______" in your next newsletter detailing the origin (publication AND author) of the original article, that what was printed was an "edited" and "shortened" version of the original, and include any other details which might be pertinent in giving as much credit to the original and edited article as is necessary to satisfy everybody. In addition to copyright issues, this could also be related to "intellectual property" in some manner, which I suspect can get much more involved than copyright issues.

Just some thoughts and observations. Proceed at your own risk.

NTX5467