• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Theft or the ultimate compliment? (1 Viewer)

helenh said:
Not an expert on copyright law but I don't think you have to have any statement ... you just need to be able to prove the material is yours. But your statement would constitute a copyright notice (regardless of the size of the font or the positioning of the statement).
That is correct Helen. I have been involved with setting up commercial web sites and have had meetings with lawyers to discuss issues such as this. While they recommend that you put a copyright notice on a site, legally, there is no need to do so. Copyright inherently exists in what you publish.
 
Hi CJW,

I cannot comment of the legalities but am more 'anxious' to know whether you are still going to post information on your website! I would ask the same question of similar websites - will the thought that someone may copy from the site make you less likely to post information in the future?

As you may remember, I visit the IOM once or twice a year and value the time that you and the others put in to the site - long may it continue.

Richard Rogers
 
Hi Richard,

The fact that my material is stolen on a fairly regular basis doesn't actually put me off maintaining my website (it deals with birding in Kenya which is a bit of a niche market!). Personally I find that the positive aspects of maintaining the site far outweigh the annoyance of finding someone is using your material. For me these positive aspects include being part of the Kenyan "birding scene" despite being a UK resident who is only able to manage an annual visit. I get to publish the latest Kenyan sightings and get first hand reports from some of the top experts in the country.

However I do think it's important to take action when you find someone has stolen your material. Some people simply don't recognise that intellectual copyright exists and don't realise the energy that goes into maintaining a not-for-profit site. Most people when challenged are apologetic and say something like "I didn't know it was copyright". There's always the odd person who takes the "so sue me" stance but they are few and far between (in my experience) - and they tend to change their tune when they receive an email from their ISP or from the professional body to which they belong!

On a lighter note I was rather surprised to find that the latest rip-off from my site was perpetrated by a BirdForum Birds Database editor!!!!! The up-side of this was that their "copy and paste" from my site highlighted a punctuation error that I hadn't previosuly picked up. :)

Helen
 
helenh said:
Some people simply don't recognise that intellectual copyright exists
In my experience rather more don't take the copyright law seriously because they think they can get away with it.

Jason
 
Richard said:
Hi CJW,

I cannot comment of the legalities but am more 'anxious' to know whether you are still going to post information on your website! I would ask the same question of similar websites - will the thought that someone may copy from the site make you less likely to post information in the future?

As you may remember, I visit the IOM once or twice a year and value the time that you and the others put in to the site - long may it continue.

Richard Rogers

Hi Richard, thanks for those kind words and you needn't worry, we will still be maintaining the site as normal.
There'll be no update today though - it's bloody 'orrible out there! ;)

Chris

PS Still no response from the miscreants!
 
Bluetail said:
In my experience rather more don't take the copyright law seriously because they think they can get away with it.

Jason
Yes, well, I guess I was putting a kindly seasonal spin on it! ;)

I'd agree that many people seem to think that the data owners won't find out. They tend to believe that the volume of data on the web means that their pages won't be noticed. Of course they miss the simple fact that the people they steal from are generally engaged in researching their material and so do tend to trip over their own stuff being used by others!

I remember being pleased to find a new site devoted to birding in Kenya. It seemed to have a very good range of material including a large number of photos. So I went to have a look mainly to see whether I should add the site to my links page. Imagine my surprise when I found 55 of my photos being passed off as their own work along with the entire section providing general info on birding in Kenya. To add insult to injury they had slapped their own copyright notice over the lot!

People! You got to love 'em.
Helen
 
Just got this Email:

Hi Chris

I'm not sure whether you've had a official reply from anyone at BirdGuides on this yet (with staff taking holidays at various times and on different days it's a bit difficult to know who's done what at this time of year, and I've only just come across your email), but just in case you haven't had a response I thought I'd better let you know the position as I understand it.

It seems your site notes were copied by an over-enthusiastic member of our bird news team, without my knowledge, instruction or approval and had I known about it I'd have nipped it in the bud straight away. I can only apologise and I fully understand your annoyance. We'll remove the offending information as soon as we can and replace it with links to the original information on your website. I'll also make sure that all our bird news team are given clear guidance on this kind of thing so that we can avoid this unfortunate situation in future.

I hope this meets with your approval and I do apologise once again for our mistake. I'd be grateful if you would convey the gist of this response and our proposed action, if you feel it necessary, to Bird Forum where I believe this matter has been discussed.
Regards


So that's that then.
 
Well, I think you blundered to begin with by letting them off the hook with the initial pilfering. This could quite reasonbly have left them with the impression than it was OK to copy any information from your site. I think this allowance might very well make it more difficult if you intend to pursue any sort of damage. I'm saying this not from any expertise in law, but only from a "common sense" point of view.

At this point, I think the question to ask is "what outcome do you want?"

Do you want them to stop using the information?
Do you want monetary compensation?
Do you want them to credit the source?

The outcome that you want will direct your next actions. Frankly, I think you should consult an attorney. Not because you necessarily want to take or even threaten any legal action, but because you should get good advise on how to get the outcome you desire or some idea of whether the outcome you desire can be reasonably pursued.
 
Jay, all we ever wanted was to be credited as the original source of the information, which they have agreed to.
Perhaps it's an English thing, but we're (the website owners), just not litigious enough to pursue it any further.
 
Good result CJW. It's nice to know it was over-enthusiasm rather than deliberate policy. These things happen and it's put someone senior in the "Bird News Team" in the picture. Obviously nicely handled on your part - a result without any ill-feeling is always (IMHO) a good outcome.
 
CJW said:
Jay, all we ever wanted was to be credited as the original source of the information, which they have agreed to.
Perhaps it's an English thing, but we're (the website owners), just not litigious enough to pursue it any further.

There are certainly other forms of persuasion than litigation. Personally, I consider litigation to be the last action to consider. It should take very little arm bending to get them to simply credit you (I'd ask for a free subscription to their site so you can monitor usage) sincey they are clearly using your material. You might consider an editorial commentary on your own website if they refuse to honor their promise to give appropriate credit. Or perhaps a simple link to their site from your site saying something like "You can also get this identical information in a slightly less timely fashion from "hyperlink to their site" for a small fee".

You could also complain to any companies that might advertise through this other website or to any of their business partners. But I'm guessing that this would be getting a bit nastier than you would prefer.

Personally, I get tired of seeing people's good will and generosity being taken advantage of. So I'm not inclined to let such things go.

Best of luck.
 
It looks as if this has all worked out OK.
As the editor of a small magazine (for a charity) I've had a little bit of legal briefing on copyright. It's incredibly complicated, with lots of ifs and buts.
As I understand it:
1) Your material is copyright whether or not you have any sort of copyright sign on it
2) Facts are not copyright, but their form of presentation may be. (In other words if you report a red-flanked bluetail on your site, others have a right to propagate that info... but not to use your drawings/photos or lengthy descriptions of how to get there.)
3) A UK web site is covered by UK copyright law, even if they are using material from outside the UK -- not absolutely sure on this one.
4) Artwork, page layout and design, maps, original pieces of writing are all covered by copyright which currently lasts for 70 years after the death of the author.
(I learned this the hard way because I wanted to quote an editorial from a newspaper written in 1900 and the paper in question charged me a fee to look up who had written it and to find out when they had died!)
5) There is something called 'fair usage', I think the term is, which allows you to quote someone else's work for reasons of comment or reply. I cannot remember all the details, but if you want to say how much you admire Alistair Darling's transport policy--I'm being ironic here--you are allowed to quote his recent speech on the subject in what you say/write.

As with so many legal questions, you really have to get a qualified lawyer to give a definitive answer to a specific point!
 
WOW! That is very interesting Ken, what a performance, but it is very informative too, thank you, I never realised what all this could lead to, I do get pictures from certain areas of the world and I have copied them onto CD for family use but all contributors have been informed and I have not had any objection to the information gathered, but if I was asked not to I would stop instantly, but as I have been up front in telling I am not using this for anything other than educating my family, I have had no repercussions. I would like to think the contributors consider it to be truly flattering as the pictures I recieve are stunning, and further birding enthusiasm.
 
Curious

Hello Chris,

Reading your story and the reactions I don't think that I can contribute something useful for you, but want to share my thoughts about this theft (which is of course the way I see it).

What I personally would do is:
1; contact the "thiefs" and try to reach an agreemnet that's satusfactory for your club.
2; If that doesn't work you could seek contact with your provider and with the provider that accomodates (don't know If that's good english?) the thiefs of the intellectual property that's yours or your club. Probably they have a kind of behavioural code for there members (if not they should be quick about getting one!) and will have some measures against this kind of misconduct.
3; If that gives no result either I would inform if legal action can give you and your club the appreciation your entitled to.

I think that this kind of behaviour will eventually make internet-birding for most of the digibirders a lot less interesting because the free info available will in time decrease as a result of these commercial-nonethical persons or organisations.
I therefore hope that the mis-conductors will come to their senses and do the right thing. This for the longterm benefits that bonafide behaviour from all participants will proove to be the only way that digibirding will become and stay the birders-mekka it is developing into.

By the way can you tell me which website stole your data? A letter from more birdesr could enhance a solution

Leo
 
While on the topic of birding information has anybody ever considered the following slight economic anomaly......much profit is now made out of rare birds.... providing information, photographs for sale etc. All fair enough, that's free market economics for you. But what about the FINDERS? The person who has trudged their local patch day after day in all weathers suddenly turns up a mega, then everyone else makes a nice little profit from their find. No other system would work like this, where the original data source receives little or no finacial gain from their hard work and effort.
Ok there maybe exceptions, but you get my general point, and yes, we all do it for the love of it and it's great seeing everyone turn up and see "your" bird, BUT, at the end of the day money is then made out of this find.
How about all the birdlines, pagers, photographers clubbing together with a small financial reward for those hard-working finders?
Just an idea........but certainly puts a new angle on getting out there and finding a good bird doesn't it.

JP.

PS

Next time I find something good maybe I'll auction the site details to the highest bidder. ;)
 
John,

Yes, but to be fair some of the information services do chip in to conservation projects / reserves.

And to take just one example from Lancs - a couple at a popular RSPB reserve who can never be traced report a Pied-billed Grebe. A birder goes and checks, and it is one. Who is the finder? The Fair Isle Rubythroat was a bit like that, found and known to be interesting (Bluethroat) but confirmed as an SR by someone who then becomes the 'finder'.

Stephen.
 
Stephen Dunstan said:
John,

Yes, but to be fair some of the information services do chip in to conservation projects / reserves.


Stephen.


Yes, fair point, I wasn't implying that all money generated just goes to purely personal profit. I agree, a lot of money is generated for very good causes and fully respect the fact that the information services do indeed chip in to conservation projects.
But still, why not tip the finder(s) when they can be identified......though am sure that most would just donate it to a good cause anyway.....................wouldn't they ;)
 
The 1998 Copyright Designs and Patent Act

16.—(1) The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the following provisions of this Chapter, the exclusive right to do the following acts in the United Kingdom—
(a) to copy the work (see section 17);
(b) to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18);
(c) to perform, show or play the work in public (see section 19);
(d) to broadcast the work or include it in a cable programme service (see section 20);
(e) to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation (see section 21);
and those acts are referred to in this Part as the "acts restricted by the copyright".

(2) Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner does, or authorises another to do, any of the acts restricted by the copyright.

(3) References in this Part to the doing of an act restricted by the copyright in a work are to the doing of it—
(a) in relation to the work as a whole or any substantial part of it, and
(b) either directly or indirectly;
and it is immaterial whether any intervening acts themselves infringe copyright.
57.—(1) Copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is not infringed by an act done at a time when, or in pursuance of arrangements made at a time when—
(a) it is not possible by reasonable inquiry to ascertain the identity of the author, and
(b) it is reasonable to assume—
(i) that copyright has expired, or
(ii) that the author died 50 years or more before the beginning of the calendar year in which the act is done or the arrangements are made.
77.—(1) The author of a copyright literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, and the director of a copyright film, has the right to be identified as the author or director of the work in the circumstances mentioned in this section; but the right is not infringed unless it has been asserted in accordance with section 78.

(2) The author of a literary work (other than words intended to be sung or spoken with music) or a dramatic work has the right to be identified whenever—
(a) the work is published commercially, performed in public, broadcast or included in a cable programme service; or
(b) copies of a film or sound recording including the work are issued to the public;
and that right includes the right to be identified whenever any of those events occur in relation to an adaptation of the work as the author of the work from which the adaptation was made

78.—(1) A person does not infringe the right conferred by section 77 (right to be identified as author or director) by doing any of the acts mentioned in that section unless the right has been asserted in accordance with the following provisions so as to bind him in relation to that act.

(2) The right may be asserted generally, or in relation to any specified act or description of acts—
(a) on an assignment of copyright in the work, by including in the instrument effecting the assignment a statement that the author or director asserts in relation to that work his right to be identified, or
(b) by instrument in writing signed by the author or director.
(3) The right may also be asserted in relation to the public exhibition of an artistic work—
(a) by securing that when the author or other first owner of copyright parts with possession of the original, or of a copy made by him or under his direction or control, the author is identified on the original or copy, or on a frame, mount or other thing to which it is attached, or
(b) by including in a licence by which the author or other first owner of copyright authorises the making of copies of the work a statement signed by or on behalf of the person granting the licence that the author asserts his right to be identified in the event of the public exhibition of a copy made in pursuance of the licence.

With reference to Section 16 (3) (a) The wording "as a whole or any substantial part of it"
This has to be clearly shown.

The whole act can be found at :-
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_5.htm#mdiv77

Happy reading.

Malky @ Westhill
 
Warning! This thread is more than 20 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top