It's a tad cheeky of you, though, to profess to "reserve all rights" in relation to that article when you've clearly lifted it word for word from a 9 year old post here - although, to be fair, they pretty much paraphrased a JROTC module on American History and Citizenship available online here, which itself was based on a vignette of military history from 1976 (here), which itself quoted liberally from the original book on the subject (Holdfast Gaines by Odell Shephard, on Amazon here), which, of course, was a work of fiction, and any reference to which is notable by its absence from your MWB article.

What was that you were saying earlier in this thread about watching how the credit to the original source magically disappears...?

Wow. Amazing that I'd get "caught" writing a synthesized article about Holdfast Gaines, as such. Did you know that I spent some time doing a bit of grad school research at the Carlisle Barracks? I own a physical copy of the "VIGNETTES" papers. So, you're right, credit is due. Now that I've "attributed credit" for my plagiarized content, I'm just like Roger Davies, no? Where is my ArbCom seat now?

Now, let's discuss that Genealogy forum post (November 22, 2001) you mentioned. It was actually lifted word for word from an issue of my newsletter, "American Cynic", published September 4, 2001. Forum poster GlenAtwell even said, "Here is what I can gleen form the NET". So you can clearly bite me when you say I've "clearly lifted it word for word from a 9 year old post".

Not really - the principle of my post still stands irrespective of whether you lifted it from a 9 year old post on a bulletin board (which, I acknowledge, you didn't) or from a 35 year old publication (which, you acknowledge, you did).

No, the principle of your post was whether I copied something "word for word", which I did not. In fact, in the Wikipedian tradition, I chewed up text, rephrased it, then spit it back out. I might object to this being labeled as "lifted", but you're entitled to some liberty there. My crime was failing to properly attribute and give credit to the source material, which today I have done, and I do thank you for calling me out on that.

But another word... Being fully identified on the Internet also put me in a position that if any of the "original" content authors (the officer at Carlisle Barracks, or the Shepard duo) were displeased with how I had misappropriated their content, they could contact me with their grievances and/or served me papers. Try doing that with "Jayjg" or "SlimVirgin" or... "Push the button".

And I also want you to take a look at the image I "lifted". I spent about two hours by phone and by e-mail trying to track down the original copyright holder of that lovely map. I could not find him... but I've left a note on the image file page saying, "as drawn by Frederick Smoot, copyright 2002. Attempts to contact Mr. Smoot to gain express written permission for re-use failed. Please contact ResearchBiz <at> gmail <dot> com, if use of this image is not permitted under fair use (with attribution)."


Yes, it is. Just about everything I do related to wikis of any kind is done in a cheeky manner.

No, the principle of my post was that you were showing a fair amount of double-standards by, on the one hand, complaining in your earlier post about work being re-written and passed of as newly-created free content, and yet on the other hand doing exactly the same yourself on your own wiki, and going a step further by asserting rights to prevent anyone else using it.

I did look at the map, and I did notice the note (although the message it contained was truncated in the view I was looking at). I don't, however, agree with what you seem to be saying, which is that in your view it's okay to use copyrighted material without the consent of the original copyright holder provided that either (a) you've made endeavours to try and contact them and gain their permission, or (b) you're clearly identifiable and could therefore be contacted by them should they notice your usage of it. Given that the underlying principle behind copyright is to give the creator the exclusive right to exploit the material created, and to prevent its exploitation by others, simply saying "well, I tried to ask them, and I'll take it down if they want" doesn't really cut it, in my view.

Actually, Mikey (I'm just going to call you "Mikey", if you don't mind -- until I have your actual full name, that's what I'll go with), I'd like nothing more than to pay Mr. Smoot for my use of his lovely map of the Natchez Trace. So, you might say I'm trying to significantly enhance his right to exploit the material he created. If you really think he's missing out on some income opportunity because of my site's dilution of the unique qualities of his art, I think you're the one who's being a bit fanciful with common sense.

If you're trying to cut me down due to my exercising a double standard in re-publication of plagiarized and/or copyrighted content, you must have been livid when Erik Moeller and Jimmy Wales got the GFDL re-purposed into the Creative Commons license, even though 10% of those affected, when asked, expressly said they did not want that to happen.

Whew -- good thing Wikipedia Review doesn't purport to be an "encyclopedia", nor the "sum of human knowledge", nor supported by tax-advantaged dollars. You really cornered me on this one!

Did I say that? No. Define exploitation merely in financial terms if you like, but that's not just how it works. The map's his creation, and unless and until you can get his permission to use it, you have no rights to be using it. No amount of identifiability, contactability or endeavours to track him down will change that.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out another factor to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair: The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.

You're not scaring me, Mikey.

Unfortunately your justification of fair use falls at the first hurdle, as it's clearly not impracticable to obtain permission - difficult, maybe, and requiring an expenditure of time and effort, yes, but impracticable? No. We're not talking about a one hundred year old map which is at the fringes of its copyrighted lifespan where it's unclear who created it in the first place, we're talking about something created by a clearly identifiable person within the last ten years. The idea of impracticability is objective (it either is, or is not, impracticable in all the circumstances to obtain permission), and not subjective (I've tried for 2 hours, sent three emails, made two telephone calls and haven't had a response, so I can rely on fair use to justify my usage of the work).

I'm not trying to - I'm trying to have a discussion about use of copyrighted material. See windmills wherever you like, Don Quixote, but I'd stop tilting at them if I were you.

Edited to make it clear that I'm not a windmill...

I'll tell you what, Michael... if you can find Mr. Smoot, the creator of that map, I will pay you $25. If he is the least bit upset by the fact that I'd like to pay him $10 for non-exclusive re-publishing rights of the image on my page about Holdfast Gaines, I'll pay you another $25.

Put up or shut up.

Despite the fact that my name continues to not be Michael, I'll bite. Define "find". Name, email address, postal address, phone number, website address...?

(edit): All of which, incidentally, are easily obtainable after about 5 minutes of looking. Looks like he's got a nice view from the deck of his Sausalito apartment - I reckon he should be able to see Wikia's head office from there, so when you speak to him perhaps you could ask him to track it down for you. Home phone number ends in *318, email address is either fred@hiswebsite.us, or a Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link address. Not sure what the rules are on posting actual personal information in this forum, hence the abbreviated info.

The terms are that YOU TRACK HIM DOWN, and then proactively CONTACT HIM, and GAIN HIS RESPONSE. CONFIRM that he's the one who created the copyrighted map, and not some namesake doppelganger. You'll need to PROVE to me that you've found the right guy. That's $25 for you.

I will then contact him to see if he would like to accept my offer of $10 to grant me the re-publishing rights for that cartographic image on my page about Holdfast Gaines. If he accepts, I will send him $10, and you will receive no further compensation from me. If he declines, I will remove the map image from my page, I will await any further legal action he may bring to bear against me, and I will send you an additional $25.

If you are unable to track him down, contact him, gain his response, and confirm that he is the one who created the map of the Natchez Trace, then I will rightfully continue to call you by your real name.

P.S. Mike, on September 18, 2008, I tried to e-mail a particular person named Fred at the domain californios.us, as well as another trotting dog at Well.com. You have fun with your $25 quest, Mike.

Oh, yawn. Would you like to shift the goalposts a little more?

A bit of a (s)moot point, really, given that I spoke to Fred about an hour and a half ago. He was a little wary at first thinking that I was trying to sell him something, but when he realised that I wasn't we had a pleasant chat for about five minutes or so. He happily confirmed that he was the Fred Smoot who created the map in question (which he drew for a Tennessee historical web project), and not some namesake doppleganger.

I didn't want to take up too much of his time at the weekend, so promised that I'd email him, which I have duly done - it turns out that his dog trotting email address is outdated, and that he has a new one which is still slightly dog-trotting-related, and which makes him, I believe, one of your customers. I took the liberty of copying you in on the email in question. Feel free to take your discussions forward from here with him direct.

And so another of my points is proven - you try to hide behind "fair use" claiming that it was "impracticable" to track down the copyright holder when it took me less than 10 minutes, in total, to do so and to pick up the phone and talk to him.

So, I think it's fair to say that I have TRACKED HIM DOWN, proactively CONTACTED HIM and GAINED HIS RESPONSE to the question of whether he was responsible for the map or not. I didn't get into the question of whether he'd be prepared to allow your usage of it as, frankly, I don't care.

As I have no doubt that you'll now continue to twist and turn by saying that you'll only send the $25 to a verified Paypal address, or by cheque, or whatever, in an effort to find out who I am (and I remain very much not MB) then let me say this - I don't want your money. Unless you'd like to wriggle out of it by saying that "I said that's '$25 for you', not 'for charity'", which you are of course free to do so if you'd like to show yourself as being a complete cheapskate, please give the $25 to charity.

I have two that are close to my heart - I think the more appropriate of the two in this instance would be The Brooke, which alleviates the suffering of donkeys around the world.

Should your discussions with Mr. Smoot result in him objecting to your usage of the map and you taking it down from your website, please give the subsequent $25 to the second of my two favourite charities, the British Heart Foundation. Receipts for either of the two donations can be emailed to me should you wish to prove that you have made them - you have my email address - but I will take you at your word if you post here to say that you have made the donations.

I thought I sent you an e-mail earlier today to the effect that Mr. Button is not the "Mike" you've been suspecting him of being...? I'm not saying it's totally impossible (though it's fairly close to that in this case), but we've got to have some sort of evidenciary standard that goes beyond the account in question getting into this sort of (seemingly minor) dispute, no...?

You have every right to be suspicious, but I'm just worried that this is going to turn into a "boy who cried wolf" situation, if it hasn't already.

Well done, not-Mikey. Well done!

Those poor mules -- I whipped out my credit card even faster once I saw those pitiful guys.

I sent you confirmation of my donation to The Brooke. Now, I await the legal wrath of Mister Smoot. This should be fun. I'm either going to be out another $10, or another $25, or get away with an "aww shucks, you're free to use the image, no charge".

(I hope you had fun, too?)


NOTE: My text was edited by a moderator to say "Mikey", rather than the full name I had in place there. Apparently, we're doing something to protect the guilty. (Not you, Push. The other guy/entity.)

As I said, I'm no windmill. But I'm sure Rocinante and all the other work-horses are grateful.

If that's how you prefer to look at it...

Hey, wait - look over there!

WOLF!

Whatevs... it's no big deal.

I just want to be the next one to catch the next Mikey sock!

I have retracted all claws and fangs regarding Push the Button. I was rather an ass with him. Hoping to move forward now.

Hey, can I do something heretical like making a post vaguely relevant to the subject of the thread?

I have been surprised to find quite a few notable songwriters with no WP articles. As I create WQ articles I will have to create WP ones too. I start with Eddie Lane (T-H-L-K-D) who wrote one of the most successful songs of all time, "Bless You For Being An Angel", when he was only 11. It was immediately recorded by The Ink Spots, Fats Waller and Glenn Miller.

Don't. just... don't.

Cry Freedom... of speech or whatever other crap comes to mind, blah,blah,blah...............

"Cry woe, destruction, ruin, loss, decay;
The worst is death, and death will have his day."

William Shakespeare's The Tragedy of King Richard the Second, Act III Scene II

I have just received an email that I believe you were bcc'd in on, Mr. Kohs - you are out another $10, not $25, as Mr. Smoot has indicated that he is prepared to allow you to use the image on MWB, but in return for the $10 you offered being donated to his nominated charity, and not to him personally. He raises a good question (perhaps not one for this subforum) which I think can best be summed up as "what is or is not 'impracticable'" in terms of fair use?

Perhaps the relevant posts from this thread can be split off somewhere (the lounge, maybe?) as I'd be interested to know if there's any relevant case law, or similar, giving some indication of where the line is drawn?

I agree that a moderator's split off of the whole Fred Smoot affair would be helpful.

I am quite prepared to make a $10 contribution to Fred's favorite nonprofit historical-genealogical web hosting service, but I note that he used the term "free use", which is not exactly the "fair use" issue I think we're debating. Also, I've notified him that I'll make the $10 payment promptly when he indicates that it will represent closure of my re-use issue, because it sounded from his e-mail that perhaps he wished to wait to hear what his colleagues had to say about the matter. (If they advise him to sue me and my vast estate for all I'm worth, there could be quite another headache before me.)

I wouldn't read too much into it - I think it's fair to say that "fair use" is what you rely on when you don't have the consent of the copyright holder. The copyright holder saying that you can make "free use" of it would, I think, imply that you can use it (within the other parameters he specifies - ie. on your MWB site) for whatever purpose you wish.