Comments on: “Street Photography Now” Fails to Cite Sources

By: the_traveler

the_traveler — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:48:58 +0000

Nothing new to add except to suppress the idea that any of this was ‘fair use.’
It was clearly not and clearly plagiarism and, imo, since money was being made it is a copyright violation.

By: Stephen Bloomfield

Stephen Bloomfield — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 16:23:26 +0000

What’s the difference between using the text from an interview without attribution and using a photo without attribution? — both intellectual property; both covered by copyright. Both theft of someone else’s work. I was going to buy the book but I have decided not to.

By: MA

MA — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:24:03 +0000

I was going to buy this book but after reading about the plagiarism, I will not.

By: chispa

chispa — Tue, 17 May 2011 16:58:49 +0000

Internet plagiarism is a fact of life with the usual excuse of “fair use” B.S. I have a music book I distributed thru a web site that has been pirated. My suggestion for this web site is a big square box at the bottom of every page that says every thing printed here is copyrighted and if you want to quote something, write and ask for f.*&%#*! permission. Otherwise you will sue their asses. As far as the publishers of the above mentioned book, they should have had a section in their publishing contract with the authors that affirms that nothing in the book is plagiarized or used without permission, and sources cited. I would send a really nasty letter to them demanding compensation and the removal of the book from the market. thats my 2 cents.

By: John Bloggs

John Bloggs — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:27:57 +0000

Sophie and Stephen are absolute arrogant in their narrow mindedness to publish their book without correct citation. Maybe they hoped the authors would not notice. They are too busy trying to push a sub-standard designed book. I’ll make sure not to get my fingers burnt with them.

By: grouchomarx

grouchomarx — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:48:49 +0000

Can someone give us the exact multiple passages that were copied from this site, please?

I’ve just bought the book, but if this is too much obvious, I’ll ask my money back from T&H. Serious.

Thanks,

grouchomarx

By: Ben Anderson

Ben Anderson — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 11:35:04 +0000

Thought I’d better make an inevitable appearance….

By: AL

AL — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 04:17:57 +0000

Forget the cholera epidemic in earthquake-damaged Haiti, someone didn’t acknowledged for recording the words of someone more famous! There truly is no God.

By: stephen

stephen — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:09:51 +0000

I love how Johanna, in her second posting, still doesn’t get the point. Michael did the work of conducting the interview, transcribing the interview, editing the interview, writing up the interview, and, finally, publishing the interview. Johanna and Co. lifted all that work and, essentially, claimed it for themselves by not giving Michael credit. That, it should be obvious, is wrong.

By: MarcW

MarcW — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:20:16 +0000

cao:

The problem is the word “commercial.” Most people who use the word “commercial” in association with likeness use mean “endorsement or association,” so when I say, “you shouldn’t assume non-commercial use is always free and clear,” I was addressing that common understanding of the word.

That’s not what it means in association with the IRPA or other similar laws in other states, so when the court (quite rightly) finds that the case at bar was a “non-commercial use” and therefore not subject to the statute - and if it were, the statute would be void for violation of the First Amendment as you and the court point out - it doesn’t mean what people who use the older and more limited definition think it means.

Bottom line, if there’s money involved, at all, anywhere, it is best to step lightly around use of other people’s likenesses without permission, especially if the likeness is not incidental to the usage in some larger context.