Stolen Stories on AskJolene

[oggbashan]

International Copyright

In the UK, publishing a work automatically gives the author copyright and that copyright can be defended in UK courts.

That copyright is also valid across most of Europe but NOT in the United States or China.

Guess which countries have long histories of copyright violation of European copyrighted works?

Charles Dickens, Rudyard Kipling, Conan Doyle, Gilbert and Sullivan were among many who complained bitterly about US pirates stealing their works. Now China is the most likely culprit but UK and other European writers have little or no protection in the US unless they register their copyright separately in the US.

Free Trade? It's more like freedom for pirates waving the Stars and Stripes.

Og

 

[Boxlicker101]

In the UK, publishing a work automatically gives the author copyright and that copyright can be defended in UK courts.

That copyright is also valid across most of Europe but NOT in the United States or China.

Guess which countries have long histories of copyright violation of European copyrighted works?

Charles Dickens, Rudyard Kipling, Conan Doyle, Gilbert and Sullivan were among many who complained bitterly about US pirates stealing their works. Now China is the most likely culprit but UK and other European writers have little or no protection in the US unless they register their copyright separately in the US.

Free Trade? It's more like freedom for pirates waving the Stars and Stripes.

Og

I don't think any of us like copyright violations any more than anybody else does. However, aren't the works of the people you mention in the public domain now? I don't know the exact law, but it is my understanding that a copyright expires 70 years after the author's death. All those people are dead, but it might not be 70 years yet. I could look them up, but I'm too lazy.

 

[sr71plt]

Accdording to Laurel, the stories and poems on Lit. ARE copyrighted. She probably has some shortcut that she can take to get this done, and does it in the names of the individual authors. I do know that in the emails she sent to me about the subject of this thread, she included the comment that she could take legal action against AskJolene. I think that other site knows it too.

Ummm, no. There aren't any "shortcuts" to get formal copyright. You send an application with $35 and a copy of the manuscript (although, as I noted above, you can bundle works--I bundled six novels once, which were all part of the same series--and register them as one work, and that's fine).

But, no, all your wishful thinking aside, there are no shortcuts. The elephant in the room really is an elephant. It's wonderful that you folks actually weave the wool you like to put over your eyes.

Laurel probably is under the same misunderstanding voiced above that "your work is yours as soon as it's created" has some teeth to it in the United States--which it doesn't (it does, however, in the UK which has no formal registration system).

There's every evidence the administrators have little or no understanding of copyright and how it works, as evidenced by all the AP material they permit to be reposted here. Now AP is an organization that copyrights all of its material and does go around and sue Web sites for stealing and reposting it. This Web site is a suit in waiting. That material is their product; to republish it, you have to pay for it.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't think any of us like copyright violations any more than anybody else does. However, aren't the works of the people you mention in the public domain now? I don't know the exact law, but it is my understanding that a copyright expires 70 years after the author's death. All those people are dead, but it might not be 70 years yet. I could look them up, but I'm too lazy.

Tilt. It's pretty clear that Og meant these authors complained while they were alive and their work still under copyright. It's a little difficult to complain after you're dead--although your heirs might.

 

[cloudy]

Ummm, no. There aren't any "shortcuts" to get formal copyright. You send an application with $35 and a copy of the manuscript (although, as I noted above, you can bundle works--I bundled six novels once, which were all part of the same series--and register them as one work, and that's fine).

But, no, all your wishful thinking aside, there are no shortcuts. The elephant in the room really is an elephant. It's wonderful that you folks actually weave the wool you like to put over your eyes.

Laurel probably is under the same misunderstanding voiced above that "your work is yours as soon as it's created" has some teeth to it in the United States--which it doesn't (it does, however, in the UK which has no formal registration system).

There's every evidence the administrators have little or no understanding of copyright and how it works, as evidenced by all the AP material they permit to be reposted here. Now AP is an organization that copyrights all of its material and does go around and sue Web sites for stealing and reposting it. This Web site is a suit in waiting. That material is their product; to republish it, you have to pay for it.

It's quite obvious that you have nothing but disdain for the site, and everyone that posts here.

Why, then, are you here?

 

[_Lynn_]

It's quite obvious that you have nothing but disdain for the site, and everyone that posts here.

Why, then, are you here?

deleted

 

[sr71plt]

It's quite obvious that you have nothing but disdain for the site, and everyone that posts here.

Why, then, are you here?

It's a little hard to say that when on another running thread here (the "why so much bad writing" thread), I am doing just the opposite of what you claim.

Trying to get the writers straight on what is/is not protected is hardly disdaining them.

But, anyway, there you go again, manufacturing any excuse you can find to slam me. As usual, it says more about you than about me, Cloudy. I guess we're in for another round of sweet, jolly you, aren't we?

 

[cloudy]

It's a little hard to say that when on another running thread here (the "why so much bad writing" thread), I am doing just the opposite of what you claim.

Trying to get the writers straight on what is/is not protected is hardly disdaining them.

But, anyway, there you go again, manufacturing any excuse you can find to slam me. As usual, it says more about you than about me, Cloudy. I guess we're in for another round of sweet, jolly you, aren't we?

Ah, sorry. I'd forgotten...you know, for someone that is clearly very intelligent, you sure have to work hard to convince yourself of that fact.

Intelligence isn't a win/lose thing, you know. More than one person can possess knowledge. But then, you're not the only one I've run into that views the world that way.

Sad.

 

[SlickTony]

I don't think anybody's stolen any of my stuff. Sometimes there's an advantage to being appreciated only by the Few.

 

[michchick98]

Ummm, no. There aren't any "shortcuts" to get formal copyright. You send an application with $35 and a copy of the manuscript (although, as I noted above, you can bundle works--I bundled six novels once, which were all part of the same series--and register them as one work, and that's fine).

So are you saying these links are incorrect?

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/index.html

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-a.html#1

That'll be news to the U.S. Copyright office. I guess maybe they should have consulted you first before posting this?

 

[Darkniciad]

So are you saying these links are incorrect?

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/index.html

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-a.html#1

That'll be news to the U.S. Copyright office. I guess maybe they should have consulted you first before posting this?

From those links:

You must register your copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office before you are legally permitted to bring a lawsuit to enforce it.

Hmmm... beta testing an online registration. I do believe I'll have to look into that one. Having to print off everything and mail it has always been the sticking point that's kept me from registering for a formal copyright. The post office in this one-horse town is rarely open, and printing off that much stuff costs a mint. If I can upload digital copies ( and save $10 ) I do believe I may look into it.

 

[sr71plt]

So are you saying these links are incorrect?

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/index.html

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-a.html#1

That'll be news to the U.S. Copyright office. I guess maybe they should have consulted you first before posting this?

Beats me. Those are just tables of contents. I'm not going to take time to read them just because you don't understand copyright--especially since they are irrelevant to the discussion thread. They claim to concern "Fair Use," which does not apply to anything being posted to this Web site. Fair use is for educational use meeting four strict requirements, none of which apply to porn stories.

The horse's mouth on this, incidentally, for U.S. publishing, is the U.S. copyright office's Web site at www.copyright.gov. (For the UK, the needed information can be found at www.cla.co.uk, www.intellectual-property.gov.uk, or the British Copyright Council Web site at www.editor.net.; for Canada, laws.justice.gc.ca; Australia, www.copyright.org.au; for India, www.goodnewsindia.com; for Ireland, www.irlgov.ie; for New Zealand, www.copyright.org.nz.)

As of a few months ago, good reliable tutorials on U.S. copyright could be found at www.lib.utsystem.edu and www.publishers.org. These could be dead links now; the Internet is dynamic.

Stanford might also have a very good tutorial on copyright, but, as noted above, the URLs you noted have no application to porn stories posted to the Internet.

Instead of ragging on me about this, why don't you go and actually educate yourself on the issue as the circumstance actually applies to the works you are writing?

Arguing with me isn't going to change reality.

 

[sr71plt]

From those links:

Thanks. Maybe stereo will get through.

 

[sr71plt]

From those links:



Hmmm... beta testing an online registration. I do believe I'll have to look into that one. Having to print off everything and mail it has always been the sticking point that's kept me from registering for a formal copyright. The post office in this one-horse town is rarely open, and printing off that much stuff costs a mint. If I can upload digital copies ( and save $10 ) I do believe I may look into it.

If you're going to file (and I don't necessarily see the point of doing so in many cases), remember to try the bundling under one collection title (and thus one fee) approach as much as possible.

 

[sr71plt]

So are you saying these links are incorrect?

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/index.html

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-a.html#1

That'll be news to the U.S. Copyright office. I guess maybe they should have consulted you first before posting this?

Incidentally, picking up on something you posted earlier, the "Poor Man's Copyright" (somehow sealing and holding dated copies--usually after sending it back to yourself in the U.S. mail) is bunk in the United States--and has been uniformily disallowed in attempts to go to court (it tells you, perhaps, where the container has been and that you own a date stamp; nothing more). (And if you think otherwise, cite a U.S. court case where it has been given authority.)

The kicker is that in the UK/Australian systems, it's a recognized way to establish ownership.

 

[starrkers]

(Being lazy here and hoping you already know the answer to save me wading through websites ad infinitum)

Australia doesn't have a registration system. Copyright is deemed to exist from the time the item was written, it doesn't even have to be published (simplification, but it'll serve for the purpose here). How does that sit with the US? If someone were to pinch my stuff, it is copyright here in Oz, but would the US recognise that?

 

[sr71plt]

(Being lazy here and hoping you already know the answer to save me wading through websites ad infinitum)

Australia doesn't have a registration system. Copyright is deemed to exist from the time the item was written, it doesn't even have to be published (simplification, but it'll serve for the purpose here). How does that sit with the US? If someone were to pinch my stuff, it is copyright here in Oz, but would the US recognise that?

Since the United States (belatedly) signed the Berne Convention, Australian citizens theoretically could bring whatever is good in Australia for proof of ownership into U.S. courts (Australia is a convention signatore)--and, as noted above, the "Poor Man's Copyright"--mailing a sealed and dated copy back to yourself through the national mails--has standing in Australian courts. Therefore, by the Berne Convention, it should have standing in U.S. courts too. I don't know of this having been tested, however, in a U.S. court. (If it has been, it would most likely be by someone of Colleen McCullough's international literary stature.)

And, be aware, the courts of any country aren't likely to take up any case on porn stories of little or no demonstrated monetary potential. Whatever the case, getting a court hearing is based on extent of demonstratable tangible value. And not getting a court hearing means you have to fall back on bluff and moral suasion of whoever could give you redress. The Internet pretty much thumbs its nose at all of this.

 

[starrkers]

That's kinda what I thought. I would suspect people like McCullough and JK Rowling would go the extra step and take out US copyright anyway, just to save the hassle.

 

[michchick98]

Beats me. Those are just tables of contents. I'm not going to take time to read them just because you don't understand copyright--especially since they are irrelevant to the discussion thread. They claim to concern "Fair Use," which does not apply to anything being posted to this Web site. Fair use is for educational use meeting four strict requirements, none of which apply to porn stories.

The horse's mouth on this, incidentally, for U.S. publishing, is the U.S. copyright office's Web site at www.copyright.gov. (For the UK, the needed information can be found at www.cla.co.uk, www.intellectual-property.gov.uk, or the British Copyright Council Web site at www.editor.net.; for Canada, laws.justice.gc.ca; Australia, www.copyright.org.au; for India, www.goodnewsindia.com; for Ireland, www.irlgov.ie; for New Zealand, www.copyright.org.nz.)

As of a few months ago, good reliable tutorials on U.S. copyright could be found at www.lib.utsystem.edu and www.publishers.org. These could be dead links now; the Internet is dynamic.

Stanford might also have a very good tutorial on copyright, but, as noted above, the URLs you noted have no application to porn stories posted to the Internet.

Instead of ragging on me about this, why don't you go and actually educate yourself on the issue as the circumstance actually applies to the works you are writing?

Arguing with me isn't going to change reality.

If you're not going to take the time to read through the links, why should I? The information below does not mention porn, you are correct about that, but what we write here in essence could be covered as outlined below:

What types of creative work does copyright protect?

(Wouldn't what we write be considered creative?)

Copyright protects works such as poetry, movies, CD-ROMs, video games, videos, plays, paintings, sheet music, recorded music performances, novels, software code, sculptures, photographs, choreography and architectural designs.

(Poetry and novels, I think that many writers' works could be covered by those two words)

To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." This means that the work must exist in some physical form for at least some period of time, no matter how brief. Virtually any form of expression will qualify as a tangible medium, including a computer's random access memory (RAM), the recording media that capture all radio and television broadcasts, and the scribbled notes on the back of an envelope that contain the basis for an impromptu speech.

(FIXED IN A TANGIBLE MEDIUM OF EXPRESSION....VIRTUALLY ANY FORM OF EXPRESSION WILL QUALIFY AS A TANGIBLE MEDIUM.....well, golly gee whiz, isn't that what I said I did and you called it "sweet"? I guess Stanford University and the U.S. Government think it's "sweet" too *bats eyelashes*)

In addition, the work must be original -- that is, independently created by the author. It doesn't matter if an author's creation is similar to existing works, or even if it is arguably lacking in quality, ingenuity or aesthetic merit. So long as the author toils without copying from someone else, the results are protected by copyright.

(SO LONG AS THE AUTHOR TOILS WITHOUT COPYING FROM SOMEONE ELSE THE RESULTS ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT....I repeated it in case you missed reading that line.....I think that would apply to any author here and on ANY other site.)

Finally, to receive copyright protection, a work must be the result of at least some creative effort on the part of its author. There is no hard and fast rule as to how much creativity is enough. As one example, a work must be more creative than a telephone book's white pages, which involve a straightforward alphabetical listing of telephone numbers rather than a creative selection of listings. [/B]

(So, borrowing an idea from someone else and writing your own story is completely acceptable.)

--

Sorry, pilot, but I'd rather believe what I read on the internet about this than take your word for it. Oh and incidentally, when I did my search of copyright and intellectual property rights, I came up with hundreds of sights that said basically the same things I've pasted above.

So, are all those sites wrong also? Should they have simply questioned the high and mighty Mr. Pilot first? *whacks forehead with palm of hand* WHAT WERE THEY THINKING??

 

[starrkers]

That's telling you what qualifies for copyright, it doesn't say how to obtain that copyright.

 

[sr71plt]

Go for it then, of course, michchick98. It's your responsibility and your result.

I sort of knew there wouldn't be any "let's not shoot the messenger; let's go educate ourselves" response here--even after you received point-by-point corrections of your mistaken assumptions.

You haven't the vaguest notion of the meaning of what you've regurgitated back to me--which doesn't contradict anything I've posted about the topic of this threat.

It's your pigheadness, your ignorance, and your funeral.

 

[sr71plt]

That's kinda what I thought. I would suspect people like McCullough and JK Rowling would go the extra step and take out US copyright anyway, just to save the hassle.

They don't have too. The publisher will take out copyright in the author's name during the production process. They wait until after the manuscript has been edited so that the version sent for formal copyright is pretty close to the printed version. But the publisher does it (the U.S. publisher involved in the U.S. published version)--at the publisher's expense. One of the last things that goes on the manuscript before the galleys are printed is the copyright page--and the book doesn't go into galleys until that copyright page is in place.

You don't actually have to wait to copyright at the last minute before printing. As long as the version copyrighted is substantially the same as the one printed, the formal copyright document holds. Most publishers do want to have the final title on it, though, and they don't encourage authors to get their own copyrights. That's too early in the process of putting a final product together.

In the printing world, copyright is rarely an issue until the end stage. The material hasn't been slapped on the Internet already for anyone to see/steal/republish.

 

[sr71plt]

That's telling you what qualifies for copyright, it doesn't say how to obtain that copyright.

And, more important, it says nothing about what will get you into court with a case--or can get you redress of your claim in any shape or form whatsoever beyond what you can get by bluffing or spinning moral suasion on anyone a bit dimmer than you on the subject. And that is what this thread is about.

Again, to those who are smug about the "copyright protection" of their stories on this Web site: cite one single case of a porn story on a free Internet site getting a court date and then obtaining legally adjudicated redress in any form whatsoever anywhere at any time in the United States. Then come back to the discussion. The Internet has been here a long time now--and porn for centuries longer. Stories are getting stolen and reposted left and right on the Internet (that's being mentioned on this forum ad nauseum). Show me the evidence of successful, legally obtained redress.

I'm not really entertaining the continued pigheadness on this here just to argue. But it's like posting to the Scouries's thread. There are a multitude of lurkers reading these threads. They have the right to know that some of the nonsense posted here might be just that--nonsense voiced by those who have absolutely no knowledge of what they are ascerting. These lurkers might save themselves some grief by reading the various takes on issues and then checking it out for themselves--to arm themselves in something more reality-based than the blind leading the blind, based on "should a" false assumptions and great gobs of Peter Pan wishful thinking.

 

[starrkers]

He's right, y'know.
Love him or hate him, you'd be wise to listen to him on this, if you take the copyright of your material seriously.

I know he's right because I checked it out extensively when I first heard someone talk of registering copyright. I'd never heard of such a thing and it isn't necessary (or even possible) in my country.

In the US it is not only possible but necessary if you ever want to take some plagiarising be squared to court.

I'm not that overly precious about my porn, it's a tad annoying when it pops up unattributed elsewhere and it's downright annoying when someone else claims it as theirs, but I can't see me ever suing anyone over it.

 

[Guest]

He's right, y'know.
Love him or hate him, you'd be wise to listen to him on this, if you take the copyright of your material seriously.

I know he's right because I checked it out extensively when I first heard someone talk of registering copyright. I'd never heard of such a thing and it isn't necessary (or even possible) in my country.

In the US it is not only possible but necessary if you ever want to take some plagiarising be squared to court.

I'm not that overly precious about my porn, it's a tad annoying when it pops up unattributed elsewhere and it's downright annoying when someone else claims it as theirs, but I can't see me ever suing anyone over it.

Agreed.

'Tis good advice.

Now, are you going to change your AV soon?

That emu is scaring the fuck out of me.

(It's nearly 1:00 a.m. my time.)

The late hour and the amount of rum consumed have nothing to do with the negative emu AV reaction.

I'm almost positive.