A case of plagiarism

[sissyinstockings]

My story, "Pretty Like My Sisters", was published to another site, without my consent. Is there anything that can be done about this? I am unable to take legal action myself. The offending site is here, http://www.tgladies.com/index.php?o...catid=140:caught-with-consequences&Itemid=735.

Please help.

 

[MatthewVett]

I'd contact whoever runs the site and explain the situation to them, mentioning that you're the copyright holder.

 

[sr71plt]

Once you post something for free to an open site on the Internet, you aren't going to be able to catch up to all the other places it could post. And, if you and/or this Web site are based the United States, and you haven't obtained a formal copyright on the story, only moral suasion is going to get anyone to take it down (and then it's likely to pop up somewhere else three hours later). You could go the route of asking them to take it down and posting to their forum that it's a stolen story, and you might get it taken down (at least there).

The bottom line, though, is that you gave it away for free to begin with in a venue where it could easily/effectively be stolen and reposted--multiple times. Literotica itself is permitting the same thing to happen right on this forum. Most of the images you see pop up and a good many of the extensive quotes of articles from elsewhere were stolen and reposted here--and they rarely get taken off.

 

[HornyVikingMN]

And, if you and/or this Web site are based the United States, and you haven't obtained a formal copyright on the story, only moral suasion is going to get anyone to take it down (and then it's likely to pop up somewhere else three hours later).

While the rest of this post is correct - protecting a work is hard work and potentially costly - the bit about obtaining a formal copyright isn't exactly true. Here's from the U.S. Copyright Office's web site (copyright.gov):

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work.

 

[sr71plt]

I wish people would stop being so thickheaded about this. The following is in the U.S. copyright law:

“Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration
is necessary for works of U. S. origin.”

See: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf

There are no teeth in pursuing copyright infringement in the United States short of formally registering the work, no actual power you hold just by saying you own the copyright, if you can’t take it to court.

This is not a mistake in U.S. law. This was purposely included in the law after the United States signed the Berne Convention, making copyright ownership effective upon creation, because the United States didn’t want its courts flooded with “he said/he said” lawsuits.

Once again, if you can’t take it to court, you ain’t got nothing but moral suasion in your corner.

We go over this on this forum about once a month, and you yourself included this as the last sentence in what you posted. If you didn't register it, you're not taking it to court. What other legal leverage did you think you had in claiming infringement?

 

[oggbashan]

The cynical reason for the US not adopting the Berne Convention that provides automatic copyright from the date of creation of the work, is that US people/organisations are/were the world's worst thieves of copyrights since the early 19th Century.

Charles Dickens, Oscar Wilde, Rudyard Kipling and Gilbert and Sullivan all suffered major financial losses because of US based commercial plagarism.

Successive US governments have failed to address other countries' concerns about breaches of copyright by US organisations.

Now the US complains about Chinese copyright/patent theft?

Pot and Kettle.

 

[HornyVikingMN]

I wish people would stop being so thickheaded about this.

I'm not sure if that was directed at me or not, but I was only trying to draw the distinction between having the copyright and defending it.

 

[sr71plt]

The cynical reason for the US not adopting the Berne Convention that provides automatic copyright from the date of creation of the work, is that US people/organisations are/were the world's worst thieves of copyrights since the early 19th Century.

Charles Dickens, Oscar Wilde, Rudyard Kipling and Gilbert and Sullivan all suffered major financial losses because of US based commercial plagarism.

Successive US governments have failed to address other countries' concerns about breaches of copyright by US organisations.

Now the US complains about Chinese copyright/patent theft?

Pot and Kettle.

Yep, this is quite true. For a time in my career I was up to my neck in being expected to go both ways on this simultaneously, and it was just as two-faced as you describe.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm not sure if that was directed at me or not, but I was only trying to draw the distinction between having the copyright and defending it.

Perhaps I misread your post, but you were indicating that a passage of my post may not be correct--when I contend that it is and that folks just aren't paying attention to the bottom line, seeing the actually functionality through the mealymouthed wording to both pay lip service to an international convention the United States very belatedly and quite reluctantly signed to try to get something for itself (the Berne Convention) while still making sure it doesn't give anything up to anyone else (negating all of that "it's yours upon creativing it" wordage with the provisio that you still have to formally register it for your ownership to have any teeth legally).

As Ogg notes, it's a cynical move to be able to grab while only protecting anyone else in a very limited sense. And it is worded that way on purpose. At the base, the United States just isn't going to open its court system to have to deal with "he said/he said" copyright cases. But it doesn't mind if Americans steal the work of others and make it free access in the United States.

This "gotta have free access" is a very American concept. It even pervades this forum, where even today we have a discussion going up on the AUTHORS Hangout on how the consumer can screw the author on free access to for-fee works.

 

[oggbashan]

I'm not sure if that was directed at me or not, but I was only trying to draw the distinction between having the copyright and defending it.

In the US, unless you register the copyright and pay to register it, you don't have it.

In the UK, I have copyright under the Berne Convention automatically. But I 'publish' on Literotica, a US-based web site, so unless I pay for registration in the US, I don't have the copyright there. I have copyright throughout Europe.

It doesn't really matter whether I register and pay for the copyright in the US or not. Unless I have enough big bucks to pay for expensive lawyers, I couldn't enforce my copyright anyway, whether in the US, UK or Europe. Even if I had that sort of money available, it would usually be pointless because the people who steal my stories don't have sufficient assets to pay my legal costs, let alone any compensation.

What compensation? I have put them on Literotica free, so what loss could I claim for?

 

[sr71plt]

How refreshing to find someone here who actually understands it.

 

[MichaelWest]

In the US, unless you register the copyright and pay to register it, you don't have it.

What compensation? I have put them on Literotica free, so what loss could I claim for?

You have Copyright as the creator, you simply cannot use the Courts until you register. I believe you have up to five years after publication to register, so in that way you can defer it until a major case of plagarism is worth suing over. But you have hit the legal nail squarely on the head, what are your damages from free offerings?

I view anything published for free as advertising, I think I expect it to get portable, often out of my control. It is now the modern dilemna for all artists, use and/or theft is rampant, but it serves to put your work out there. Hopefully your identity as creator is intact and customers seek out the original or the other works you have and are willing to pay. That is the modern struggle as technology makes the ease of taking boundary free.

 

[_Lynn_]

How refreshing to find someone here who actually understands it.

I understand it. Just don't ask me to explain it to others.

 

[oggbashan]

I understand it. Just don't ask me to explain it to others.

I understand it. I can't justify the US government's stance on the Berne Convention.

Their attitude to individual artist/writer's copyright rights is as bad as almost anything happening in Eastern Asia on patents/trademarks. But the US's decision was deliberately taken and anyone creating in the US can only blame their government for the lack of redress if their work is stolen.

 

[_Lynn_]

I understand it. I can't justify the US government's stance on the Berne Convention.

Their attitude to individual artist/writer's copyright rights is as bad as almost anything happening in Eastern Asia on patents/trademarks. But the US's decision was deliberately taken and anyone creating in the US can only blame their government for the lack of redress if their work is stolen.

I'm not into politics, so that part is beyond me.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm not into politics, so that part is beyond me.

The justification for the U.S. stance on the Berne Convention, is that, as usual, it is pulled in two directions. Free public access is a centerpiece of the American system, and the U.S. government has always promoted that when possible. On the other hand, the United States is also pro-business, and publishing is big business. So it tries to please both sides of the street.

The Berne Convention "all ya got to do is create it and it's yours" proviso is, realistically, a real elephant in the room issue, though. How could an already strapped court system deal with what would potentially be a huge number of squeeshy "he said/he said" cases based on something as nebulous as "all you got to do is create it and it's yours"? No other country has the volume of such potential cases as the United States does and our courts can't cope with what they have to handle now.

What gets covered here on this forum shows the ridiculous links it could go to--slinging it's mine/no it's mine mud before a judge on who created a dirty story that was posted for free on the Internet? Get real.

So, it's not a white and black issue.

 

[oggbashan]

I'm not into politics, so that part is beyond me.

If I write a story in the UK, under the Berne Convention I own the copyright from the moment I stop typing, even on the first incomplete draft. I might have to prove that I was the first to write it. That can be done by publishing it on a site that includes a date of submission, or as used to happen in the past, posting a printed copy to myself in a sealed registered envelope - cost a couple of pounds.

If I write a story in the US, in theory I own the copyright, but in practice I don't until I register that copyright and pay the US government the appropriate fee - I don't know how much but for the number of all my stories posted in Literotica it would cost me thousands of dollars. If someone else registers it first - they apparently own the copyright in the US, even though I wrote it. Is that fair?

To get MY US copyright back would cost me tens of thousands of dollars and could be unsuccessful.

 

[sr71plt]

That can be done by publishing it on a site that includes a date of submission, or as used to happen in the past, posting a printed copy to myself in a sealed registered envelope - cost a couple of pounds.

Yes, in the States that's called a "poor man's copyright." I agree it's legal in the UK. But it was the subject of one of the very few relevant copyright cases to make it to U.S. courts, where it was knocked down by the courts as too "iffy" in terms of proof. (Believe the judgment said something like "it proves where the envelope has been, not where it's been with anything in it.) There may have been more sophistiated registering devices (that would have to be cheaper and less cumbersome than just officially registering, or it would be silly to do them) devised in the intervening years. But as of now, that's one activity that's been specifically knocked down as legal in the States.

Perhaps if some legal firm in the States established an Internet depository for dated "created" material for something like $5 via Paypal for a deposit, it could fly here in the States too. Haven't seen anything like that though--and certainly nothing on this has been taken up again by U.S. courts.

And you couldn't just set up the service and offer it as an answer. You'd also have to get the U.S. copyright law changed. Good luck on that.

 

[oggbashan]

For the 'poor man's copyright' to work in the UK, the envelope has to remain sealed until opened at the offices of a Notary Public - basically any competent solicitor.

The UK courts trust the Royal Mail.

But -

1. It would only be necessary if someone else claimed your work as theirs, and

2. You have the money to sue them and expect the court to order them to pay your costs and compensation, but

3. Even if the court did rule in your favour, getting the money from the plagiarist is up to you (more legal expense).

As I said before, enforcing copyright anywhere is going to be very expensive even if you have that copyright under the Berne Convention.

 

[sr71plt]

Understood. In the States it's irrelevant what you've done with it short of filing for formal copyright. The law stipulates that you have to do that to take it to court.

 

[bronzeage]

My story, "Pretty Like My Sisters", was published to another site, without my consent. Is there anything that can be done about this? I am unable to take legal action myself. The offending site is here, http://www.tgladies.com/index.php?o...catid=140:caught-with-consequences&Itemid=735.

Please help.

You cannot claim plagiarism. You were given credit as sissyinstockings.

Written by sissyinstockings©

They were polite enough to include the little c in the circle. What we have here is a case of rudeness, but no intent to offend you.

 

[sr71plt]

I might add that since the last copyright law was written, it's now against the law to include the © mark unless you actually registered the work. Apparently almost no one knows that.

 

[lovecraft68]

You can obtain a copyright for an digital book for $35. It takes about ten minutes to fill out the proper information and you receive your copyright in about 6-8 weeks.

I've scanned and e-mailed min and have sent it to 3 sites where I have found my work. Its never failed to get the stories removed and quickly.

But I am assuming that the person on the other end has no idea that even with that I would be hard pressed to do anything legally, but I think its just the fact its official causes them to get nervous.

 

[oggbashan]

I might add that since the last copyright law was written, it's now against the law to include the © mark unless you actually registered the work. Apparently almost no one knows that.

Again, that's the US position. The UK and European position is still that you have copyright from the beginning under the Berne Convention. You can use the © mark. It still won't mean a thing in the US.

 

[lovecraft68]

Again, that's the US position. The UK and European position is still that you have copyright from the beginning under the Berne Convention. You can use the © mark. It still won't mean a thing in the US.

I think people use that mark to try to discourage "pirates".