Results 1 to 8 of 8
August 17th, 2009, 12:42 PM #1On intellectual Property and the "new media"
Since we spent some time discussing the move by R. Murdoch to charge for online newspaper content, I thought this piece was appropriate for a similar discussion:
In it, the author describes how part of his work was lifted by Gawker, and discusses how the online world has changed his profession.
August 17th, 2009, 12:43 PM #2
August 18th, 2009, 07:30 PM #3
- Join Date
- April 6th, 2006
Right up my alley.. thanks for posting.
Not only do some online publishers steal from newspapers, they also steal from each other.
I've been spending a good part of my time monitoring sites that steal from me (both photos that I've paid for & original content), then IP banning the user. I have no recourse or absolute proof, but I've been able to isolate the pattern & timing of publishing.
I don't really know if there is a solution.. there seems to be a generation out there who thinks because it's on the internet, it's free for the taking.
Last edited by teezone; August 18th, 2009 at 07:49 PM.
August 18th, 2009, 09:04 PM #4
There is control, but it takes efforts. Folks will rip off your work no matter what, but I will not make it easy for them. I quit posting up photos without a watermark/copyright slug, a long time ago. I decided to use Creative Commons 3. It allows anyone for any reason, to use my stuff for FUN, but cannot be used for commercial gain. They must get permission for that. This is yet another way to build traffic.. By allowing people to freely use your stuff for fun.
August 19th, 2009, 02:47 AM #5
This is nothing new, old school media did the same thing.
Just pick up a news paper you're bound to see "Reporting done with the Help of the NY Times" at the end or it starts with "The New York Times is reporting".
Only difference when this happens online they actually link to you.
August 19th, 2009, 06:57 AM #6
There's a right way to do this and a wrong way. The right way is to provide a short summary with link back that ultimately drives traffic to the source. The wrong way is to hijack the majority of the meaningful content (copyright theft), which it appears Gawker has done in this case. The former helps the source financially, the latter hurts it.This World is Not My Home
We're gonna go inside, we're gonna go outside, inside and outside. . . And then we're gonna go go go and we're not gonna stop til we get across that goalline! Quotes from the movie Rudy, 1993
August 19th, 2009, 08:01 AM #7
November 2nd, 2009, 03:18 PM #8
An editor at a newspaper I worked for had done an internship with one of the big cable news channels. His sole job was to read through as many newspapers as he could to pull stories they could then report on. In my experience, newspaper reporters are the best in the business, and all the other media siphon off their work. The difference between broadcast companies and bloggers, though, is broadcasters usually do a little legwork on the stories, then repackage them, whereas bloggers unabashedly link to the story and add little extra value.
By Convergence in forum Business & Legal IssuesReplies: 5Last Post: March 17th, 2011, 02:43 AM
By Chocolate_Chicken in forum GoldenCANReplies: 2Last Post: July 29th, 2005, 01:51 PM
By Trust in forum Commission Junction - CJReplies: 1Last Post: April 29th, 2003, 01:28 AM