As for the piece that was put up without my permission, the website took it down yesterday–after comments were left on their blog by John, me, and Michele Tune (Writing the Cyber Highway), who also has one of my guest posts on her blog (a post that ran simultaneously with the one stolen from WRC).

But, would you believe that just today I received a Google Alert telling me that another one of my articles is posted to a British site–and this one has removed my byline, changed the title of the piece, chopped a few paragraphs off the end, and added a few words/phrases to the piece as anchor text for its own links, which it also added. People are incredible! I left a message via the site’s contact form outlining what they need to do if they want to continue to use the piece (which includes paying for a usage license via Constant Content, where I have that article posted for sale). I also told them they need to restore my byline and the entire article back to its original condition–or remove it from their site immediately. We’ll see what happens.

Jeanne

If you don’t mind people using your work so long as they give you credit, that’s your right. You control (in theory) how others may use your work.

For me, I don’t want anyone using my stuff without my permission. Quoting is one thing; copying sections or whole works in their entirety is another. And, that’s my right.

The problem that we have is that we’re tending towards becoming a plutocracy, if we’re not there already. Or, at the very least, we have an oligarchy.

People like to blame “big corporations” but I think the blame has to be with the politicians. They are supposed to look out for us but they don’t. They interfere in things they shouldn’t. They use the “general welfare” clause to cover everything and anything they want to meddle with.

You cannot blame the corporations. If politicians were meddling with things that affect you, and you had the money, wouldn’t you hire the lobbyists and make the campaign contributions necessary to get things to go your way?

Mind you, if the politicians stayed out of such things, the corporations would be spending that money on advertising or making better products. And, there wouldn’t be as much corruption in political circles. The reason for political corruption is because the politicians have allowed themselves to be corrupted. And, they’ve done that not only by taking those campaign contributions and whatever else, but also by meddling in things they should have left alone.

But they meddle. And things spiral out of control. Instead of competing in the marketplace, companies compete in the lobbyist circles. Sometimes, they’ll even make pre-emptive strikes to keep potential competitors down before they can pose a threat.

The result is that the little guy draws the short stick.

The problem isn’t free market capitalism, because we don’t have that.

So, any potential benefit of the act (in the cases of true “orphan” works) is far outweighed by the potential risk to copyright owners. If we are to err, we ought to err on the side of rightful owners. If that means inconveniencing those that would like to use a potential “orphaned” work but cannot because they cannot track down the copyright owner, then so be it.

It’s also about protecting your work as well, and being able to restrict its publication, as in your example. There could be cases too where much of the value of a work is lost if it is published too widely without the owner’s permission. He or she may be able to sue for damages (which would mean what the court determines “reasonable” royalties should have been) but not for legal fees or statutory damages. But, those damages he or she might win, might never be equal to what he or she might have gotten upfront (plus royalties) in a deal with a publisher or studio.

And, it’s not just about money either. A creator might intend something for only limited release or to a more limited audience. The creator should be able to control his or her right of expression too.

If given the choice between being able to use an “orphan” work and risking losing the rights to my work or not being able to use “orphan” works and not risking losing the rights to my work, I’m going to go with the latter.

If you cannot find the copyright owner of a work, and/or cannot confirm that it is in the public domain, don’t use it! It’s that easy!

This is indeed sad!

Just yesterday a website pinched my guest post from John Hewitt’s Writer’s Resource Center blog (the very same day it was posted), posting it in its entirety on its blog. And though this work wasn’t “orphaned” and this situation has nothing to do with direct monetary profit, (at least as far as I know), the blogger had no right to post my content without my permission–despite including my byline and linking to both my and John’s blogs. This individual not only infringed my copyright, but violated John’s exclusive right to post this piece to his blog. I’ve told the individual to take down the post and can only hope he or she will do so soon. (By the way, the individual changed the title of the post, which does make one wonder about motive.)

Having our intellectual and creative property stolen is no joke! Good for you for drawing attention to this misguided Act.

Jeanne