John Smithson cited Jeffrey Sachs from The Financial Times three days ago, copying the entire article from beginning to end, including the footer. Check out the comparisons between Smithson's page and the Financial Times page below:
Now check out the footers:
Notice something? How about the part where The Financial Times specifically ask people who use their articles to not "cut" them and "redistribute" them by posting to the internet, which is exactly what John Smithson has done. Smithson failed to even read the "copyright" information that could be accessed by the link that he copied, but don't worry Johnny - I read them.
According to The Financial Times, "you may not copy FT content from FT.com or any third party source of FT content such as news aggregators and you may not republish or redistribute full text articles, for example by pasting them into emails or republishing them in any media, including websites, newsletters or intranets. Full text means the whole article."
What else does The Financial Times have to say? Check out these frequently asked questions regarding copying material:
I thought that as long as I linked back to your website or published an attribution, that there are no restrictions on how I can use your content?Seems pretty clear if you ask me. How come John Smithson violated The Financial Times terms of service and copyright law? Smithson may view this post as being petty but this is just another example of his misuse of others works.
This is not correct. Merely providing a link or an attribution is not a defence to copyright infringement.
Why does it matter if I copy FT content without permission?
Unauthorised copying is a way of avoiding paying for the value you are gaining by using the content. We make a significant investment in creating FT content to deliver value to you and to make a return on that investment. If we are unable to protect that investment by licensing our content and collecting revenue, then it threatens our ability to continue to create the content.
I wonder what Jeffrey Sachs or The Financial Times have to say about Smithson's misuse.
Because John Smithson has felt my previous articles were insignificant and he failed to acknowledge any wrongdoing, I have decided to contact The Financial Times and inform them of John Smithson's copy and paste job to see what they think of the matter. Here is the email I sent:
It has come to my attention that a blog by the name Midknight Review has copied an article by Jeffrey Sachs from June 7th, 2010, on June 7th, 2010, in its entirety, including links to The Financial Times copyright page.I'll keep everyone updated on any response I receive.
Here is a link to the blog in question:
John Smithson has showed a disregard for other people's works, taking a typical conservative activist approach to doing things, ignoring rules and regulations to advance his agenda. The content of Sachs' piece may support Smithson's message, so instead of properly acquiring the rights to the article, Smithson just cuts and pastes to his website.
Smithson wrote in a response to my article pointing out his improper citation of a Daniel Klein piece that my constant writing about his copyright infringements were a waste of time, proving the point in the Klein piece that "liberals are poorly informed as they compare to conservatives." Smithson also wrote in response to that article of mine that a "constant and factual barriage of information is what wins the philosophical battles." I assume Smithson meant "barrage," but putting spelling errors aside, I would like to point out that time and time again, I have offered plenty of supporting evidence and factual information in my claims regarding Smithson's website, yet Smithson still argues that there is nothing wrong with what he does. I wonder what he will have to say in response to this article, which is rather explicit in regards to the use of copyrighted information.
As we have seen in the past, when his copyright infringements and improper citations have been identified, Smithson ignores the claim and then attacks the accuser - a strategy right out of the conservative activist handbook. We've seen similar methodology acted out by other conservative activists like propagandist James O'Keefe, who has used illegal methods to acquire his allegedly damning pieces, which really amount to a bunch of heavily edited videos depicting his targets in a negative light.
Update - Darren Jay of The Financial Times has forwarded my inquiry to the appropriate department...
Kevin, I have to admit that I have done it too, but never the entire article, just part with the standard link. Now that I am aware of their policy, I won't do it again.ReplyDelete
This is one of those things that is commonly misunderstood. The only reason why I wrote this article is because of John Smithson, who frequently attacks this blog, accusing myself of plagiarism. I have noted in the past several articles that were cited improperly, giving the impression that Smithson had indeed wrote the piece.ReplyDelete
TomCat - I have noticed your blog posts and you always indicate where you got the article along with a link. Smithson's rarely links to the article, sometimes references the author, and in this particular instance, ignored the notice to not copy the article (which Smithson had also copied).
I know that I have probably copied more then I should have in past posts, but I try to give credit where credit is due, and I try to direct readers to the original source when I can.
I am sure that each site has different policies regarding their content, and maybe FT is stricter then most, but the thing that gets me is that I have made Smithson aware of his citation problems and he has ignored my warnings...
"Copyright law does allow, to a limited extent, republication for certain limited purposes, including the reporting of news or current events"ReplyDelete
Know what where the above words are found, Kevin? On the Financial Times website.
Understand this: my blog is wholly a free concern. Absolutely no money is made in exchange for what I write. It has never carried any advertisement for pay. Not once.
Copyright law is to protect against PROFITING from another's work.
Here is the guideline for republication without pay:
"If the copy is used for teaching at a non-profit institution, distributed without charge, and made by a teacher or students acting individually, then the copy is more likely to be considered as fair use. In addition, an interpretation of fair use is more likely if the copy was made spontaneously, for temporary use, not as part of an "anthology" and not as an institutional requirement or suggestion."
This was taken from an article out of Stanford University - Academic Information Library.
I am an individual. The publication is freely distributed. All material is duly noted and, most importantly, I do not make a red penny from the use of material on the blog. TomCat can continue doing what he is doing with no problem -- if he does not profit from his use of other work.
So there you have it, Kevin.
Interesting that you quote The Financial Times' copyright page. You seemed to leave out some important information regarding that quote, like what follows:ReplyDelete
"Unless your use of our content is permitted by this Copyright Policy, it is likely that we regard it as “unfair” and a breach of our terms and conditions.
The FT specifically state that their content is not to be copied.
Even though your website may not be "for profit," the fact is that you are copying the entire article from their site, circumventing their registration process. According to The FT, "FT.com articles are only available to registered users and subscribers."
Your article can in turn cause lost revenue for The FT. Some may call that stealing...
You seem very mistaken. Copyright law is to protect against theft of one's intellectual property, not to protect against the profiting off of stolen works, although that may be taken into consideration.
Just thought you might find this handy. It may not be an article from Stanford University, but it is a quote from the United States Copyright Office's own words defining what exactly is a copyright:ReplyDelete
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
To display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work;
You also mention "fair use." You believe because your site makes no money, it is permitted, but you fail to look at the remaining parts of the four-factor balancing test. The four factors include the following, as taken from Wikipedia:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
You fail to take into consideration the nature of the copyrighted work (an article accessible by registration to a service), the amount of the article copied (your posting of the entire article), and the effect of your use upon the market value (your "nonprofit" use can potentially steal revenue from The FT).
I also wanted to point out that your citation of The FT's copyright FAQ stated something very interesting: ""Copyright law does allow, to a limited extent, republication for certain limited purposes, including the reporting of news or current events."ReplyDelete
The article in question is an opinion piece about life after Keynsian economics - hardly the dissemination of "news or current events."
Based on your interpretation, every political opinion book ever written can be published (for free) in its entirety by someone other then the copyright holder and it would be okay because they would be doing so in the name of "fair use."
Give it up Kevin. You have admitted that you violate certain copyright standards but give me no slack.ReplyDelete
Your argument that I detract from the profiteering of the Financial Times shows that you know nothing about that site. I read from a free site and am a registered member of that site. No stealing is involved but who cares. Slander is what you do.
You can quote all you want. I read the info page at the FT last year and my lawyer son has confirmed my understanding of copyright law (in this case).
The FT article was used as a teaching tool (by me) and, in that light, can be used for that reason, as well. You will continue to use the word "opinion" but, of course, everything we say is an opinion. Do we conclude, then, that "teaching" is not possible ??
Copyright law IS there to protect against profiteering off the work of other's. Other purposes exist, of course, but that was the original and prevailing reason for such laws.
In your last post, everything you say condemns you as much as me. You quote from others everyday, in nearly every article AND you profit from these quotes.
When one reads the copyright policy at FT, she can't help but notice the implicit ambiguity of copyright law. Do I need to quote from their site ? Let's just assume that I know how to read.
In view of that, I took time, today, to write FT for an opinion. Just understand that I looked into the matter a long time ago and have a legal opinion -- which is more than what you have done today.
My advice to you is don't spend any time writing your own legal opinion.
Finally, let's say that FT, after reviewing my site and the use of their opinion, tells me to knock it off. Want to bet their is no criminality for my usage? Let's put some money on it.
But enough of this tit for tat. Its your site. You get the last word.
I will give you FT's response when it comes. You may be right but if so, such will be an "accident."
"Your argument that I detract from the profiteering of the Financial Times shows that you know nothing about that site. I read from a free site and am a registered member of that site. No stealing is involved but who cares."ReplyDelete
You seem to fail to understand that posting an entire article that circumvents a registered service is stealing, because readers may opt for your page rather then register with The FT.
I also stated that copyright law is there to protect against the profiteering off of other people's work, among other things.
As for your claim that I have condemned myself, you seem to miss the point -The FT specifically mentioned that what you did would be a violation, despite what your lawyer son thinks.
"When one reads the copyright policy at FT, she can't help but notice the implicit ambiguity of copyright law. Do I need to quote from their site ? Let's just assume that I know how to read."
Maybe you should read their copyright policy again, and while you're at it, ask your lawyer son what the difference is between "slander" and "libel."
I just thought of another thing I wanted to point out.ReplyDelete
You believe that your copy and pasting is all right because of "fair use," which sometimes allows for the republication of news and current events.
On the top of your website, you specifically state that you "are not a 'news portal'" and that your "capital is [your] insightful opinion."
It seems that you are republishing a work to offer opinion, and in many cases there is nothing wrong with that, except that you copied an entire article when the original publisher had stated not to do so.
I took a class at Rollins where the professor wanted to use some magazine articles from some industry publications as supplementary reading material for teaching purposes. He was not allowed to just photocopy them and distribute them for free - I had to pay money for two photocopied bundles from the school bookstore because the school had to get permission first to redistribute the works. The school was not allowed to just give away another's work for free...
"If the copy is used for teaching at a non-profit institution, distributed without charge, and made by a teacher or students acting individually, then the copy is more likely to be considered as fair use. In addition, an interpretation of fair use is more likely if the copy was made spontaneously, for temporary use, not as part of an "anthology" and not as an institutional requirement or suggestion."ReplyDelete
Notice how I put "and" in bold? That is because according to your own source, one must be a teacher at a non-profit institution, distributing the work for free and acting individually. You are neither.
You are a conservative activist blogger who copied an article. Not to mention that even then, "fair use" may not apply.
If the quote said "or," then you may have had a better chance supporting your argument.
I can go on and on about this because everything you type that you think supports your argument really doesn't.
Yet another thought... I'll probably put these string of comments together into a single post, but for now, let me say this:ReplyDelete
Your support of "fair use" is rather interesting, being that it is a rather "socialist" idea - that one person can work hard to create something that another can simply borrow and give away for free...