Forum Moderators: not2easy
However, the actual text for some of these reviews was apparently copy/pasted from a competing online bookstore (who also had permission from the original publisher to reprint the reviews.)
To avoid lots of scanning and/or typing work, the data entry person apparently copied some of the text from the web, then pasted that text into my client's database, which I then reformatted and marked up with HTML.
Now the competitor has noticed certain typos that carried over, and is complaining -- asking for credit or compensation for the use of their "work" even though they are not the copyright holders.
Does anyone have insight as to where my client stands on this issue?
If they published it first, then under the The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, they would have a case I believe.
www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
Just because they did not say it, doesn’t mean that they don’t own the copyright.
Your choice may come down to deleting the reviews you got from your competitor or contacting a lawyer for advice. You are better off getting text straight from the author or their book covers (with publisher's permission of course), than from your competitor.
I would just fix the typos and if you have reprint rights to the content (which you do), leave it on there.
Good on the competitor for trying though. :)
I'm very supportive of this direction.
As has been mentioned by others here, map publishers often insert minor errors in their printed maps to guard against others simply copying them and publishing under their own name. I wonder if your competitor inserted a few "typos" on purpose.
Advise them that in reproducing the review, they "altered it", be adding in typos and thereby degrading the original authors work.
It is not uncommon for a license to grant a right to reproduce constrained by an obligation to not alter without specific authorization, etc. Why? Well, how would you like to be the author of the original review, a literary person, and be made to appear like an incompetent idiot who doesn't spell chek by the altered reproduction? ;-)
Tell the offended party you won't report the violation of the license or the fact that their reproduction degraded the apparent quality of the original author's work. Tell them you won't ask the original author if he/she granted "them" the right to create derivative works in which they would claim exclusive rights. Will likely send the original author after them since that is what they are doing when they say "you owe us money for reproducing this review.....with a few typos". Oh, I see. I can now license the right to reproduce Elton John's lyrics, enter a few typos, and claim rights to the song as against anyone who would copy my botched copy of the original? I think Elton would have a thing or two to say about that....such as "hey, give me that money ..."
Geez. Literary types can be such bambinos. "You stole my incompetent, non-exclusive reproduction...."
Think about it. They are claiming copyrights to an incompetent, non-exclusive reproduction? I VERY much doubt the author gave them any right to modify and claim new or added rights in the original work, including no right whatsoever to create a derivative copyrighted work from the authors original work. Licenses typically tie up the licensee's right to create or claim rights to a derivative work. No way 99.99% of the time.
Alright, I'm starting to go on a rant.....time to quit.
It would be a sticky wicket and a brand of hardball that would result in no good that I can see. Especially if they start to involve the web host or the search engines.
Bottom line, which my client now accepts, is that they really did "steal" someone else's labor for their own profit. And so they are backing off.
But I appreciate the rant! I've had a few of my own the last few days on this topic. You should see the difference in quality and usability between these two sites.
I really hate that ;-))
In general the author of a work is the copyright ownner (with some exceptions). He may transfer the full rights to the work, in which case he will not be able to give you permission to use it. Or he may transfer non-exclusive rights, or first electronic rights. He can then transfer to you non-exclusive rights.
However, if your competitor edited the review (such as removing some typos), they may have some rights you would violate by copying from their site.
It would be best if you start with a copy given to you by the author with the author's assurance that he has the right to do so. Then you may want to edit it (such as for size, ease of reading on-line, correction of typos, etc.).
