Copyright Questions

[ishtat]

"Someone has stolen my story and posted it as their own on another site. Who's going to do something about it?"

This seems to be the commonest complaint engendered by the writers here on the assumption that they have copyright with respect to the said story. (All too frequently the complaint is posted under an avatar which looks as though it was knocked off from someone else.)

Some posters also get into stoushes with their fellows accusing them of knocking off third parties copyrights. These arguments start with an accusation and a counter ensues, generally degrading into bitterness so quickly that the legitimate issue of respect for copyright is lost in no time. In particular these fights have centred around posts which link to an original article with little comment or expansion of the quoted material.

sr71plt has probably taken the narrowest view of what constitutes fair use or fair dealing of copyrighted material but his views are in fact consistent with the traditional publishing industries (of books,, films, music, and art).

Others (Pure comes to mind) have taken a broader view of what can be used.

I hope I haven't misrepresented these two posters but please feel free to correct me if I have.

It seems to me that if one has a claim to be a writer one also has a legal and moral responsibility to respect the copyright of others as well as claiming protection for ones own work

1 Do we respect other copyright owners enough?

2 Are our own claims legitimate?

3 Should fair use (dealing) be interpreted broadly or narrowly?

4 Can internet posters be made responsible for their copyright violations?

5 Is the restricted guidance given by this sites owners either sufficient or reasonable?

6 What current disputes might affect us. For example some courts outside the USA have held that ISP's are not legally responsible for allowing the public to use their facilities to download copyrighted material (new films usually) These decisions are subject to appeal but if upheld seem to give a licence for the wholesale theft of copyrighted material (including ebooks).

7 What other problems with respect to copyright should we be (or not be) mindful of.

I thought it might be useful to thrash this around a bit hopefully without the rancour which sometimes envelops this issue.

 

[oggbashan]

The law on copyright differs by country and administration. The US position on copyright is much less protective of author/creator's rights than in many other countries.

For example, I have copyright protection in the UK and in many other countries but by publishing on Literotica, unless I take other actions in the US to establish my copyright and PAY MONEY, I have no protection in the US.

In practice copyright protection is not effective unless the author and/or publisher is prepared to take legal action against anyone who breaches the copyright. That is expensive and beyond the means of most of us.

Whether we like it or not, by putting a creative work on the internet we are making it freely available to anyone to use, to steal, adapt and plagarise.

Og

 

[bronzeage]

A copyright is like a "NO TRESPASSING" sign. It tells a person when they have gone too far, but doesn't do much else.

The question here is money. If the holder of the copyright holder has no money at stake, they cannot claim financial damages. They can sue in court and have a judge order the infringer to stop infringing, but that's about it.

A lot of stolen stories are showing up on sites with ad revenue. It might be possible to sue for part of that, but it's doubtful the amount would cover the court costs.

 

[Pure]

Notes

Ishtat, those are wide-ranging questions, but here are some thoughts. Personal only, not related to Literotica's views or reflecting its position. They are offered a lay opinion; I'm not a lawyer.

1 Do we respect other copyright owners enough?

I'm not sure who 'we' are. Reproduction of passages [portions] of newstories and other 'current comment' documents seem to me to fall under 'fair use' for discussion purposes, an internet forum, IMO, being not less privileged than a school classroom. The cases that demand respect are where authors and publishers produce "books" [or equivalent] whose commercial value is affected by unauthorized reproduction and distribution. Inflicting financial losses is a tort, a civil wrong, that may be and has been litigated.

It's of course immoral to represent another's work as one's own, and it offends the regulations of many institutions, e.g universities, who exact plagiarism penalties. A cabinet minister in Germany had to resign over plagiarized portions of a PhD thesis.

Erotic short stories and other pieces, IMO, often fall into a gray area, because of the question, for many pieces, of their commercial value. It's clear of course that if Author X is able to sell a book or a collection of her stories, she deserves full protection and respect from us, other authors, dilettante, amateur, and pro.

A complicated question is where Literotica has a *mass* of stories, many *individually* without commercial value, but which collectively draw people to its site, and generate profits for Literotica. In that case, Literotica has an interest in protecting these works, individually and collectively from use by other, possibly competing commercial interests.

Lit authors should respect each other and Literotica, each other's interests and Literotica's in these matters; our interests and Lit's largely coincide. It is certainly feasible that a pirate source, wholesale, transfer and appropriate a large portion or all of Lit's holdings and use them to generate hits for other ventures, e.g. porn sites. Lit needs to guard against that, and should, and we should support them. In theory, of course, the appropriation could be for non commercial, e.g. archival purposes, with no revenue generated; yet that archive would arguably affect Literotica, and so would arguably be illicit.

The 'grey' case, in my opinion, would be where a single story, of dubious commercial value is reproduced elsewhere, for discussion, w/o commercial gain by that person (reproducer). There is likely a moral infraction in doing so w/o permission, but IMO, *if there is no harm to my interests, reputation, or income*, there is no tort; no civil wrong (basis for litigation) and of course, no basis for prosecution.

It would of course be highly immoral if the person represented my work as his, but I doubt I could sue if I’ve not been harmed and he wasn't selling it, gaining from it, or somehow damaging my reputation.

2 Are our own claims legitimate?

See above. Summary: Some, certainly, where items of commercial value are stolen, saleable books and stories. Others *as a mass, as a collection by Literotica* have value to Literotica, if not individually to the authors, and we should respect Literotica; our interests and Literotica's coincide.

3 Should fair use (dealing) be interpreted broadly or narrowly?

See above. Summary: Given commercial value, then fair use, IMO, opinion, should be defined as (only) those uses for education or discussion etc, as part of freedom of expression and inquiry, which a) do no harm to the income of the writer and b) which generate, directly, no income (material gain) for the prospective 'fair user.'

Size is not a good criterion, and even percentage of the whole is not. One page from a medical text, used by a commercial clinic, in impressing its potential customers, cannot be 'fair use' even if it's .0001% of the large text.

4 Can internet posters be made responsible for their copyright violations?


In practice, no, not in the law, in most cases [of the type we're discussing here; erotic short pieces], given there is lack of harm. What Literotica does to an "author" who copies others for his own reputation or gain is another matter. When there IS harm and it's intentional, the poster should be liable to suit, though in practice, minor harms/losses are not worth litigating.

5 Is the restricted guidance given by this sites owners either sufficient or reasonable?

It seems not sufficient in some areas. Of course the maxim "Keep it short" or some limit of 3 paras, as a broad, 'shotgun' approach does have some virtues.

6 What current disputes might affect us. For example some courts outside the USA have held that ISP's are not legally responsible for allowing the public to use their facilities to download copyrighted material (new films usually) These decisions are subject to appeal but if upheld seem to give a licence for the wholesale theft of copyrighted material (including ebooks).


I don't know, off hand. ISP's generally should NOT be liable for misuse, provided they a) don't know, b) do respond when notified, and c) are not gaining commercially through some sort of official 'blind eye.' If a pirate in Byelorussia steals a book of author X, a source of commercial gain to author X, and offers it on the 'net, then X is harmed. But I don't see a wrong by the ISP, but by the pirate. I generally don't think the author [or publisher] should be able to sue the ISP; i recognize his problem suing the Byelorussian pirate, but the pirate, is the villain, unless the ISP is profiting underhandedly, as mentioned above. The Byelorussian govt should be pressured to comply with international standards.

7 What other problems with respect to copyright should we be (or not be) mindful of.

I think, as a user of books, the LENGTH of copyright and its devolving to heirs [or everlasting corporate entities] is excessive, IMO, in many cases. Once the author and his kids have benefited, game over for the grandkids. In practice, about 40 years from publication, then reversion to public domain. This for books, and possibly for movies as well. For example, I don't see why I can't obtain works of Dylan Thomas and Emily Dickinson on the 'net. And, possibly, the 1930s films of Von Sternberg.

---
Just some thoughts. Thanks for asking. Of course the preferences are mine alone. Legal questions have differing answers for differing countries, so i'm subject to correction, *with respect to some country* if I've misrepresented its laws. I can't misrepresent my own preferences. Lastly, laws cannot cover all matters, and issues of respect for others and civility are equally important.

 

[michchick98]

The question here is money. If the holder of the copyright holder has no money at stake, they cannot claim financial damages. They can sue in court and have a judge order the infringer to stop infringing, but that's about it.

This is a common misconception. If you do not hold a formally registered copyright on any of your work, you can TRY to sue someone in court, but it's pretty much pointless.

As for the "stolen" stories, about all any of us can do is report the site to Laurel and Manu, have them get the stories taken down, but then next week or next month another site will do the same.

I think that particular topic ("Someone stole my stories!") gets a thread about once a month.

 

[lovecraft68]

This is a common misconception. If you do not hold a formally registered copyright on any of your work, you can TRY to sue someone in court, but it's pretty much pointless.

As for the "stolen" stories, about all any of us can do is report the site to Laurel and Manu, have them get the stories taken down, but then next week or next month another site will do the same.

I think that particular topic ("Someone stole my stories!") gets a thread about once a month.

Yeah it happened to me a few months back. Someone Googled my series and found about 10 chapters up on a sexstories on line site. Come to find out as ilooked at it they had a shitload of lit stories I recognized all written by a "Billtom". Thing was they only had the first page to every story and the site was a minefield of viruses. Also when you tried to sign up as a member the computer kept freezing up. Since then I have lived under ignorance is bliss. I don;t search my own stuff fearing it will show up god knows where. I mean if you have published material that you are selling for a profit through a publisher you may be able to do something but not anything here on lit. It's on the net making it free pickings. My wife just had an article on coping with grief swiped off of a website she posts on and it showed up on e-zine. The rule on e-zine is anything on there can be used but supposedly permission needs to be asked which will never happen so she gave this one away for free.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Copyright is really aimed at publishers republishing someone else's published work, printing thousands of copies to sell. JK Rowling is famous about tolerating, even encouraging fanworks-- but when some fool tried to publish his encyclopedia for profit, she sued and won.

Pilot, you would know this-- is plagiarism the same as copyright infringement? Or have the two things become conflated?

 

[sr71plt]

Pilot, you would know this-- is plagiarism the same as copyright infringement? Or have the two things become conflated?

Not treated as the same, no. Plagiarism has a much more solid set of case law and is given a lot more respect--and doesn't have the "financial opportunity loss" stipulations attached to it that copyright infringement cases do. Plagiarism is more a criminal issue and copyright infringement more of a civil case issue.

I don't think there's much difference between the two in concept anymore--but the courts want to act like they are different. The courts live in fear if case schedules exploding if they open the door to copyright cases. Hence all of the bravado about one's rights from the moment of creation set against the continued hard requirement in the States to have a formal copyright in hand to get a court date--and even then the requirement that significant financial opportunity loss be evidenced.

 

[michchick98]

I mean if you have published material that you are selling for a profit through a publisher you may be able to do something but not anything here on lit.

Actually, I think the publisher has about the same power as Laurel and Manu do here on Lit. They can have it removed, but it'll pop up somewhere else later. The publisher doesn't hold the copyright for the work, only the right to publish it. And unless the author had the work registered, well yeah, you know.

It's on the net making it free pickings.

It's a risk you take posting anything, for free or for profit, on the internet. What's to stop someone from buying one copy of your work then posting it on their site for free? Electronic media isn't like a book. When you buy a book, if you want to loan it to more than one person, they have to take turns borrowing it. With e-books and the like, you can loan many copies out at once.

My wife just had an article on coping with grief swiped off of a website she posts on and it showed up on e-zine. The rule on e-zine is anything on there can be used but supposedly permission needs to be asked which will never happen so she gave this one away for free.

Well, she can have the e-zine pull it if she can prove it's her work and permission wasn't given, but that's about as far as she can go unless she registered a copyright with the U.S. Copyright office for the work.

ETA: Of course, I'm still learning on the copyright issues, so if I'm wrong, someone please correct me.