Korean Job Discussion Forums

[cubanlord]

Alright. I just finished reading the thread regarding, "check your name on this Korean website..yada...yada...yada...". So, I decided to run a search on google for my name....



I have had a few things published before; some have even been bought by online travel journals, etc. But...man! I just ran a search and other websites are taking my work and publishing it on their site. Mind you, they are still giving me credit and the original source credit, but, why would they do that? Anyone ever have this happen to them?

Here, I will show you:

This is the original posting: http://search.hankooki.com/times/times_view.php?term=rafael+sabio++&path=hankooki3/times/lpage/opinion/200701/kt2007012320441154060.htm&media=kt

This is the one I just found:
http://owli.org/home/node/1996

Now, why would they reprint like that?

Me.

[Delirium's Brother]

That's pretty normal. I've noticed that a huge proportion of internet content is plagarized from other sites and from printed sources. Is it legal? Probably not. Is it fair? Not really. Is it standard operating procedure? In many places it is. Can you do anything about it? You could ask them to remove it. Will they do it? Maybe.

Technically, if your work is published, then the content is copyrighted to the original publisher, and "grand rights/authorial rights" are reserved to you. Grand rights aren't worth money... they only offer you control over how your work is used. For example, if they present your work as a parody, then you can make them stop. Your publisher on the other hand is being monetarily ripped-off. If it really pisses you off then contact your publisher and make them aware of the situation. They will take care of it for you (and themselves).

The question that I wonder about is whether internet publishing legally counts as publishing. Did you say that it was published online or in a printed form? What does `etc.' mean in this case?

peace,
Chris

p.s. it's been about twenty years since I seriously had to know this stuff, so things may have changed, or time might have played havoc with my memory.

[cubanlord]

[Smee]

I wrote a few pieces for the Korea Times and they were picked up by a wire service, so whenever I googled myself I saw my name attached to wire reports coming out of Mongolia, Iran, India, etc.

[cubanlord]

[Hollywoodaction]

I wrote something that I sent to some guy's blog a few years ago. It was just a blurb about something I had found on the internet. I gave him permission to print it word for word if he wanted, which he did. A couple of days later, I became curious of what had happened to my story after hearing what sounded like my text on the news. So, I did a search for one of the key sentences. It turned up, word for word, in several important magazines and hundred newspapers.

[dutchy pink]

There was an article today about a lawsuit against google by... ??Belgium, i forget. Anyway, the newspaper was suing google for printing an "abstract" of the original article. You know how google prints a few lines from the site under the address? Well, the court ruled that this was a copyright infringement. Google said it was perfectly legal but the court said otherwise. Google seemed to be concerned by this. Depending which country it was, and their international relevance, it could be a real issue. with the WTO, EU, etc.. But since I don't remember.., belgium... botswana...burkina faso... It may not.
either way, i doubt there's a damn thing you can do about it

[twg]

The current argument is that the second you place original content on the internet, you are in fact putting it into the public domain. Obviously, it will be treated as such, and unless you have the ability to pay an army of lawyers, you shouldn't even bother trying to maintain control.

But, it's just good manners to credit the content creators and link to their site whenever you can. Since they seem to have done that, it's really nothing but free advertising for you.

[dutchy pink]

True, but you don't need an army of lawyers. You only need someone else with an army of lawyers. The point of the relating the court decision was not to rub the belly of each dave poster, lulling them into worry free sleep, artistic integrity intact.
It was to bring up the point that the 'current argument' is no longer current. In that particular country it is illegal. Most likely means in the whole EU it is illegal which means any country in the WTO it's illegal, which pretty much means it's illegal everywhere.
That is a serious blow to net-neutrality and the internet as we know it.
I'm not saying it will stick, but if it does, and it may, it will have a huge impact.

[superacidjax]

[cubanlord]

[RACETRAITOR]

I like when people hotlink my photos. They get Goatsed soon after.