I'm no lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Either way I'd recommend you beat them with a rubber hose until they retract their demands or at least offer you ding-dong for your troubles.

I was always under the impression that using 10% of an article was "Fair Use" along with proper citation and credit. Using 7 out of 23 paragraphs may have been over the top.

However, the definition of plagiarism is "Taking, using, and passing off as your own, the ideas or words or work of another." M-W is more precise. So, since you did give proper attribution, it would seem that you are being falsely accused of a crime and they should know it is false. Being the bitch that I am, I would turn around and threaten a libel or defamation suit. Include the putz that tattled too ...

We were taught the rule of three. Three paragraphs could be quoted, three pages could be faxed...

Uh... I'd say just do what she wants, for this one citation, and she'll leave you alone.

Anyone with the word "compliance" in their job title has to have some trophies each month to justify the pay grade. You can be her best friend, this month, by complying within the specified 2 weeks.

I doubt that there is any human "snitching" going on. It's probably an automated system based on a commercial web crawler service.

I have to agree with LissaKay. Whether or not your excerpt of the article would be covered by Fair Use, your post did not in any way constitute plagiarism.

I would respond with a clear definition of plagiarism and tell them that when you have received an apology for the false accusation of theft from not only Ms Winn but the magazine's publisher, that you will be to discuss the need for further attribution under Fair Use.

I have little doubt that based on her job title, Ms Winn should understand the meaning of "plagiarism." This simply reeks of an attempt to intimidate. If she does not know the meaning of the charge she has made, she shouldn't be in her current position and you would be doing her employer a favor by pointing that out.

Yeah, I think that's exactly what I'm gonna do.

One note: it occurs to me that every fisking of an MSM column or article ever done would violate fair use, no?

Bill,

It's the accusation of plagiarism that bothers me the most. I don't think you'd have much standing to sue them for it, since they didn't make it public, and you did, so any damage done came from your own actions, not theirs. However, this kind of thing will be happening more often with these Internet services that run compares on website texts. I think we will all be getting these kinds of notes in the future -- probably not from newspapers and magazines who need our readership and our promotion, but from self-important twits like Women To Women, who fail to see the force multiplier for their information that blogs bring.

Bill-All they are asking you to do is to put the following at the top of your excerpt:

"The following paragraphs are from "Causes of breast cancer ? the estrogen controversy" by Dixie Mills, MD, FACS at Women to Women.com (link), Copyright 2004 Women toWomen.com. All rights reserved."

I think you're overreacting a bit.

Jim M -

Explain to me how I've "overreacted," exactly.

When a writer is accused of "plagiarism," it's about the most serious offense possible, regardless of the ease of what I'm being asked to do to comply with their demands.

Let's see how you would respond to this:

A bright sunny afternoon in suburbia.

Knock * knock * knock!

"Hey neighbor Jim, you're a registered sex offender and you're playing your music to loud past 10PM. If you don't turn your music down a little bit after 10 PM within two weeks, I'm going to sue you. You registered sex offender, you. "

Not quite a perfect analogy (especially if you happen to be a registered sex offender) but it makes the point.

As I mention in the post, "I certainly wouldn't have minded (too much) a note to add the copyright info, but a charge of plagiarism certainly has my back up ..."

I don't instinctively want to comply after I find my whois info in a link from a site that finds plagiarists, in an e-mail asserting that I plagiarized. This is terrible form and bullying. Complying without at least addressing this issue sends these fools off to keep e-mailing web authors and using the "p" word. And addressing the issue prior to knowing my legal standing is always a bad idea.

I agree with Captain Ed that it does not appear to constitute plagiarism, since you attributed the source. I wouldn't sweat the plagiarism charge because it may have been generated by a robot, or been part of a standardized hate mail document.

I do think that the percentage of material directly quoted is probably greater than that normally allowed by the "fair use" act. The generally recommended amount to include is 10% without asking for permission. If you haven't seen this site, you may want to read it to get all of the nuances.

As I read it, you technically need the copyright holder's permission to include this amount of material. If you don't agree to the terms given by the email, you may just want to contact them directly. I suspect you would have no problems in this case.

Regarding plagiarism in journalism, 90% of newspapers would be shut down if plagiarism laws were enforced within that industry. They copy and steal from each other all of the time. It's an industry standard for behavior.

Sorry about forgetting the link

A Writer's Guide to Fair Use in Copyright Law

Maria Winn sounds like a bureaucratic bully, and should be treated as such.

That said, it I do wish that bloggers would routinely note the date, title and author of an item, in case the hot link eventually goes stale and one has to search for the article by other means.

Carrick -

OF COURSE it's not plagiarism.

As for fair use, it's kind of an interesting thing - aside form the professional sharing that you mention among journalists, bloggers routinely excerpt material in great quantities, properly cited, to fisk material or feature extensive text as part of larger points.

So I guess a lot of folks are in violation of fair use. The 10% rule seems interesting, but flawed as a rule, as 10% of a 5 page essay could be quite an extensive excerpt, whereas a small article would require one to excerpt more than 10% just to get the gist across. In the case of the article that I cited, I attributed the text to the article and felt that the large excerpt was required to make a complex point about a medical issue.

I now get the feeling that this is just poor form from a poor form letter in the case of the e-mail that I received. I'm going to send a link defining plagiarism, call this lady on Monday, expressing displeasure at the charge and requesting an e-mail clearing up the misuse of labels, and then comply by adding the simple attribution line - if and only if we come to an understanding about what the word plagiarism means.

My annoyance at this situation aside, all kinds of interesting issues are raised in light of standard protocols in the blogosphere.

Almost all of these kinds of threats are empty ones. How have they been damaged? Put the attribution up and simply ignore the rest. (I'm not a lawyer)

You have my sympathies. We were once accused by an anonymous party of copyright infringement ourselves just two or three days before Easter, which is when we get most of our traffic and news attention (for obvious reasons). Our provider just shut the site down with no warning. Our pleas that parody is fair use were of no avail, and if it had not been for the kindness of a go-between employee who allowed us in just long enough to collect our property, and the quick work by a new and sympathetic host, there would have been no site at all on Easter morning.

Batesline.com went through something similar about a year ago - he may have some advice.

While it may be true that 10% limit is a useful rule of thumb, I seriously doubt that it's dispositive. [Full disclosure, IAAL, but I don't specialize in IP.] If it were a bright line rule, we'd all be free to trade MP3 files of our favorite arists on the net, assuming each of us only only traded one average-length song from each album that contained at least 10. By the same logic, you could argue that their entire web site was one great big literary work, and that even if you had quoted the entire article in question it would not have approached 10% of their total content. Of course, it's always safer to quote with permission than without, so that might be one reason to consider complying with her stupid request.

Bill,

I think what may have touched off the guard sensors is that the linked article is advertising and promotional copy written and distributed via a commercial website for the purpose of generating business. There is undoubtedly good information there, but over and beyond any public service aspect, these folks are a commercial enterprise. Advertising copy is considered by the US Copyright Office as one of the categories of material that have "a history of infringement", so I am not surprised that you hit a trip wire.

I suspect that reasonable discussion with someone above the functionary level should work out. At least, I would hope they realize the promotional advantage of having their name spread in a positive discussion.

In addition to getting an understanding from them on the fact that you did not plagiarize their site, if they are responsible for the listing on the other site you mentioned, it is on them to have that listing removed.

If they had just sent you a stupid bullying form email you could probably just shrug it off. That they had your name added to a publicly available list as a plagiarist is probably actionable on your part.

And being seriously ticked off about it is far from over-reacting.

There are no numeric "safe harbors" for fair use. Among the factors of fair use in copyright infringement is that you copy no more than is necessary for the use, such as commentary.

That said, "plagiarism" is not a legal term at all. I'd suggest adding the citation she suggests, maybe trimming any quotations you don't discuss or need for context, and tell her to pound sand.

Since they are a business and their continued business success depends on the word getting out, you might also suggest that in future you will be more than happy to seek out other expert commentary to support your discussion. Perhaps something more academically credentialled and less commercial in nature. The implication being that they lose free advertising.

So the rubber hose idea is out?

Perhaps if you suggested they switch from granny panties to thongs it'd help. At least when their panties got in a bunch there won't be as much material to bother them.

Heh.

I was actually thinking more, "smite them, wallow in the lamentations of their little ones, and salt the earth behind my path of righteous destruction."

What an interesting thread. If I understand it correctly, your use was reported and characterized to them by a third party contractor. It would be interesting to know what actual claims and representations were made by the watchdog service, for a fee, to the party now accusing you. If the third party used a misrepresentation of your use to promote their service and justify their fee to their client.. well, I'd be curious to know where that goes.

I dont it get. The article is about breast cancer and its possible causes, and they are *objecting* to your linking it? WTF is the point of their website? To spread awareness or self-congratulatory self-promotion? Just like there should be some sort of test before you have kids, there should be a test before you open a website, but sadly no. twits. And not its not pagerism if you quote the source. Plagerism is when you pass somebody else's work off as your own, clearly not done here. Maroons. If it wasn't a post about cancer I'd be less pissed.

Works for me Bill.

Let's not beat about the bushes here. If you used their words and did not attribute the words to them then you are stealing their words.

The fair use docrine is separate. You still need to acknowledge where you got the quoted material.

You do not have to place the accreditation after each quote but you should flag the quote (Astericks or numbers) and place the cite at the end of your article.

At the end of the day all blogers should strive for accuracy and openess. Correctly attributing others writing is not only the right thing to do it also shows readers where to look for more information.

davod -

Let's not beat around the bushes here: that comment was imbecilic:

Let's not beat about the bushes here. If you used their words and did not attribute the words to them then you are stealing their words.¹

I did attribute the words - by blockquoting them and linking and directly referring to the article in my text.

Did you even read the post?

On the internet, the LINK serves as the little citation number that you see in a printed text, numbnuts.

According to your standard, every blog, from Instapundit to DKos to Captains Quarters to MyDD is STEALING, EVERY DAY, when they link an article with referential text and/or blockquote an excerpt.

Which, of course, classifies this standard as silly/insane.

¹ "Davod the Imbecilic" as found on the blog INDC Journal, June 3, 2006, 11:06 PM.

I vote to smite them.

Numeric grids for "fair use" are nonsensical. (not a lawyer) It doesn't even make sense verbally: are you going to quote "exactly about" 10%? Then why would an exact quantity define "fair"?

One way to help avoid hassle is to avoid *continuous* quotations of long portions. That's where fisking is different from reprinting, even with correct attribution.

Cheers,
PGE

The warning letter was auto-generated. Reply to them so that a live person sees the decent coverage and they'll leave you alone.

Separately, editorially you DO have the habit of blind linking. I understand (creatively) why you do it, but the fair use doctine doesn't really care about creativity. In fact, the more creative you get, the more your work is a deriviative work - and therefore violating the exclusivity provisions of copyright protection. Think of a sliding scale: Boring educational citation = protected. Creative sampling = infringement.

So Instapundit ought to be headed for the slammer then, eh?

Without rendering an opinion, thus, without rendering legal advice...

FEH.

See what happens when they're raised on Miracle Whip? GOD! We ALL get to suffer for it.

I'm designing a "BITE Me" t-shirt/mug to go with our other witty offerings. The Swilling will send you one and it will fend off all idiot intimidators.

I'm not a barrister, by the way.

Only two mistakes made in history.

1. Teaching women how to read.

2. GIVING them the vote.

A very nice website !! Very well Done !!! nokia6630

Great. Thanks! nokia6630

blow job galleries movies vids teen blow job video free

ionolsen21 Your home page its great

ionolsen24 May we exchange links with your site?

teen sex group anal group sex fucking

zgeifaarp

zgeifaarp

oinc

xylsecxjpko

yzez

yzez

ionolsen40 Great website! Bookmarked! I am impressed at your work!

TV host Oprah Winfrey gives audience members $1,000 (£526) each to donate to a charitable cause...

Singer George Michael lends the piano on which John Lennon wrote Imagine to an anti-war exhibition...

Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81...

Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81...

The judge who put coded messages in his Da Vinci Code plagiarism trial ruling has written another...

Singer George Michael lends the piano on which John Lennon wrote Imagine to an anti-war exhibition...

Singer George Michael lends the piano on which John Lennon wrote Imagine to an anti-war exhibition...

mature handjobs sex with older mature granny woman Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery...