My Copyright Is The Same As Your Copyright

I've been planning to write about how The Scotsman newspaper published an edited version of my copyrighted material without my permission. I've been weighing up whether the most appropriate tone for this missive should be Calm and Collected, or Indignant and Self-Righteous. I feel obliged to do this because The Scotsman has failed to respond to my two letters on this subject, which irks me considerably more than the breach of copyright itself.

However, now I'm annoyed that I'm annoyed. It seems such a futile waste of time to spend an hour writing about how a national newspaper doesn't appear to care about such a basic publishing concept. Even more so when the culprit concerned is a newspaper whose own website contains not one but two copyright symbols on its front page (alongside the phrase "All rights reserved") and - the irony! - includes this advice in its FAQ page:

"If you would like permission to reproduce any of our photographs or articles used in the newspaper or on this website please contact us to discuss charges and conditions of use."

There's also a link to a Terms and Conditions page on the parent company's website, which contains three clauses on the subject of copyright, including the dire (and somewhat hypocritical) warning that Scotsman content may not be supplied to third parties for commercial gain. All totally at odds with my experience of the way this organisation has conducted itself with regard to my own material last November.

A brief word about fair dealing. In the UK, this is the generally accepted principle that it's OK to reproduce excerpts from other people's work for the purpose of criticism, review or news reporting. I do it a lot myself, so I'm well versed in the concept. Reproducing a few sentences is fine. Reproducing one-third of my original post, with no commentary whatsoever, in a column headed "Opinion" - that's simply not fair dealing.

Moaning will probably get me nowhere. Instead, I'm going to do something more positive. I'm issuing a challenge to The Scotsman, its editor Mark Gilson and its owners Johnston Press plc: given that you clearly don't seem to think much of the notion of copyright, why not remove all references to it from your own website? Even more radically, go one step further and publish the entire newspaper under a Creative Commons license.

No, you're not going to do that, are you? Because your copyright is important to you. It ensures that you retain control over your copy, enabling you to dictate in which contexts and for what purposes it can be used. Just like my copyright, in fact. So next time, hands off. Or at least, please ask permission first. If in doubt, put aside all questions of scale (i.e. national newspaper vs. one-man weblog) and remember this: my copyright is the same as your copyright.

Posted by Hg on Tuesday 05 February 2008 at 15:51.
Received 18 comments so far.

The Scotsman aren't the only ones who do this, and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

The BBC did it to me with a photo I submitted for their Photos of Life in Scotland thing. It got in, which was nice, and it was published with my name next to it in that gallery, which was also nice, but since then it's been used as part of their stock photo library to illustrate several news stories, not all of which are related to the original intent of the photo. The copyright wording is tricky though, so my hands were tied.

This situation is, however, different.

The advice given in the following blog post is sound, I think - but whether you're annoyed enough to go through with it is up to you.

http://blog.fawny.org/2007/12/20/bestofthebogs/

Comment by pixeldiva on Tuesday 05 February 2008 at 17:15.

Thanks Pix, that Fawny post is interesting reading.

I've had copyrighted material used without permission on a few occasions - RTE (the Irish broadcaster) used one of my pics on its website and some of my writing ended up on Wikipedia, to name but two instances.

Equally, I've had plenty of experience of more considerate organisations asking for permission to use my work, which I've either granted or denied depending on the circumstances. It's not rocket science.

How annoyed am I in this particular case? Much more than I have been by my prior experiences. When I've contacted previous offenders, no one has ever completely blanked me like The Scotsman has.

Comment by Hg on Tuesday 05 February 2008 at 18:26.

The fact that The Scotsman hasn't got the collective good manners to even respond to you is cause enough to complain. Ripping off entire tracts of work to fill column-inches is another.

However, might they argue that, since your piece kinda ends on a cliff-hanger (I certainly wanted to read more) *and* they then publicise your URL, they're doing you a service by promoting your blog?

Now, I'm clearly doing the old devil's advocate thing here, since I daresay that if they'd dropped you a line ahead of print you'd've seen the merit in saying, 'yep, go ahead!'.

It's all about common decency, but do you get the impression that you're being ignored (or delayed) because you wrote letters, instead of 'phoning or emailing? This seems to be a widespread and increasingly common malady.

Comment by Ken Davidson on Tuesday 05 February 2008 at 21:07.

Ken:

I was once asked by a publisher doing one of those "best of the blogs" books if they could use a post of mine. I said no, mainly because I didn't think it worked out of the context of my blog. A post is part of a larger work and sits in relation to the previous and subsequent posts.

The other point, about then doing a favour by drawing attention to the post, is also dubious. Many (not not all, of course) bloggers like writing in semi-obscurity. A small but significant audience enables them to be free in ways they might not be with a large readership. (I know I've certainly changed my approach to blogging since Created in Birmingham took off and I had control over that situation).

In other words, it might be a service but it's not a requested one. Think of the moss growing enthusiast whose drive is sandblasted by a neighbor as a favour. Think how he's going to feel when his moss is eradicated by someone who just doesn't understand the importance of moss because for them concrete only exists in a dichotomy of clean and dirty. Think about it and weep.

Comment by Pete Ashton on Tuesday 05 February 2008 at 21:37.

They might well argue that, Ken. In fact, I'm guessing it's precisely what they think: we're doing this guy a favour by reproducing his work in a publication that has a circulation of 60,000+ and a readership of well over 200,000.

Great plan. They could also consider reproducing a third of the next JK Rowling novel without asking her. I'm sure she wouldn't mind either and it'd be great for her sales. I mean, it's all good publicity, right?

It doesn't wash. (And I know you're playing devil's advocate, so bear in mind I'm rebutting your point very forcefully here as a matter of principle only.) A copyright work is a copyright work, however short or long it is.

As you say, I might have taken a totally different approach if I'd been asked upfront. However, I don't know what I would have done, because I wasn't contacted and given the opportunity to think about it prior to publication.

As a matter of interest, in the days after its publication I got precisely one hit from someone accessing this site via The Scotsman's website. Nor were my stats higher in general. It seems to have had absolutely no impact at all.

Comment by Hg on Tuesday 05 February 2008 at 21:40.

Pete - talking about context and re-publishing, one of the things that pissed me off most about the original infringement was that the post is so clumsily edited.

It's all about how two specific ancestors of mine helped me to make more of an emotional connection with Remembrance Day, but you'd barely guess that from the way it was reproduced. I'm glad they liked the preamble, but the preamble is just a negative that then contrasts with the rather more positive meat of the post.

Quite apart from whether this post makes any sense outside the context of my blog (I think it probably does) or whether it's likely to appeal to readers of The Scotsman (again, I think it probably is - far more than the usual stuff that I write, anyway), it has ended up so horribly mangled in "their" version that it makes little sense.

Comment by Hg on Tuesday 05 February 2008 at 21:56.

Hugely annoying. I once found a small biography I wrote on Charlie Chaplin used (ie. copied exactly) by the Royal Mail website as their text for a Chaplin stamp they were issuing. All I could get out of them - eventually - was a link to my site. But they still had the 'it's on the internet (and written by someone we haven't heard of) so it must be free' attitude. Sigh. Good luck.

Comment by Garen on Wednesday 06 February 2008 at 00:42.

It's very frustrating, Garen. As I said above, it's not exactly rocket science to check a website's home page for an e-mail address and then fire off a quick request. In some circumstances I'm also quite happy with the "Seek forgiveness rather than permission" philosophy; it's not perfect, but it can be a pragmatic approach in certain situations.

However, I stand by my comments in this post. The Scotsman has sought neither permission nor forgiveness. It took a piece of work that I published free of charge in one medium and re-used it for profit-making purposes in another. This is indefensible, given its own website's detailed and ferocious copyright statements.

Comment by Hg on Wednesday 06 February 2008 at 09:48.

Stick it to 'em, Hg!

Comment by Mr.D. on Wednesday 06 February 2008 at 12:46.

Your highlighting of The Scotsman's own copyright notices is an excellent way of pointing out the injustice. I wish I'd thought of that with the Royal Mail (they must have had them). If The Scotsman's 'Blogosphere' section is regular, then I guess other bloggers have been treated similarly.

Comment by Garen on Wednesday 06 February 2008 at 14:42.

Send the Scotsman a registered letter demanding an apology in the paper and a bill for the amount you think is reasonable for the work they stole.
If the Scotsman complies problem solved, if not take them to court using the small claims procedure its fairly easy and you add the costs to their bill.

Comment by plord on Thursday 07 February 2008 at 01:08.

Well, therein lies the problem. I've already sent two letters by registered post. The first suggested politely but firmly that they ask retrospectively for permission to use the piece. It also pointed out that as my work had been re-used in a commercial context, I am entitled to their standard fee for an article of that length. The second letter asked for a response to the first. No reply to either, two and a half months later.

Yes, I have to consider whether I wish to take this further and the small claims court is one option open to me. It's probably worth mentioning - in case anyone wonders why I'm taking this so seriously - that I am self-employed, working on a freelance basis, and that my income derives in part from my copy writing skills. Failing to challenge this infringement would devalue the way that I earn a living.

Comment by Hg on Thursday 07 February 2008 at 01:51.

That is an absolute outrage. Would you mind if I made something of it in an industry gossip column somewhere?

Comment by Andrew Brown on Thursday 07 February 2008 at 16:39.

An interim solution to going to the small claims court might be to get a solicitor to write them a recorded letter, see if that gets their attention.

Comment by pixeldiva on Thursday 07 February 2008 at 17:06.

To Hg and Pete: my comment regarding The Scotsman 'doing the blog a service' is entirely grounded in thinking from the other chap's POV. I think from the tone of my comment, you can glean I don't agree with it.

What I should've said was that I bet they'd use that if called upon to defend their position. And *that* hypothetically would underline their presumed Goliath (to Hg's David) mentality.

Pete: I'm not sure about the notion that the average blogger wants to have a limited audience. Well, they may //desire that// but surely would know they run the very real risk of exposing everything they write to millions of people? It's all very interesting: the tipping point between two states - that of publishing in obscurity just by dint of the fact you are one voice in millions, versus the potential for opening Pandora's Box just by using a topical phrase or subject.

Comment by Ken Davidson on Friday 08 February 2008 at 10:47.

Interesting thread, and another point on the "we'll steal stuff off the web because its there and free".

I've been thinking of what I'd do if it happened to me (not that its very likely; although one of my site has been scraped by sploggers). I'd probably not bother taking it further due to the hassle involved and the low impact it would have on me.

However, if it was my goal to be recognised as a writer in whatever form, then I probably would try to take them to a small claims court, or whatever legal option exists.

Comment by Paul on Friday 08 February 2008 at 15:09.

If I had read that in the Scotsman, I would assume that you were yet another blogger-turned-journalist, that you had been commissioned to write (or reproduce) a piece for them. I would also assume that they would have paid you.

And I suppose that's where the Big v Small applies.

On the rare occasion where I use other people's materials - usually photos - without a credit/link-back, I put in a disclaimer saying that copyright owners can contact me (either for removal or credit).

I've had my photos copied by other bloggers with a credit/linkback,and someone has incorporated them, uncredited, into a YouTube video. I am absolutely fine, in fact verging on the delighted, about both situations. But I would object very very strongly to anyone making money out of my creation. And I think that is very important, albeit not necessarily fully recognised in law (ie if I use copyrighted material, me not making a profit from blogging is no defence)

Comment by Gert on Saturday 09 February 2008 at 11:25.

Andrew - I'd be happy for it to be mentioned in a general context (in a piece on copyright, or on the relationship between web & print media, for example). At this point, I'd see it as counterproductive if it was highlighted solely in a "JUSTICE FOR HYDRAGENIC" type article.

Pix & Paul - considering my options. I really have to decide in the next few days whether this is a battle I want to fight, or whether having highlighted the issue publicly is enough. The choice: forge ahead on principle, or be realistic and plough my energies into other more positive endeavours instead.

Ken & Gert - yeah, I think it really is a Big vs Small phenomenon. And Gert, you're right, that's not a distinction that the concept of copyright really addresses (though I think in practice most copyright holders deal with minor infringements on a pragmatic basis, as I have done in other instances).

Comment by Hg on Sunday 10 February 2008 at 11:34.

http://www.hydragenic.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hydragen/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1977

The previous post was links for 2008-02-04.

The next post is Never The Same River Twice.

All original material on this site is © Hydragenic, 2002-2008. Extracts of other people's work are used for the purpose of criticism, review or news reporting, in line with the "fair dealing" (or "fair use") principle.