Lithonia OperatorIf you want to conclude that Trains knew about Don's blog post, that's your right. But you don't know that's true. It's just your best guess, no better or worse than anyone else's guesses.
Only Colin, some people at Trains, and perhaps (or perhaps not) Don know what all has transpired. All the rest of us are just speculating.
Maybe Colin submitted his piece by mail, then after it got accepted, he called and told Trains the story was up on the forum, and asked if he should take it down. And was told "yes, please."
[/quote]I have no reason to stand up for Kalmbach. I like some of their products, and not others. And I don't like how they deal with photographers. But I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until I know better. (And most of us probably never will.)[/quote]
I have no particular dog in this hunt, unlike some of the posters here who kept ringing changes on the plagiarism charge. To me this started as a matter of fair attribution to an original author, something no more complicated than common courtesy and not involving 'large money damages'. The real concern is between the two authors, and I would have thought this was settled by now, as between gentlemen, until I saw Don's recent 'more dispassionate' post. Since I, too, thought Colin had taken down the 2048 post out of concern, rather than potential expedience, this re-opened concern over how the post became an article ... something Trains readers have a right to expect a full accounting of from Kalmbach in a future issue. And I expect that to be very different from a disclaimer that throws Colin under the bus as a plagiarist who passed his derivative work off on poor unsuspecting 'editors' with defective fact-checking skills and almost got away with it...
Overmod Lithonia Operator I had read here that the post had been taken down, but I had no idea until looking just now that it had been taken down in April. I thought it had been taken down only recently, after Don spoke up ... Which throws a different light on one aspect of this. I don't know if Colin directed Trains to the online story, or Trains just saw it and decided they wanted to publish it in the magazing. It seems likely that as soon as Trains said they wanted to use it, they also asked that it be taken off this forum. Which makes sense, because it never seemed to me that Trains would want it to be in both places. I guess the good news overall is that if you make a good post here, it might get picked up by the magazine. If it weren't for the "inspiration" aspect, this would be a very happy tale. Actually, quite the contrary. If in fact the post was removed because Trains intended to publish it for compensation, it would immediately establish Colin as a plagiarist if he did not acknowledge Don as both inspiration and source ... something it would have cost him nothing to do, and merely a confirmation of what he has so far acknowledged as far as I have seen. It is almost ridiculous to think that if Trains 'spotted' this magnificent entry in a forum thread, they would not have looked at some of the comments to see its impact ... would in fact have looked past the first two comments which were Debbie Downers for potential publication to railfans. And by the third post in the comments there was fair notice that it was taken from Don's blog, even if that hadn't been mentioned in the deleted original. This makes the Kalmbach-suggested date change from 2048 to 2040 far more sinister, because it was unnecessary but precisely aped Don's title. It would be highly interesting to see who proposed that, and what their 'reasoning' might have been; it would be even more highly interesting to hear from Colin why this proposed change did not spur him, or his conscience, to say "... but that's the date on Don's blog piece that inspired me ..." and alert Kalmbach fact-checking to at least look at the original (which to my knowledge has always been quickly accessible even to the naive by typing search terms like 2040 and Oltmann into Google together and reading down the hits to a blog entry). In this scenario taking down the forum post upon 'expressed interest to publish', but not deleting the thread it spawned, seems like a very strange mistake. Given the supposed difficulty in getting an article accepted for publication by Kalmbach, it becomes even stranger. I can easily understand why Kalmbach would not want to reprint something like Don's account, already provided in a blog 'free', but not to mention it at all while stealing its very title ... and even tolerating, let alone perhaps recommending, taking its forum version down to assure print exclusivity ... is not what a reputable publisher ought to do.
Lithonia Operator I had read here that the post had been taken down, but I had no idea until looking just now that it had been taken down in April. I thought it had been taken down only recently, after Don spoke up ... Which throws a different light on one aspect of this. I don't know if Colin directed Trains to the online story, or Trains just saw it and decided they wanted to publish it in the magazing. It seems likely that as soon as Trains said they wanted to use it, they also asked that it be taken off this forum. Which makes sense, because it never seemed to me that Trains would want it to be in both places. I guess the good news overall is that if you make a good post here, it might get picked up by the magazine. If it weren't for the "inspiration" aspect, this would be a very happy tale.
I guess the good news overall is that if you make a good post here, it might get picked up by the magazine. If it weren't for the "inspiration" aspect, this would be a very happy tale.
Actually, quite the contrary.
If in fact the post was removed because Trains intended to publish it for compensation, it would immediately establish Colin as a plagiarist if he did not acknowledge Don as both inspiration and source ... something it would have cost him nothing to do, and merely a confirmation of what he has so far acknowledged as far as I have seen.
It is almost ridiculous to think that if Trains 'spotted' this magnificent entry in a forum thread, they would not have looked at some of the comments to see its impact ... would in fact have looked past the first two comments which were Debbie Downers for potential publication to railfans. And by the third post in the comments there was fair notice that it was taken from Don's blog, even if that hadn't been mentioned in the deleted original.
This makes the Kalmbach-suggested date change from 2048 to 2040 far more sinister, because it was unnecessary but precisely aped Don's title. It would be highly interesting to see who proposed that, and what their 'reasoning' might have been; it would be even more highly interesting to hear from Colin why this proposed change did not spur him, or his conscience, to say "... but that's the date on Don's blog piece that inspired me ..." and alert Kalmbach fact-checking to at least look at the original (which to my knowledge has always been quickly accessible even to the naive by typing search terms like 2040 and Oltmann into Google together and reading down the hits to a blog entry).
In this scenario taking down the forum post upon 'expressed interest to publish', but not deleting the thread it spawned, seems like a very strange mistake. Given the supposed difficulty in getting an article accepted for publication by Kalmbach, it becomes even stranger. I can easily understand why Kalmbach would not want to reprint something like Don's account, already provided in a blog 'free', but not to mention it at all while stealing its very title ... and even tolerating, let alone perhaps recommending, taking its forum version down to assure print exclusivity ... is not what a reputable publisher ought to do.
If you want to conclude that Trains knew about Don's blog post, that's your right. But you don't know that's true. It's just your best guess, no better or worse than anyone else's guesses.
And asking to remove the blog post because the article became slated for publication is not nefarious at all. It's just common sense.
I'm seeing one person who was innocently naive, or used poor judgment, or was devious. (I'm hoping not the latter.)
What Trains did or did not do, and what they knew and when, and what their motivations were ... these are all things we don't know.
I have no reason to stand up for Kalmbach. I like some of their products, and not others. And I don't like how they deal with photographers. But I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until I know better. (And most of us probably never will.)
Lithonia OperatorI had read here that the post had been taken down, but I had no idea until looking just now that it had been taken down in April. I thought it had been taken down only recently, after Don spoke up ... Which throws a different light on one aspect of this. I don't know if Colin directed Trains to the online story, or Trains just saw it and decided they wanted to publish it in the magazing. It seems likely that as soon as Trains said they wanted to use it, they also asked that it be taken off this forum. Which makes sense, because it never seemed to me that Trains would want it to be in both places. I guess the good news overall is that if you make a good post here, it might get picked up by the magazine. If it weren't for the "inspiration" aspect, this would be a very happy tale.
+1. Since obviously Colin was rather more than inspired by Don's piece (fully aware of Don's, and aware of the prohibitions against plagiarism) he is guilty of plagiarism. If he were in a college class, the consequences would have been severe.
Oh.
Thanks so much for that info, SD.
I had read here that the post had been taken down, but I had no idea until looking just now that it had been taken down in April. I thought it had been taken down only recently, after Don spoke up.
So the post was there for only 17 days, apparently, ending months ago. Which throws a different light on one aspect of this.
I don't know if Colin directed Trains to the online story, or Trains just saw it and decided they wanted to publish it in the magazine. Or maybe Colin submitted it normally via mail, and when asked if it had appeared elsewhere, he alerted them to the online post. It seems likely that as soon as Trains said they wanted to use it, they also asked that it be taken off this forum. Which makes sense, because it never seemed to me that Trains would want it to be in both places.
I guess the good news overall is that if you make a good post here, it might get picked up by the magazine.
If it weren't for the "inspiration" aspect, this would be a very happy tale.
Lithonia Operator I am guessing that Trains never knew about Colin's posting of the story in this forum. This forum is clearly a separate entity than the magazine. For a moment let's say that Don's story never even existed, and Colin's piece was 100% original. Let's assume that Colin's piece was posted on this forum in May. Then the magazine published the print version, appearing in October. If the brouhaha with Don had never happened, the forum post would probably have stayed up; therefore the forum post and the print story would be "up" at the same time.
I am guessing that Trains never knew about Colin's posting of the story in this forum. This forum is clearly a separate entity than the magazine. For a moment let's say that Don's story never even existed, and Colin's piece was 100% original. Let's assume that Colin's piece was posted on this forum in May. Then the magazine published the print version, appearing in October. If the brouhaha with Don had never happened, the forum post would probably have stayed up; therefore the forum post and the print story would be "up" at the same time.
Read here http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/p/282140/3240155.aspx
Trains did know. It was stated on the thread deleted pending action elsewhere. So in that case Trains had known about the piece and wanted to use it in a future article. Prior to publishing in the Nov issue I imagine it would've been imperative to interview Northwest on how Don inspired his 2048 vision since he stated it prior. At that point Trains should have got on the horn or wire and contacted Don, to compare pieces and make a determination on whether to publish Northwest 2048 vision or not. Or figure out some sort of collaboration for a future vision between Don and Northwest to publish.
I think Trains needs to tighten up their submissions guidelines, which I have now taken a look at.
This is not directly related to the plagiarism subject this thread is mainly about, but Trains needs to make things more clear. They say they "prefer exclusive use," but they don't say they require it, and they don't define what they mean by "exclusive." Is that exclusive magazine use? (But would permit other uses elsewhere?) Is that exclusive magazine use in the USA? In North America? English language, anywhere?
People on both sides need to know clearly what they're agreeing to. I have signed licensing agreements as specific as "one time use at 1/4 page size in Acme Insurance 2005 annual report, and prohibiting the photographer from licensing any other uses in the North American insurance industry for a period of one year after publication of said annual report." Let's say this image is a Maine landscape. Let's say that a week after signing that deal the Maine Dept. of Tourism calls me up and wants to use the same exact shot in an ad for Maine in Travel & Leisure magazine, with a publication date the following month. I am free to do that deal. And that deal would have a list of parameters, like three ad insertions, with photo used at half page size.
The point is that vague language like Trains is using leads to misunderstandings. They need to spell out exactly what they expect.
In the above scenario, let's say Randy Railbuff eagerly opens his November copy and begins reading Colin's story. Then Randy thinks, "WTF, I paid good money to read something I already read free four months ago!!" He's not happy, so he writes the magazine and says "I expect original content for my money," and describes the situation. And the Kalmbach letter-reader walks into Jim Wrinn's office and enlightens the editor, who had known nothing about Colin's forum post. And Jim also says "WTF!!," only Jim says it in bold type followed by two exclamation points.
And meanwhile, Colin would have had no inkling he did anything wrong. And one could make a good case he hasn't, because maybe he thinks "forum, magazine, it's all exclusive to the 'greater Trains.'"
The point is that Trains needs to explain exactly what their expectations and requirements are, and define what any ambiguous terms mean to them.
And contributors, if they are confused by any of this, must ask the questions needed to get everyone on the same page.
zugmann Lithonia Operator I'd say the chances of someone from Kalmbach joining this discussion is virtually nil. If Kalmbach does determine this crosses the line from inspiration to plagarism (I haven't read the article yet, so I can't say one way or another) - then I think at least an editor's note in the next issue would be appropriate. And maybe a future small article on academic integrity, as a simple refresher. I'm not calling for a firing squad - but for education.
Lithonia Operator I'd say the chances of someone from Kalmbach joining this discussion is virtually nil.
If Kalmbach does determine this crosses the line from inspiration to plagarism (I haven't read the article yet, so I can't say one way or another) - then I think at least an editor's note in the next issue would be appropriate. And maybe a future small article on academic integrity, as a simple refresher.
I'm not calling for a firing squad - but for education.
Agree.
I am hoping Kalmbach does the heavy lifting, here. They are in a more dispassionate position than I am.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Convicted OneI can't speak for anyone other than myself, but if I was the one in Trains Magazine's position on this, I think that I would be a little disappointed that the involved parties didn't try to resolve this a little more discretely
If Don were to feel he needed any sort of 'compensation' or 'being made whole', he will either work that out with Colin privately or, if from Kalmbach, with their legal department. None of that is any business of our 'inquiring minds' and to me even the idea of attributing any sort of 'indiscretion' to those two rises above ridiculousness almost to the level of unjustified insult.
On the other hand, 'airing it out' on a public forum in a frequently 'grandstandy' manner ... there I for one think you're 100% right to criticize.
Overmod(and not to deflect the thread away from plagiarism)
I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but if I was the one in Trains Magazine's position on this, I think that I would be a little disappointed that the involved parties didn't try to resolve this a little more discretely.
Airing it out on the public forums just feels a little "grandstandy" to me. Once you give a certain amount of momentum to onlookers, it can complicate efforts to find a resolution.
M636CHowever, the definition of plagiarism in this country appears to refer to copying text word for word, rather than wrting a different work using a theme that someone else has used
This has been an issue in the music business, with one long-running case just finished when a higher court refused to hear the case.
I figure there's only so many combinations of notes that will sound palatable to most ears. That number may be in the millions, or billions, but it's not inconceivable that two people could independently write the same riff...
Words, on the other hand, tend to be unique, and embrace a theme. That's where the problems begin.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Convicted One Overmod This was concerning to me as a railfan, so much so that I asked a couple of Transit officers in Newark Penn about it. "Oh" one said, "that doesn't apply to trains. An ever present concern in properties frequented by the public, when an unexpected photographer shows up and starts photographing the building and grounds, often there is someone getting ready to sue you... such as a "slip and fall" artist possibly documenting their case, or whatever. So it pays to intervene, and get involved with whatever is going on...making every effort to minimize your exposure, and learn if wolves might soon be at the door
Overmod This was concerning to me as a railfan, so much so that I asked a couple of Transit officers in Newark Penn about it. "Oh" one said, "that doesn't apply to trains.
An ever present concern in properties frequented by the public, when an unexpected photographer shows up and starts photographing the building and grounds, often there is someone getting ready to sue you... such as a "slip and fall" artist possibly documenting their case, or whatever. So it pays to intervene, and get involved with whatever is going on...making every effort to minimize your exposure, and learn if wolves might soon be at the door
With today's cell phones - EVERYBODY is a photographer an/or videographer.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Overmod Convicted One have you ever had a run-in with anyone over "reasonable expectation of privacy"? Just as a note (and not to deflect the thread away from plagiarism) at one point, long before 9/11, New Jersey Transit enacted a very stiff 'no photography in stations' ban. This was concerning to me as a railfan, so much so that I asked a couple of Transit officers in Newark Penn about it. "Oh" one said, "that doesn't apply to trains. There was some guy in a divorce case that shot some compromising photos and NJT got named in the suit... as long as there aren't any people in the shot go ahead and photograph all you want".
Convicted One have you ever had a run-in with anyone over "reasonable expectation of privacy"?
Just as a note (and not to deflect the thread away from plagiarism) at one point, long before 9/11, New Jersey Transit enacted a very stiff 'no photography in stations' ban. This was concerning to me as a railfan, so much so that I asked a couple of Transit officers in Newark Penn about it. "Oh" one said, "that doesn't apply to trains. There was some guy in a divorce case that shot some compromising photos and NJT got named in the suit... as long as there aren't any people in the shot go ahead and photograph all you want".
I encountered a similar situation at Plaza Constitucion in Buenos Aires. I tried to take some photos in the rther impressive terminal building and was warned off, but I could photograph the trains in the open air sectoion of the station to my heart's content.
Peter
Lithonia Operator M636C ... But given that there was no suggestion of conflict with a post on another forum, which apparently was acknowledged ... Peter Maybe I'm the dumbest guy on the internet, but I'm still not there yet ... Peter, when you say, "conflict with a post on another forum," which other forum are you referring to? A different Kalmbach forum? A railroad forum elsewhere? Or do you just mean a conflict with Don's blog? IE, are there two forums, and Don's blog, and the Trains magazine article involved? If there is a second forum, could you please link to it also? Thanks.
M636C ... But given that there was no suggestion of conflict with a post on another forum, which apparently was acknowledged ... Peter
Maybe I'm the dumbest guy on the internet, but I'm still not there yet ...
Peter, when you say, "conflict with a post on another forum," which other forum are you referring to? A different Kalmbach forum? A railroad forum elsewhere?
Or do you just mean a conflict with Don's blog?
IE, are there two forums, and Don's blog, and the Trains magazine article involved? If there is a second forum, could you please link to it also?
Thanks.
I'm not sure about usage in the USA but here, "in another forum" is commonly used interchangeably with "elsewhere" although this is usually outside online discussions. In this case I did mean Don's blog.
However, to confuse things further there is yet another version of Colin's article with the scene moved to Australia. As far as I know this has only been distributed privately. It does show that Colin has a good knowledge of Australian railway operation. This was some time ago, probably before the submission to Trains was accepted.
However, the definition of plagiarism in this country appears to refer to copying text word for word, rather than wrting a different work using a theme that someone else has used.
Convicted Onehave you ever had a run-in with anyone over "reasonable expectation of privacy"?
I think you're safe!!
charlie hebdo samfp1943 Paul Milenkovic Overmod Lithonia Operator I have no idea what "twee cinema" is, even after googling it. "twee" is the adjective for movie critics who write in an affected, precious, self-important style. It's British but it lacks certain connotations that other words describing the behavior here exhibit. Is it something akin to pop musicians in recent years ripping off entire lengthy parts of other songs, and saying that it's not being copied, rather it's being "incorporated" into a "new" work? (This excuse being a load of #orses#!t.) In my opinion there could and should have been fair policies determined for sampling once it was noted as an effective thing in composition -- writer's credit, perhaps. and some realistic royalty, increasing with the importance of the original to the new song. I won't discuss what I observed happening because it is not a topic for this forum, but there were fairer ways to go. "...Does this mean that the Editors of Trains Magazine, under Forum rules, will have to ban themselves?.." YIKES! I think that You, Paul Milenkovic, may have struck a nerve ? Look out Forum Jail ! Paul M's statement was part of a serious duscussion, certainly not something against forum TOS. Yours? No comment. There is a difference in use of another's copyrighted material without paying royalties and using (to a large extent) someone else's material without acknowledgement, such as a proper citation as in academic journals. In that case we are talking about plagiarism.
samfp1943 Paul Milenkovic Overmod Lithonia Operator I have no idea what "twee cinema" is, even after googling it. "twee" is the adjective for movie critics who write in an affected, precious, self-important style. It's British but it lacks certain connotations that other words describing the behavior here exhibit. Is it something akin to pop musicians in recent years ripping off entire lengthy parts of other songs, and saying that it's not being copied, rather it's being "incorporated" into a "new" work? (This excuse being a load of #orses#!t.) In my opinion there could and should have been fair policies determined for sampling once it was noted as an effective thing in composition -- writer's credit, perhaps. and some realistic royalty, increasing with the importance of the original to the new song. I won't discuss what I observed happening because it is not a topic for this forum, but there were fairer ways to go. "...Does this mean that the Editors of Trains Magazine, under Forum rules, will have to ban themselves?.." YIKES! I think that You, Paul Milenkovic, may have struck a nerve ? Look out Forum Jail !
Paul Milenkovic Overmod Lithonia Operator I have no idea what "twee cinema" is, even after googling it. "twee" is the adjective for movie critics who write in an affected, precious, self-important style. It's British but it lacks certain connotations that other words describing the behavior here exhibit. Is it something akin to pop musicians in recent years ripping off entire lengthy parts of other songs, and saying that it's not being copied, rather it's being "incorporated" into a "new" work? (This excuse being a load of #orses#!t.) In my opinion there could and should have been fair policies determined for sampling once it was noted as an effective thing in composition -- writer's credit, perhaps. and some realistic royalty, increasing with the importance of the original to the new song. I won't discuss what I observed happening because it is not a topic for this forum, but there were fairer ways to go.
Overmod Lithonia Operator I have no idea what "twee cinema" is, even after googling it. "twee" is the adjective for movie critics who write in an affected, precious, self-important style. It's British but it lacks certain connotations that other words describing the behavior here exhibit. Is it something akin to pop musicians in recent years ripping off entire lengthy parts of other songs, and saying that it's not being copied, rather it's being "incorporated" into a "new" work? (This excuse being a load of #orses#!t.)
Lithonia Operator
I have no idea what "twee cinema" is, even after googling it.
"twee" is the adjective for movie critics who write in an affected, precious, self-important style. It's British but it lacks certain connotations that other words describing the behavior here exhibit.
Is it something akin to pop musicians in recent years ripping off entire lengthy parts of other songs, and saying that it's not being copied, rather it's being "incorporated" into a "new" work? (This excuse being a load of #orses#!t.)
In my opinion there could and should have been fair policies determined for sampling once it was noted as an effective thing in composition -- writer's credit, perhaps. and some realistic royalty, increasing with the importance of the original to the new song. I won't discuss what I observed happening because it is not a topic for this forum, but there were fairer ways to go.
"...Does this mean that the Editors of Trains Magazine, under Forum rules, will have to ban themselves?.."
YIKES! I think that You, Paul Milenkovic, may have struck a nerve ? Look out Forum Jail !
Paul M's statement was part of a serious duscussion, certainly not something against forum TOS. Yours? No comment.
There is a difference in use of another's copyrighted material without paying royalties and using (to a large extent) someone else's material without acknowledgement, such as a proper citation as in academic journals. In that case we are talking about plagiarism.
I admit to "borrowing" from this line about the history of the rock band "The Rutles"
"In December 1970 Dirk sued Stig and Nasty, Barry sued Dirk, Nasty sued Stig and Barry, and Stig sued himself accidentally. It was the end of a golden era, and the beginning of another one for lawyers everywhere."
https://the-rutles.com/the-story/#:~:text=In%20December%201970%20Dirk%20sued%20Stig%20and%20Nasty%2C,of%20the%20Rutles%3F%20Nasty%20on%20Saturday%20Night%20Live
Of course, there is a Fair Use provision for parody, but the Rutles themselves are parody?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Some here seem to believe that Trains would be aware of everything that's posted in the forums. I doubt it, and that is reinforced by hearing that the story was first posted on this forum. I kinda doubt Trains would have knowingly published in the magazine something that had already appeared somewhere else. Generally magazines want content that's never appeared anywhere else. Now, they will sometimes publish book excerpts, but I think that usually happens more or less simultaneously with the book release, not afterwards. The fact that the story (if I understand the chronology - a big if) had already resided for several months in a forum used by many of their readers tells me that not only did Trains not know about Don's blog, they also did not know that Colin's story had been up on this forum.
When I have submitted articles to magazines (primarily sailing mags), I've usually been asked specifically if it's appeared elsewhere. And many mags, once a story is accepted, sends a contract in which, among other things, has you affirm that the story has not appeared elsewhere.
However, I don't know Trains' terms; I've never submitted to them.
The more I think about it, the more I think Trains knew nothing of the story's history.
Overmod charlie hebdo OM: Do you have links to this phantom Colin post? I am furious now that I didn't copy it ... I do have Don's original saved, and the now-complete Detective Cinderdick. I told him he should put it back, with the disclaimer at the top that he got the idea from reading Don's blog -- the link was posted here first by me, in this thread http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/262632 I remember commenting fairly early in Colin's 2048 thread about it being derived from Don's blog ... I think to remind him to mention it explicitly again.
charlie hebdo OM: Do you have links to this phantom Colin post?
I am furious now that I didn't copy it ... I do have Don's original saved, and the now-complete Detective Cinderdick. I told him he should put it back, with the disclaimer at the top that he got the idea from reading Don's blog -- the link was posted here first by me, in this thread
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/262632
I remember commenting fairly early in Colin's 2048 thread about it being derived from Don's blog ... I think to remind him to mention it explicitly again.
Colin claims to be a recent graduate of Willametter College. Consequently, he should have known very clearly what plagiarism is and that he was committing it. Trains is not to blame for that, only for a poor editing job in not catching it. At the very least, they owe Don an acknowledgement and a mea culpa.
Convicted One Lithonia Operator It's a minefield out there. Just curious, but in the course of your professional endeavors, have you ever had a run-in with anyone over "reasonable expectation of privacy"? Myself being my own most unique "work", it seems a paradox that I could find my likeness as part of a crowd on the cover of some magazine, and have no basis to object, but at the same time that magazine's cover is copyrighted and I would have no right to, just in illustration, share a picture of that cover here? "Hey, I just saw this magazine displayed on a public news stand, in open sight to everyone, and just wanted to share what I saw". Why doesn't that angle work?
Lithonia Operator It's a minefield out there.
Just curious, but in the course of your professional endeavors, have you ever had a run-in with anyone over "reasonable expectation of privacy"?
Myself being my own most unique "work", it seems a paradox that I could find my likeness as part of a crowd on the cover of some magazine, and have no basis to object, but at the same time that magazine's cover is copyrighted and I would have no right to, just in illustration, share a picture of that cover here?
"Hey, I just saw this magazine displayed on a public news stand, in open sight to everyone, and just wanted to share what I saw". Why doesn't that angle work?
That's an excellent question. And yes, I've run into uncomfortable situations regarding right to privacy. Like with the other issues we've talked about, here too things can get murky, of course. So much of this stuff has a subjective component. But I'll try to give you nutshell guidance.
If your recognizable image is used for any type of advertising or commercial promotion, you have a great case. Because this is strictly verboten without expressed permission by you. This is relatively simple.
OTOH, if your photo is used for editorial purposes, things get more fuzzy. But first I will address your question directly: as to cover photos, the courts have mostly ruled that the primary purpose of a magazine cover is to SELL the magazine. So in your scenario, you definitely would have a good case against the magazine and/or the photographer if you have not signed a model release. (In the parlance, all people in photos are "models.")
Now, say this happened; and like you say, you want to show the photo to us on the forum. Even if you have a clear case of invasion of privacy (and maybe have even won a settlement), you have now run up against copyright law. Two different beasts.
If it were me, and I had an overriding desire to reproduce (like post here) the cover, I'd do this. I'd let the publication and the photographer know that I'm considering taking action for invasion of privacy, for which I have a great case. Then I'd say I won't sue you IF you grant me rights to use the photo/cover in a number of specific ways, in perpetuity. (Actually, if it really was me, I'd probaby ask them to pay me a $ubstantial modeling fee, in exchange for signing an ex-post-facto release. Then I'd show the cover to my friends, etc., but not reproduce it in any way.
There are wrinkles re covers, though. In the case of publications that never appear on newstands (say a trade journal) it's harder to use the privacy angle.
Now let's go inside the magazine, and let's say that magazine is Trains. You can recognize yourself in a shot on Pg. 17 of the Big Boy arriving at a station with lots of spectators (including you) looking on. You have no case.
But now let's say Time runs a story about looting during a riot. You had happened to be coming out of the subway then, saw the rioting, and ran for your life. However, Larry Lithonia, on assignment for Time, got a shot of the looting and vandalism, including several rioters ... but you happen to be in the photo too. If they caption the photo "Looters break windows as frightened citizens flee the area," you probably have no case. However, if the caption says, "Rioters ransack the downtown," your lawyer would love to meet with you.
Also there's the issue of "holding up to public ridicule." Say it's a story about NYC parks and there is a shot of people walking on paths. But one of those people is Fred Frickfrack, and the Fredster is picking his nose. Any editor who would run that picture is looking for trouble. Or say a couple in the photo is clearly getting frisky; then they need to pick a different shot.
I hope this sheds some light for you.
If this really happened to you, please PM me if you wish to discuss this further.
I won't bore you with another really long tale, but once some jerk designer I'd never heard of, in Indiana, somehow got hold of an image I took on a warm and fuzzy magazine shoot, of a very elderly woman. (Once things went digital, photos began reproducing like rabbits.) Then he grafted that woman's head on the body of a bikini-clad hottie, for a very tacky greeting card, which was sold nationally. Then the woman died. Then the woman's daughter encountered the card while shopping. I heard from the family's lawyer, and I felt terrible. Luckily, the lawyer believed me. Then I threatened to sue the designer, and the greeting card company (in Chicago.) Like many of these things it kinda faded away, and I gave up on it. It did, however, make me wonder if a dead person has a right to privacy. If I looked it up, I cannot now remember what I found. But I think the answer might be no.
Lithonia OperatorIt's a minefield out there.
Euclid In the case of plagiarism, whatever the definition of it is, it seems that copyright violation would also apply. So for the authorship of the article under scrutiny here, and for a resolution of the matter, I would focus on copyright violation, which would be a crime.
In the case of plagiarism, whatever the definition of it is, it seems that copyright violation would also apply. So for the authorship of the article under scrutiny here, and for a resolution of the matter, I would focus on copyright violation, which would be a crime.
Euclid, this may help:
https://www.authorsalliance.org/2020/04/22/law-and-ethics-of-copying-copyright-infringement-vs-plagiarism/
Euclid What if your own original thoughts happen to lead to the same conclusion that some other person's thoughts had previously led them to? What if that happens, and then you publish your thoughts without realizing they echo the thoughts of that other person? It often happens that an inventor has exactly the same idea for an invention as another person. Yet nobody can claim the idea as their own just because they believe they were the first to think of it.
What if your own original thoughts happen to lead to the same conclusion that some other person's thoughts had previously led them to? What if that happens, and then you publish your thoughts without realizing they echo the thoughts of that other person?
It often happens that an inventor has exactly the same idea for an invention as another person. Yet nobody can claim the idea as their own just because they believe they were the first to think of it.
The chances are slim that in that scenario two people would come up with written pieces that are so similar as to look like plagiarism.
But if that indeed happened, no one would be "at fault." If one tried to sue the other, they would have the burden of proof to show malice. But they would almost certainly not be able to.
charlie hebdoOM: Do you have links to this phantom Colin post?
There are so many misunderstandings around all this. I once went to a commercial shoot for a large institution from whom in some years I may have gotten almost 50% of my billings. My assistant and I knew we were going to be doing some lighting, and so we brought a ton of gear for that, and met the client in a building where the first scenario was scheduled to happen.
My client contact, with whom I had worked for many years, showed up with two young people and pulled a photo print out of her satchel. She showed me the pic, which was taken right there in the large space where we were. She said, "we love this shot, but we want a better version of it. Copy it as closely as you can." I thought, "Oh no." But this was my best client, and they wanted this exact shot for the cover of an important publication they did.
The situation was that another shooter had been tried out by the institution, and he had run all over the place, shooting with available light. (Exactly how I prefer to shoot, myself.) But this space was pretty dark, and so the photo, which involved two people interacting in that area, wasn't sharp. It might have flown at 2" x 3", but it was not going to cut it at 9" x 12". When the other guy shot it, it was a grab shot of real life. (They hadn't hit it off with the other guy, so did not want him to come back.)
So, she wanted me, using of a couple of volunteer in-house "models" re-enacting the scene, to light the place and get the shot they wanted, only technically perfect. Which meant multiple strobes. So there I was, about to go through a big friggin production to light a very large space, to copy another guy's work! Not good. (And, here again, I knew the guy! Liked him a lot.)
It's a minefield out there.
zugmannI hearby give you permission to use it. But every third time you use it, you must also include a random Simpsons quote.
That's easy!
"Oooooooohhhhh, doughnuuuuuutsssssss..."
charlie hebdo OM: Do you have links to this phantom Colin post? It would be instructive to others and myself to make side-by-side comparisons with Don's blog and the Trains article.
OM: Do you have links to this phantom Colin post? It would be instructive to others and myself to make side-by-side comparisons with Don's blog and the Trains article.
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/282140.aspx?page=1
Unfortunately, if understandably, it now reads:
Deleted pending further action elsewhere...
Which is understandable.
Had Don complained back in April when this was posted, it would probably not have been submitted to the magazine. The most common comment appeared to be "too long for a forum post"...
But given that there was no suggestion of conflict with a post on another forum, which apparently was acknowledged, it seems surprising that there is so much concern on this forum now six months later...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.