Plagiarism on YouTube

[DeYaKen]

I don't know if this has already been posted but I have just found one of my stories on a YouTube channel called Real Cheating Story.
Basically the operator has stolen stories, many from Literotica, put them through a text to speach program, added a few pictures and changed the title.
OIf you don't like people making money from your work, it might be worth checking out.

 

[Fatdog25]

https://www.literotica.com/s/removing-stolen-stories-from-youtube

 

[Lifestyle66]

I don't know if this has already been posted but I have just found one of my stories on a YouTube channel called Real Cheating Story.
Basically the operator has stolen stories, many from Literotica, put them through a text to speach program, added a few pictures and changed the title.
OIf you don't like people making money from your work, it might be worth checking out.

I posted a thread about another author here on LitE plagiarizing another's story. That author copied and pasted most of the first story into their own, added maybe 20% more to change it, messed with the punctuation (maybe to get around automated tools looking for comparisons), and the new author did NOT credit the original author in any way.

As I understand plagiarism, the text-to-text coping is plagiarism, copying the text without quotes and attribution to the original author,, and attempting to make it appear as their own work.

But is it plagiarizing when someone on that podcast takes a free work, credits the original author as the source, then adds value by reading that author's story?

I agree that someone may be making some profit by doing so. But they are giving credit to the freely provided material's author. And they are doing work in reading it for the audio version, and not trying to claim credit for the written work.

Thoughts? on this?? Is that still plagiarism?

 

[DeYaKen]

I posted a thread about another author here on LitE plagiarizing another's story. That author copied and pasted most of the first story into their own, added maybe 20% more to change it, messed with the punctuation (maybe to get around automated tools looking for comparisons), and the new author did NOT credit the original author in any way.

As I understand plagiarism, the text-to-text coping is plagiarism, copying the text without quotes and attribution to the original author,, and attempting to make it appear as their own work.

But is it plagiarizing when someone on that podcast takes a free work, credits the original author as the source, then adds value by reading that author's story?

I agree that someone may be making some profit by doing so. But they are giving credit to the freely provided material's author. And they are doing work in reading it for the audio version, and not trying to claim credit for the written work.

Thoughts? on this?? Is that still plagiarism?

If they have the permission of the author, no it isn't. However, in this case, no permission is sought and no credit is given to the author. The channel owner does not read the story, just records what sounds like the Microsoft audible assistance app. The cannel owner, in his channel title is claiming the stories are from real life.

 

[lovecraft68]

[No personal attacks or trolling - including creating accounts for this specific purpose. Heated discussions are fine, even welcome. However, personally attacking / kink-shaming a fellow author or reader is not allowed within the Author's Hangout. Threads which devolve into the exchanging of insults will be closed and repeat offenders will be given a timeout, per the AH rules.]
SECOND WARNING

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I posted a thread about another author here on LitE plagiarizing another's story. That author copied and pasted most of the first story into their own, added maybe 20% more to change it, messed with the punctuation (maybe to get around automated tools looking for comparisons), and the new author did NOT credit the original author in any way.

As I understand plagiarism, the text-to-text coping is plagiarism, copying the text without quotes and attribution to the original author,, and attempting to make it appear as their own work.

But is it plagiarizing when someone on that podcast takes a free work, credits the original author as the source, then adds value by reading that author's story?

I agree that someone may be making some profit by doing so. But they are giving credit to the freely provided material's author. And they are doing work in reading it for the audio version, and not trying to claim credit for the written work.

Thoughts? on this?? Is that still plagiarism?

Plagiarism is the wrong word for what you are describing. It would fall under copyright infringement, and may be excluded as an enhancement to an existing work. I’m not a lawyer, but have read a bit about it in the internet. That makes me an expert, right.

 

[Lifestyle66]

If they have the permission of the author, no it isn't. However, in this case, no permission is sought and no credit is given to the author. The channel owner does not read the story, just records what sounds like the Microsoft audible assistance app. The cannel owner, in his channel title is claiming the stories are from real life.

Look at the podcast descriptions. They all list the Literotica author of the original story in the text descriptions. Locecraft68 has several of their stories in those 200 podcasts, as identified in the description.

And if it's a text-to-speech program doing the audio, it still take work to make the conversions. In the best case, it takes even more work to select the best bot voices for the best-case audio.

I want to point out again how so far all the stolen stories are cheating wife stories. Shows the general 'morality' of that crowd.

Lovecraft, look at podcasts number 14 through 18, credited with YOU as the author!

 

[Lifestyle66]

Plagiarism is the wrong word for what you are describing. It would fall under copyright infringement, and may be excluded as an enhancement to an existing work. I’m not a lawyer, but have read a bit about it in the internet. That makes me an expert, right.

You're right, copyright infringement is probably correct, but not plagiarism as the OP suggested.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

@ShelbyDawn57 is right. It's right there in the word. A "copyright" is the "right to make copies." Unless you, the copyright holder, gave permission, there are only a few reasons someone can make a copy without permission. For instance, if someone is reviewing your work, they can quote a portion to illustrate points, that's a type of "fair use'.

Copying the entire thing and making money on it is plain and simple infringement.

-Rocco

 

[lovecraft68]

[No personal attacks or trolling - including creating accounts for this specific purpose. Heated discussions are fine, even welcome. However, personally attacking / kink-shaming a fellow author or reader is not allowed within the Author's Hangout. Threads which devolve into the exchanging of insults will be closed and repeat offenders will be given a timeout, per the AH rules.]
SECOND WARNING

 

[Lifestyle66]

Here we go, denying the obvious as always. I'm sure your friends will be along soon to join in the "No, its not like that." mantra.

Where there is smoke, there is fire, and there's an inferno over there only the defenders of the indefensible don't want to see.

Here we go again, throwing stones as soon as someone asks a question or points out the obvious: It's not plagiarizing.

I alerted you to your own oversight of YOUR stories being used in that "obviously a reprehensible Loving Wives" podcast site.

I agreed with ShelbyDawn57 that it's copywrite infringement. The question now would be what appropriate compensation should be for transitioning a free work into another format for a profit?

 

[TheWritingGroup]

I agreed with ShelbyDawn57 that it's copywrite infringement. The question now would be what appropriate compensation should be for transitioning a free work into another format for a profit?

Answering that would be perilously close to giving legal advice. I think even a lawyer commenting here could only answer in very general terms without risking some pretty meaningful consequences. (I'm no lawyer, nothing I write here or anywhere is legal advice.)

-Rocco

 

[lovecraft68]

Answering that would be perilously close to giving legal advice. I think even a lawyer commenting here could only answer in very general terms without risking some pretty meaningful consequences. (I'm no lawyer, nothing I write here or anywhere is legal advice.)

-Rocco

You'll never see a dime, getting it removed is the best you can do.

When people have been caught selling stolen work on Amazon and their account banned, the author of the original doesn't get whatever sales were made, amazon keeps them.

You know, because they need the money.

 

[SimonDoom]

This is copyright infringement, not plagiarism.

Copyright infringement occurs when someone, without permission, violates one of your exclusive rights as the owner of a work of original authorship, which includes fictional stories. The exclusive rights under copyright include the right to reproduce the work, the right to publish it, the right to perform it, and the right to create "derivative works" of your work. A sequel to your story, or a reworking of your story, that includes the same characters, personalities, settings, etc. probably would constitute a derivative work. If it reproduces portions of your text word for word, that's copyright infringement.

Plagiarism is when you take the ideas of another writer and claim them as your own. Usually it occurs in the academic context.

You avoid plagiarism by appropriately crediting the original author. Attribution, however, is not a defense to copyright infringement. If you infringe someone's copyright by using their work without permission, it doesn't matter whether you give attribution; you're still liable.

Copyright is a legal doctrine; plagiarism is an ethical doctrine.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

This is copyright infringement, not plagiarism.

Copyright infringement occurs when someone, without permission, violates one of your exclusive rights as the owner of a work of original authorship, which includes fictional stories. The exclusive rights under copyright include the right to reproduce the work, the right to publish it, the right to perform it, and the right to create "derivative works" of your work. A sequel to your story, or a reworking of your story, that includes the same characters, personalities, settings, etc. probably would constitute a derivative work. If it reproduces portions of your text word for word, that's copyright infringement.

Plagiarism is when you take the ideas of another writer and claim them as your own. Usually it occurs in the academic context.

You avoid plagiarism by appropriately crediting the original author. Attribution, however, is not a defense to copyright infringement. If you infringe someone's copyright by using their work without permission, it doesn't matter whether you give attribution; you're still liable.

Copyright is a legal doctrine; plagiarism is an ethical doctrine.

No cited sources. Is this plagiarism?

 

[lovecraft68]

If you click on that channel you can of course click to see all their content and try to check it, but also the sidebar then fills with similar channels and every one of them is cheating wife stories and=as far as I have found-all AI narrated. I think its at least 50/50 everyone of them is mining the LW category here for content, there's thousands of stories there in that vein.

So if someone had the time-and knowledge of what a lot of LW authors have published, you could spend all day reporting these sites.

[No personal attacks or trolling - including creating accounts for this specific purpose. Heated discussions are fine, even welcome. However, personally attacking / kink-shaming a fellow author or reader is not allowed within the Author's Hangout. Threads which devolve into the exchanging of insults will be closed and repeat offenders will be given a timeout, per the AH rules.]
SECOND WARNING

I shouldn't be the only person who sees and is concerned with that, but, I guess I need to look at where I'm posting.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

If you click on that channel you can of course click to see all their content and try to check it, but also the sidebar then fills with similar channels and every one of them is cheating wife stories and=as far as I have found-all AI narrated. I think its at least 50/50 everyone of them is mining the LW category here for content, there's thousands of stories there in that vein.

So if someone had the time-and knowledge of what a lot of LW authors have published, you could spend all day reporting these sites.

And again, its unnerving how every single one of them is aimed at making all women look like whores.

I shouldn't be the only person who sees and is concerned with that, but, I guess I need to look at where I'm posting.

A person I know clicked on a video that had a gagged woman in it (on YouTube), and for days was getting dozens of fetish vids from the algorithm. Apparently, there are hundreds of channels producing 15-45 second vids of things like gagged women, women being wrapped up by spiders, women bound in hose, etc. Nothing explicit, but clearly meant to have fetish appeal. Some of them were clips from soap operas, some seem to have been AI-generated animation.

-Rocco

 

[Lifestyle66]

If you click on that channel you can of course click to see all their content and try to check it, but also the sidebar then fills with similar channels and every one of them is cheating wife stories and=as far as I have found-all AI narrated. I think its at least 50/50 everyone of them is mining the LW category here for content, there's thousands of stories there in that vein.

So if someone had the time-and knowledge of what a lot of LW authors have published, you could spend all day reporting these sites.

And again, its unnerving how every single one of them is aimed at making all women look like whores.

I shouldn't be the only person who sees and is concerned with that, but, I guess I need to look at where I'm posting.

So, in stories 14 through 18, you wrote to make "all women look like whores "

Should we be surprised"

 

[SimonDoom]

No cited sources. Is this plagiarism?

Smart ass.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

And again, its unnerving how every single one of them is aimed at making all women look like whores.

I shouldn't be the only person who sees and is concerned with that, but, I guess I need to look at where I'm posting.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, as far as I can see from what has been posted to LW over the last seven days, there are two types of stories:

1. 85% Male cuckolds
2. 15% BTB with a male "victim" (the one being cheated on and taking revenge/demanding divorce)

So, given how the cuckold stories would automatically get my channel demonetized if I were to upload those with narration, the BTB stories are what's left. So... it's not that weird "all" of those stolen stories are BTB types, if that's the only thing you CAN steal from that category.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Not for me, it isn't. I permit Dirty Bits Podcast to use my work.

But is it plagiarizing when someone on that podcast takes a free work, credits the original author as the source, then adds value by reading that author's story?

 

[MillieDynamite]

You'd be a man pissing in the wind trying to track down and remove all the stolen stories that YouTube hoisted and being read (AI or otherwise) to have them removed. Four more would take place as soon as one story was taken down.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, as far as I can see from what has been posted to LW over the last seven days, there are two types of stories:

1. 85% Male cuckolds
2. 15% BTB with a male "victim" (the one being cheated on and taking revenge/demanding divorce)

So, given how the cuckold stories would automatically get my channel demonetized if I were to upload those with narration, the BTB stories are what's left. So... it's not that weird "all" of those stolen stories are BTB types, if that's the only thing you CAN steal from that category.

 

[Lifestyle66]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, as far as I can see from what has been posted to LW over the last seven days, there are two types of stories:

1. 85% Male cuckolds
2. 15% BTB with a male "victim" (the one being cheated on and taking revenge/demanding divorce)

So, given how the cuckold stories would automatically get my channel demonetized if I were to upload those with narration, the BTB stories are what's left. So... it's not that weird "all" of those stolen stories are BTB types, if that's the only thing you CAN steal from that category.

Lovecraft68 likes to get on these forum threads and berate the LW readers and authors as "misogynists", claiming those stories present "all women as whores."

But two years ago, I bought a Smashwords book (yes, I paid $2.99 for it) by ... guess who! ... which was about a group of wives who serviced gloryholes at an adult book store!

Talk about turning women into whores! And guess who was making real money off of them (via book sales)?

But the grand proclamation is that anyone or any story related to Loving Wives is a bad thing. And that should be obvious! Right?

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Smart ass.

I’ve told my ass is cute, too.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I firmly believe that a day will come when I will understand the reasoning and criteria for warnings and editing of our beloved AH-mod. This is not that day.