This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Is copying route descriptions out of guidebooks to use on UKC or developing a 'competing' guidebook wrong? I ask this because I noticed on another topic Alan James commented on people adding to the UKC database :
'Others do straight copies from guidebooks which is well-meaning but not something we can condone (unless it is a Rockfax).'
To give an example so you can see why I ask the question - I did a new short route at CragX and sent in the description to ClimbingBooksLtd and added it to the UKC database. This route may then appear in the next ClimbingBooksLtd guidebook. If someone else chooses to take that description and use it in a different guidebook they are surely not stealing from ClimbingBooksLtd as the description is my work. If it was to appear elsewhere I would prefer it to stay as I have written it. I would not describe it as a piece of creative writing, it is just a description.
As my knowledge in this area is very limited I'm confused. Are not most descriptions written by the first ascensionist?
To get to Middlesbrough from my house : 'go down the a174, onto the a19 and then onto the a66' - This is just a description and I cannot claim ownership to it.
This is an honest question, not having a go at anyone and I have no set view on the subject. Just wanting to see what others know/think.
NEClimber
'Others do straight copies from guidebooks which is well-meaning but not something we can condone (unless it is a Rockfax).'
To give an example so you can see why I ask the question - I did a new short route at CragX and sent in the description to ClimbingBooksLtd and added it to the UKC database. This route may then appear in the next ClimbingBooksLtd guidebook. If someone else chooses to take that description and use it in a different guidebook they are surely not stealing from ClimbingBooksLtd as the description is my work. If it was to appear elsewhere I would prefer it to stay as I have written it. I would not describe it as a piece of creative writing, it is just a description.
As my knowledge in this area is very limited I'm confused. Are not most descriptions written by the first ascensionist?
To get to Middlesbrough from my house : 'go down the a174, onto the a19 and then onto the a66' - This is just a description and I cannot claim ownership to it.
This is an honest question, not having a go at anyone and I have no set view on the subject. Just wanting to see what others know/think.
NEClimber
In reply to NEClimber:
With no real in-depth knowledge of the legalities I would suggest it you want your description (your copy-write) printing as you wrote it you need to produce your own guide. If you put it out in the public domain and someone rewrites it (to fit on the page/correct errors/link in with other route etc) the copy-write will be with the new author.
Plagiarism is the act of passing off someone's work as your own, if you rewrite it, that can't be plagiarism I'm guessing.
Chris
With no real in-depth knowledge of the legalities I would suggest it you want your description (your copy-write) printing as you wrote it you need to produce your own guide. If you put it out in the public domain and someone rewrites it (to fit on the page/correct errors/link in with other route etc) the copy-write will be with the new author.
Plagiarism is the act of passing off someone's work as your own, if you rewrite it, that can't be plagiarism I'm guessing.
Chris
In reply to NEClimber:
It depends on how much creative input you had to the description, really. "Follow the crack". Would be quite difficult to copyright, but "Ascend the beautiful curving crack using your full range of skills, from finger locks to arm bars, until you land exhausted on the mid-height ledge" would definitely be copyright.
The complicating factor arises when you submit your description to an open source, such as UKC, where others can edit it. At that point, I think that copyright would be quite hard to establish. However, if you submit it to two different print companies, only one should use it verbatim, unless they put it in quotes.
It depends on how much creative input you had to the description, really. "Follow the crack". Would be quite difficult to copyright, but "Ascend the beautiful curving crack using your full range of skills, from finger locks to arm bars, until you land exhausted on the mid-height ledge" would definitely be copyright.
The complicating factor arises when you submit your description to an open source, such as UKC, where others can edit it. At that point, I think that copyright would be quite hard to establish. However, if you submit it to two different print companies, only one should use it verbatim, unless they put it in quotes.
In reply to NEClimber:
My opinions only:
If you copy verbatim and claim it as you own without reference to the original author it is plagiarism, simple. I would suggest that a guide book will have a copyright, the original author/ascentionist will not automatically have copyright, the intellectual rights will be owned by the guide book.
Most folk with a professional qualification receive automatic copyright (I think) writing a route description probably doesn’t, copying from one book to another is a bit dodge. A new guide book can describe a route in anyway they see fit. It is an opinion, nobody owns a route, just ethically the first ascentionist names and grades, but this is only an understanding between climbers.
However, there are solicitors who specialise in the subject so it must be broad and complex. Interesting!
My opinions only:
If you copy verbatim and claim it as you own without reference to the original author it is plagiarism, simple. I would suggest that a guide book will have a copyright, the original author/ascentionist will not automatically have copyright, the intellectual rights will be owned by the guide book.
Most folk with a professional qualification receive automatic copyright (I think) writing a route description probably doesn’t, copying from one book to another is a bit dodge. A new guide book can describe a route in anyway they see fit. It is an opinion, nobody owns a route, just ethically the first ascentionist names and grades, but this is only an understanding between climbers.
However, there are solicitors who specialise in the subject so it must be broad and complex. Interesting!
In reply to Monk: True, could get messy, first publisher to print the climber’s description would claim the CR?
In reply to Chris Craggs: presenting it like you have done the original research without crediting previous authors is plagiarism too, so re-writing doesnt absolve you of responsibilities.
In reply to Lukeva:
Which is why a guidebook author would probably be well advised to rewrite the description, adding any particularly inspiring first-ascensionist's account as a quote.
> (In reply to Monk) True, could get messy, first publisher to print the climber’s description would claim the CR?
Which is why a guidebook author would probably be well advised to rewrite the description, adding any particularly inspiring first-ascensionist's account as a quote.
In reply to Lukeva:
Technically perhaps, but realistically does anyone want or expect a guidebook to be full of footnotes attributing the words of each description to a different contributor? I think it's a bit prissy to want recognition for penning a brief paragraph of simple description (I'm assuming the OP isn't talking about a major Alpine first ascent here).surely the real glory is in doing the route, for which the climbing community rightly expects to see its heroes recognised in the guide.
Re copyright, which is a slightly different thing from plagiarism issues, I suspect most guidebook publishers have some small print somewhere by which they claim copyright over the entire book. This gives them protection against attempts to reproduce large chunks of it, and means that subsequent guides are more likely not to use the first ascentionist's exact words so as not to fall foul of this.
> (In reply to NEClimber)
>
> My opinions only:
>
> If you copy verbatim and claim it as you own without reference to the original author it is plagiarism, simple.
>
> My opinions only:
>
> If you copy verbatim and claim it as you own without reference to the original author it is plagiarism, simple.
Technically perhaps, but realistically does anyone want or expect a guidebook to be full of footnotes attributing the words of each description to a different contributor? I think it's a bit prissy to want recognition for penning a brief paragraph of simple description (I'm assuming the OP isn't talking about a major Alpine first ascent here).surely the real glory is in doing the route, for which the climbing community rightly expects to see its heroes recognised in the guide.
Re copyright, which is a slightly different thing from plagiarism issues, I suspect most guidebook publishers have some small print somewhere by which they claim copyright over the entire book. This gives them protection against attempts to reproduce large chunks of it, and means that subsequent guides are more likely not to use the first ascentionist's exact words so as not to fall foul of this.
In reply to dunnyg:
Are you sure about that?
Chris
> presenting it like you have done the original research without crediting previous authors is plagiarism too, so re-writing doesnt absolve you of responsibilities.
Are you sure about that?
Chris
In reply to Chris Craggs:
> (In reply to dunnyg)
> [...]
>
> Are you sure about that?
>
>
Reasonably sure in an acedemic sence, don't know in a legal sence.> [...]
>
> Are you sure about that?
>
>
In reply to DJonsight:
The copyright of the text in a guidebook lies with the person who wrote it, not the publisher of the book.
Chris
>
>
> Re copyright, which is a slightly different thing from plagiarism issues, I suspect most guidebook publishers have some small print somewhere by which they claim copyright over the entire book. This gives them protection against attempts to reproduce large chunks of it, and means that subsequent guides are more likely not to use the first ascentionist's exact words so as not to fall foul of this.
>
> Re copyright, which is a slightly different thing from plagiarism issues, I suspect most guidebook publishers have some small print somewhere by which they claim copyright over the entire book. This gives them protection against attempts to reproduce large chunks of it, and means that subsequent guides are more likely not to use the first ascentionist's exact words so as not to fall foul of this.
The copyright of the text in a guidebook lies with the person who wrote it, not the publisher of the book.
Chris
In reply to DJonsight:
Sure, it would read like a text book, shudder! Of course that's where the glory lies. If it was me, I wouldn't care. In fact I would want my description included.
> (In reply to Lukeva)
> [...]
>
> Technically perhaps, but realistically does anyone want or expect a guidebook to be full of footnotes attributing the words of each description to a different contributor? I think it's a bit prissy to want recognition for penning a brief paragraph of simple description (I'm assuming the OP isn't talking about a major Alpine first ascent here).surely the real glory is in doing the route, for which the climbing community rightly expects to see its heroes recognised in the guide.
>
> Re copyright, which is a slightly different thing from plagiarism issues, I suspect most guidebook publishers have some small print somewhere by which they claim copyright over the entire book. This gives them protection against attempts to reproduce large chunks of it, and means that subsequent guides are more likely not to use the first ascentionist's exact words so as not to fall foul of this.
> [...]
>
> Technically perhaps, but realistically does anyone want or expect a guidebook to be full of footnotes attributing the words of each description to a different contributor? I think it's a bit prissy to want recognition for penning a brief paragraph of simple description (I'm assuming the OP isn't talking about a major Alpine first ascent here).surely the real glory is in doing the route, for which the climbing community rightly expects to see its heroes recognised in the guide.
>
> Re copyright, which is a slightly different thing from plagiarism issues, I suspect most guidebook publishers have some small print somewhere by which they claim copyright over the entire book. This gives them protection against attempts to reproduce large chunks of it, and means that subsequent guides are more likely not to use the first ascentionist's exact words so as not to fall foul of this.
Sure, it would read like a text book, shudder! Of course that's where the glory lies. If it was me, I wouldn't care. In fact I would want my description included.
In reply to Chris Craggs:
O right, that surprises me. I know automatic copyright is not a given (disregarding plagiarism which is different) apart from those people who are members of professional institutes or pay for their work to be legally copyrighted. As I understand it; our words on this forum have no copyright, people cannot quote them without a reference in an academic paper, but that has nothing to do with copyright, just fraud. Are route descriptions automatically subject to CR? I’m not being an arse (not intentionally anyway) just genuinely interested.
> (In reply to DJonsight)
> [...]
>
> The copyright of the text in a guidebook lies with the person who wrote it, not the publisher of the book.
>
>
> Chris
> [...]
>
> The copyright of the text in a guidebook lies with the person who wrote it, not the publisher of the book.
>
>
> Chris
O right, that surprises me. I know automatic copyright is not a given (disregarding plagiarism which is different) apart from those people who are members of professional institutes or pay for their work to be legally copyrighted. As I understand it; our words on this forum have no copyright, people cannot quote them without a reference in an academic paper, but that has nothing to do with copyright, just fraud. Are route descriptions automatically subject to CR? I’m not being an arse (not intentionally anyway) just genuinely interested.
In reply to NEClimber:
I would suggest (correct me if wrong) that wherever the copied text appears, if you quote it and attribute it, you should be ok- eg
Sarah's wobbly route
"Ascend blah blah blah etc etc (Wilson, 1998)
At some ppoint you should quote the complete reference, such as at the end of your atricle or within the bilbilography- thus;
Wilson, K (1998)
Ken's Fatabulolus Climbs in the Fenlands of Lincolnshire
SG Press Lincoln.
Sxx
I would suggest (correct me if wrong) that wherever the copied text appears, if you quote it and attribute it, you should be ok- eg
Sarah's wobbly route
"Ascend blah blah blah etc etc (Wilson, 1998)
At some ppoint you should quote the complete reference, such as at the end of your atricle or within the bilbilography- thus;
Wilson, K (1998)
Ken's Fatabulolus Climbs in the Fenlands of Lincolnshire
SG Press Lincoln.
Sxx
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Presumably that depends on the book. For single author books, that is likely to be the case, but I am not sure if individual authors will retain copyright to guidebooks produced by committee (e.g. BMC guides). That is a decision for the publisher, I guess.
However, that doesn't really change anything - once it is in a printed form, it will/should be protected, and should not be copied without permission.
> (In reply to DJonsight)
> [...]
>
> The copyright of the text in a guidebook lies with the person who wrote it, not the publisher of the book.
>
>
> Chris
> [...]
>
> The copyright of the text in a guidebook lies with the person who wrote it, not the publisher of the book.
>
>
> Chris
Presumably that depends on the book. For single author books, that is likely to be the case, but I am not sure if individual authors will retain copyright to guidebooks produced by committee (e.g. BMC guides). That is a decision for the publisher, I guess.
However, that doesn't really change anything - once it is in a printed form, it will/should be protected, and should not be copied without permission.
In reply to Lukeva:
As I said early I don't know the legal ins and out - but as far as I am aware if you 'write' something (anything) it is your copy-write - that is what the term means.
Just as if you take a photograph, unless you sign it over, the copywrite is yours, not the owner of the camera, the photo-library that holds it or the mag that prints it.
Chris
As I said early I don't know the legal ins and out - but as far as I am aware if you 'write' something (anything) it is your copy-write - that is what the term means.
Just as if you take a photograph, unless you sign it over, the copywrite is yours, not the owner of the camera, the photo-library that holds it or the mag that prints it.
Chris
In reply to Monk:
I don't think the published has a choice - the copywrite belongs to the writer.
Chris
>
>
> Presumably that depends on the book. For single author books, that is likely to be the case, but I am not sure if individual authors will retain copyright to guidebooks produced by committee (e.g. BMC guides). That is a decision for the publisher, I guess.
>
>
> Presumably that depends on the book. For single author books, that is likely to be the case, but I am not sure if individual authors will retain copyright to guidebooks produced by committee (e.g. BMC guides). That is a decision for the publisher, I guess.
>
I don't think the published has a choice - the copywrite belongs to the writer.
Chris
In reply to Chris Craggs:
In an ideal world, I guess you are right. However, I don't think it is always that simple. How do you establish the copyright in a BMC guidebook, written by a team? I suspect that the BMC retains copyright, but I'd have to check.
And the publisher can have the choice - all they have to say is "We'll publish if you give us the copyright" (This does prove your point though - the writer has to sign away their copyright.)
> (In reply to Monk)
> [...]
>
> I don't think the published has a choice - the copywrite belongs to the writer.
>
>
> Chris
> [...]
>
> I don't think the published has a choice - the copywrite belongs to the writer.
>
>
> Chris
In an ideal world, I guess you are right. However, I don't think it is always that simple. How do you establish the copyright in a BMC guidebook, written by a team? I suspect that the BMC retains copyright, but I'd have to check.
And the publisher can have the choice - all they have to say is "We'll publish if you give us the copyright" (This does prove your point though - the writer has to sign away their copyright.)
In reply to Chris Craggs:
"I don't think the published has a choice - the copywrite belongs to the writer."
Any book I'v looked at tels me that the coptright is claimed by the publisher.
"I don't think the published has a choice - the copywrite belongs to the writer."
Any book I'v looked at tels me that the coptright is claimed by the publisher.
In reply to Chris Craggs:
I don’t think so. I think you need to pay for it in UK, that little copyright symbol people put under their photo doesn’t mean anything unless it is registered, or the website photos are posted to is registered with Copyright Registration, with a contractual agreement allowing users photos copyright.
Doesn't mean that people can copy work and not reference the creator, even if it is not copyrighted. This is plagiarism.
However, there may be an agreement with book/mag publishers that the original work is copyrighted to the author or photographer, by means of contract. You would know more on that subject. Of course, all publishing organisations will be registered and all their work and intellectual property will be legally protected.
> (In reply to Lukeva)
>
> As I said early I don't know the legal ins and out - but as far as I am aware if you 'write' something (anything) it is your copy-write - that is what the term means.
>
> Just as if you take a photograph, unless you sign it over, the copywrite is yours, not the owner of the camera, the photo-library that holds it or the mag that prints it.
>
>
> Chris
>
> As I said early I don't know the legal ins and out - but as far as I am aware if you 'write' something (anything) it is your copy-write - that is what the term means.
>
> Just as if you take a photograph, unless you sign it over, the copywrite is yours, not the owner of the camera, the photo-library that holds it or the mag that prints it.
>
>
> Chris
I don’t think so. I think you need to pay for it in UK, that little copyright symbol people put under their photo doesn’t mean anything unless it is registered, or the website photos are posted to is registered with Copyright Registration, with a contractual agreement allowing users photos copyright.
Doesn't mean that people can copy work and not reference the creator, even if it is not copyrighted. This is plagiarism.
However, there may be an agreement with book/mag publishers that the original work is copyrighted to the author or photographer, by means of contract. You would know more on that subject. Of course, all publishing organisations will be registered and all their work and intellectual property will be legally protected.
In reply to daWalt:
I agree
> (In reply to Chris Craggs)
> "I don't think the published has a choice - the copywrite belongs to the writer."
> Any book I'v looked at tels me that the coptright is claimed by the publisher.
> "I don't think the published has a choice - the copywrite belongs to the writer."
> Any book I'v looked at tels me that the coptright is claimed by the publisher.
I agree
In reply to several:
"In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office."
Chris
"In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office."
Chris
In reply to NEClimber:
This issue occurred to me when I bought Gary Latter's Scottish Rock. Lots of the descriptions are straight from the SMC books.
Were they bits he wrote for the SMC? Did he reach an agreement with the SMC or did he just copy it?
This issue occurred to me when I bought Gary Latter's Scottish Rock. Lots of the descriptions are straight from the SMC books.
Were they bits he wrote for the SMC? Did he reach an agreement with the SMC or did he just copy it?
In reply to Lukeva:
Wrong.
Copyright is automatic and does not need to be registered anywhere. Indeed, there is nowhere that it can be registered (other than the sort of dubious website that would also charge for an EHIC card or for making a PPI mis-selling claim).
> I think you need to pay for it in UK, that little copyright symbol people put under their photo doesn’t mean anything unless it is registered
Wrong.
Copyright is automatic and does not need to be registered anywhere. Indeed, there is nowhere that it can be registered (other than the sort of dubious website that would also charge for an EHIC card or for making a PPI mis-selling claim).
In reply to Toreador:
"There is no official copyright register because copyright is automatic."
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/c-register.htm
"There is no official copyright register because copyright is automatic."
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/c-register.htm
In reply to NEClimber:
Copying history sections was the thing that interested me when I was producing some miniguides.
Thesedays you have to be pretty shoddy not to write your own descriptions, but re-researching and then writing a totally new history section to each crag is pretty unrealistic.
How do other guidebooks deal with this? And what is the law on it?
Copying history sections was the thing that interested me when I was producing some miniguides.
Thesedays you have to be pretty shoddy not to write your own descriptions, but re-researching and then writing a totally new history section to each crag is pretty unrealistic.
How do other guidebooks deal with this? And what is the law on it?
In reply to Chris Craggs (and others):
In the academic field we sign our copyright away as a condition of publication for journals, but for books the copyright tends to stay with the author (but not always). In principle this means we can be done for copyright violations for using our own work...
The thing about pictures is definitely right, as I've had problems with this - copyright lies with the photographer. In some circumstances, though, you can get around the whole issue by saying 'every effort has been made to identify and contact the copyright holder' and then something about contacting the publisher/author if necessary. It's useful for old sources, or where a photographer has gone out of business etc.
Plagiarism is different - it's a moral/academic issue which overlaps copyright but isn't the same.
SteveC
In the academic field we sign our copyright away as a condition of publication for journals, but for books the copyright tends to stay with the author (but not always). In principle this means we can be done for copyright violations for using our own work...
The thing about pictures is definitely right, as I've had problems with this - copyright lies with the photographer. In some circumstances, though, you can get around the whole issue by saying 'every effort has been made to identify and contact the copyright holder' and then something about contacting the publisher/author if necessary. It's useful for old sources, or where a photographer has gone out of business etc.
Plagiarism is different - it's a moral/academic issue which overlaps copyright but isn't the same.
SteveC
In reply to Chris Craggs:
I apologise if this is the case. I see, maybe it is to protect one’s copyright that you need to pay for. I.e. to prove that it is the author’s work. People use 'poor man's copyright' - posting work to obtain a stamp date and not re-open the envelope. I know this is worthless. I still think that it is legally complex, as you said
> (In reply to several)
>
> "In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office."
>
>
> Chris
>
> "In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office."
>
>
> Chris
I apologise if this is the case. I see, maybe it is to protect one’s copyright that you need to pay for. I.e. to prove that it is the author’s work. People use 'poor man's copyright' - posting work to obtain a stamp date and not re-open the envelope. I know this is worthless. I still think that it is legally complex, as you said
In reply to Lukeva:
No. Check the link above.
The IPO disagree.
"Is the registration likely to be better than the evidence you can create for yourself by sending a copy of the work to yourself by Special Delivery post and not opening the envelope upon its return?"
> maybe it is to protect one’s copyright that you need to pay for
No. Check the link above.
> People use 'poor man's copyright' - posting work to obtain a stamp date and not re-open the envelope. I know this is worthless. I still think that it is legally complex, as you said
The IPO disagree.
"Is the registration likely to be better than the evidence you can create for yourself by sending a copy of the work to yourself by Special Delivery post and not opening the envelope upon its return?"
In reply to Toreador:
I'm sorry, but I am not wrong. You certainly can register work as copyrighted. It is too prove and authenticate that you/me is the creator, and very much UK law.
> (In reply to Lukeva)
> [...]
>
> Wrong.
>
> Copyright is automatic and does not need to be registered anywhere. Indeed, there is nowhere that it can be registered (other than the sort of dubious website that would also charge for an EHIC card or for making a PPI mis-selling claim).
> [...]
>
> Wrong.
>
> Copyright is automatic and does not need to be registered anywhere. Indeed, there is nowhere that it can be registered (other than the sort of dubious website that would also charge for an EHIC card or for making a PPI mis-selling claim).
I'm sorry, but I am not wrong. You certainly can register work as copyrighted. It is too prove and authenticate that you/me is the creator, and very much UK law.
In reply to Toreador:
Ok checked the link: ‘Are you paying just for a registration, or does the cost cover more than this, for example help with a legal action should your copyright be infringed?’’
An artist would be much safer having a solicitor authenticate and register their claim then posting the work. But, it seems obvious that copyright is automatic, until the intellectual rights are novated, say to a guide book, maybe?
> (In reply to Lukeva)
>
> [...]
>
> No. Check the link above.
>
> [...]
>
> The IPO disagree.
>
> "Is the registration likely to be better than the evidence you can create for yourself by sending a copy of the work to yourself by Special Delivery post and not opening the envelope upon its return?"
>
> [...]
>
> No. Check the link above.
>
> [...]
>
> The IPO disagree.
>
> "Is the registration likely to be better than the evidence you can create for yourself by sending a copy of the work to yourself by Special Delivery post and not opening the envelope upon its return?"
Ok checked the link: ‘Are you paying just for a registration, or does the cost cover more than this, for example help with a legal action should your copyright be infringed?’’
An artist would be much safer having a solicitor authenticate and register their claim then posting the work. But, it seems obvious that copyright is automatic, until the intellectual rights are novated, say to a guide book, maybe?
In reply to NEClimber: I was under the impression that a database can be copyrighted and that a list of climbing routes and associated grades can be classed as a database.
I am surprised by the lack of insight on this thread because I am sure there was a massive bun fight between Rockfax and the BMC a very short time after the original Eastern and Western Grit guides came out. Some were suggesting that Rockfax had copied route descriptions etc from the original BMC guides. Not having sat down and done a like for like comparison I couldn't comment.
My understanding was that after money had been spend consulting lawyers, action was halted on the grounds that any such motion would likely destroy the credibility and finances of both parties.
Something like that anyway. All rumours and heresy you understand.
I am surprised by the lack of insight on this thread because I am sure there was a massive bun fight between Rockfax and the BMC a very short time after the original Eastern and Western Grit guides came out. Some were suggesting that Rockfax had copied route descriptions etc from the original BMC guides. Not having sat down and done a like for like comparison I couldn't comment.
My understanding was that after money had been spend consulting lawyers, action was halted on the grounds that any such motion would likely destroy the credibility and finances of both parties.
Something like that anyway. All rumours and heresy you understand.
In reply to EeeByGum: That's the same story I heard- from a very good source too. There was apparently a very good case on the side of the BMC.
In reply to EeeByGum:
Do it and see what you find.
Chris
> Some were suggesting that Rockfax had copied route descriptions etc from the original BMC guides. Not having sat down and done a like for like comparison I couldn't comment.
>
>
Do it and see what you find.
Chris
In reply to Juran C:
There are some in the old clubs that still feel this way. If I remember right, the charge was not to do with copying route descriptions, but to do with using the BMC's database of routes as a source (i.e. the definitive guides). Interestingly, this may also be the source of Chris Craggs' knowledge of copyright - he wrote the guide, but also wrote large sections of the BMC guide he was accused of plagiarising! (is that correct Chris?)
I was on the verge of cancelling my BMC membership before they backed down. Peak Gritstone East revolutionised guidebooks, and I would suggest that we are all better off for it, not least as it stimulated the old boys (BMC, CC and F&RCC) to produce their latest ranges of outstanding guides.
There are some in the old clubs that still feel this way. If I remember right, the charge was not to do with copying route descriptions, but to do with using the BMC's database of routes as a source (i.e. the definitive guides). Interestingly, this may also be the source of Chris Craggs' knowledge of copyright - he wrote the guide, but also wrote large sections of the BMC guide he was accused of plagiarising! (is that correct Chris?)
I was on the verge of cancelling my BMC membership before they backed down. Peak Gritstone East revolutionised guidebooks, and I would suggest that we are all better off for it, not least as it stimulated the old boys (BMC, CC and F&RCC) to produce their latest ranges of outstanding guides.
In reply to EeeByGum:
And that the general climbing population couldn't care less either I imagine!
>
> My understanding was that after money had been spend consulting lawyers, action was halted on the grounds that any such motion would likely destroy the credibility and finances of both parties.
>
> My understanding was that after money had been spend consulting lawyers, action was halted on the grounds that any such motion would likely destroy the credibility and finances of both parties.
>
And that the general climbing population couldn't care less either I imagine!
In reply to Chris Craggs:
And it's certainly not the case that copyright is always automatically assigned to the author. It depends on the nature of the contract between the publisher and the author. I work in educational and academic publishing, and in many contracts, the copyright belongs to the publisher, and not the author.
> (In reply to Lukeva)
>
> As I said early I don't know the legal ins and out - but as far as I am aware if you 'write' something (anything) it is your copy-write - that is what the term means.
>
It's a bit disappointing that a guidebook author and editor doesn't know that it's 'copyright', and not 'copy-write'. >
> As I said early I don't know the legal ins and out - but as far as I am aware if you 'write' something (anything) it is your copy-write - that is what the term means.
>
And it's certainly not the case that copyright is always automatically assigned to the author. It depends on the nature of the contract between the publisher and the author. I work in educational and academic publishing, and in many contracts, the copyright belongs to the publisher, and not the author.
In reply to Lukeva:
With whom do you register work as copyrighted?
> (In reply to Toreador)
> [...]
>
> I'm sorry, but I am not wrong. You certainly can register work as copyrighted. It is too prove and authenticate that you/me is the creator, and very much UK law.
> [...]
>
> I'm sorry, but I am not wrong. You certainly can register work as copyrighted. It is too prove and authenticate that you/me is the creator, and very much UK law.
With whom do you register work as copyrighted?
In reply to tony:
The man from the cat detector van. You know, the one from the Ministry of Housinge...
> With whom do you register work as copyrighted?
The man from the cat detector van. You know, the one from the Ministry of Housinge...
In reply to tony: A solicitor. Register may be the wrong word, authenticate ownership maybe better. I thought that you had to pay for copyright, I am wrong though
In reply to tony:
I was assuming for the OP's question that in the absence of a contract being signed to relinquish your copyright, it remained with the writer. Using the BMC as an example I assume the individual crag writers didn't sign a contract - and of course I may well be wrong!
Chris
>
> It's a bit disappointing that a guidebook author and editor doesn't know that it's 'copyright', and not 'copy-write'.
>
Shameful indeed, I'll hand my badge in a.s.a.p.> It's a bit disappointing that a guidebook author and editor doesn't know that it's 'copyright', and not 'copy-write'.
>
> And it's certainly not the case that copyright is always automatically assigned to the author. It depends on the nature of the contract between the publisher and the author. I work in educational and academic publishing, and in many contracts, the copyright belongs to the publisher, and not the author.
I was assuming for the OP's question that in the absence of a contract being signed to relinquish your copyright, it remained with the writer. Using the BMC as an example I assume the individual crag writers didn't sign a contract - and of course I may well be wrong!
Chris
In reply to Lukeva:
That would be worse. As the IPO point out the only thing such 'registration' can do is show that you had in your possession that work on a particular date. A solicitor can not possibly know or guarantee that you were the one that created it so they can't authenticate your ownership of the copyright.
> (In reply to tony) A solicitor. Register may be the wrong word, authenticate ownership maybe better.
That would be worse. As the IPO point out the only thing such 'registration' can do is show that you had in your possession that work on a particular date. A solicitor can not possibly know or guarantee that you were the one that created it so they can't authenticate your ownership of the copyright.
In reply to Lukeva:
No, none of that is necessary. You certainly don't have to pay anything to anyone. If there is no contract (i.e. if you just write something), the copyright assignment is automatic - it's yours. If there is a contract, the copyright assignment depends on the nature of eh contract, and may be yours, or it may be the publisher.
What has been done in the past is that some authors (or would-be authors) have posted their work to a specified person (which may be a solicitor), in order to demonstrate authorship. However, I don't know if that has ever actually been used in copyright disputes. Given the use of digital manuscripts these days, there would be plenty of watermarking options which would be more suitable.
> (In reply to tony) A solicitor. Register may be the wrong word, authenticate ownership maybe better. I thought that you had to pay for copyright, I am wrong though
No, none of that is necessary. You certainly don't have to pay anything to anyone. If there is no contract (i.e. if you just write something), the copyright assignment is automatic - it's yours. If there is a contract, the copyright assignment depends on the nature of eh contract, and may be yours, or it may be the publisher.
What has been done in the past is that some authors (or would-be authors) have posted their work to a specified person (which may be a solicitor), in order to demonstrate authorship. However, I don't know if that has ever actually been used in copyright disputes. Given the use of digital manuscripts these days, there would be plenty of watermarking options which would be more suitable.
In reply to speekingleesh:
Fair point, I'm not a copyright solicitor but they exist and I'm sure they do very well out of it. There must be measures by which ownership can be authenticated, post the item to an independent solicitor, at a guess. Not ones self, although I have done so.
> (In reply to Lukeva)
> [...]
>
> That would be worse. As the IPO point out the only thing such 'registration' can do is show that you had in your possession that work on a particular date. A solicitor can not possibly know or guarantee that you were the one that created it so they can't authenticate your ownership of the copyright.
> [...]
>
> That would be worse. As the IPO point out the only thing such 'registration' can do is show that you had in your possession that work on a particular date. A solicitor can not possibly know or guarantee that you were the one that created it so they can't authenticate your ownership of the copyright.
Fair point, I'm not a copyright solicitor but they exist and I'm sure they do very well out of it. There must be measures by which ownership can be authenticated, post the item to an independent solicitor, at a guess. Not ones self, although I have done so.
In reply to tony:
O ok I see, makes sense. Not paying is good, and right. I did guess that posting ones work to a solicitor may suffice. I’m sure many a copyright dispute has ended up civil!?
> (In reply to Lukeva)
> [...]
>
> No, none of that is necessary. You certainly don't have to pay anything to anyone. If there is no contract (i.e. if you just write something), the copyright assignment is automatic - it's yours. If there is a contract, the copyright assignment depends on the nature of eh contract, and may be yours, or it may be the publisher.
>
> What has been done in the past is that some authors (or would-be authors) have posted their work to a specified person (which may be a solicitor), in order to demonstrate authorship. However, I don't know if that has ever actually been used in copyright disputes. Given the use of digital manuscripts these days, there would be plenty of watermarking options which would be more suitable.
> [...]
>
> No, none of that is necessary. You certainly don't have to pay anything to anyone. If there is no contract (i.e. if you just write something), the copyright assignment is automatic - it's yours. If there is a contract, the copyright assignment depends on the nature of eh contract, and may be yours, or it may be the publisher.
>
> What has been done in the past is that some authors (or would-be authors) have posted their work to a specified person (which may be a solicitor), in order to demonstrate authorship. However, I don't know if that has ever actually been used in copyright disputes. Given the use of digital manuscripts these days, there would be plenty of watermarking options which would be more suitable.
O ok I see, makes sense. Not paying is good, and right. I did guess that posting ones work to a solicitor may suffice. I’m sure many a copyright dispute has ended up civil!?
In reply to Chris Craggs:
I wonder if that be an assumed contract, or an implied contract? You wouldn't do the writing if you weren't asked to do it.
I don't have any BMC guides, but the SMC guides I have do have fairly extensive acknowledgements of prior work that is used. As far as I'm concerned, this is the important thing - if you're going to use stuff that is published elsewhere, have the courtesy to ask the original author and to acknowledge their previous work.
> I was assuming for the OP's question that in the absence of a contract being signed to relinquish your copyright, it remained with the writer. Using the BMC as an example I assume the individual crag writers didn't sign a contract - and of course I may well be wrong!
I wonder if that be an assumed contract, or an implied contract? You wouldn't do the writing if you weren't asked to do it.
I don't have any BMC guides, but the SMC guides I have do have fairly extensive acknowledgements of prior work that is used. As far as I'm concerned, this is the important thing - if you're going to use stuff that is published elsewhere, have the courtesy to ask the original author and to acknowledge their previous work.
In reply to Lukeva:
I'm sure they do I'd imagine copyright disputes are very lucrative. Can't see what this has to do with how one registers copyright though...
Again this can't really prove *authorship* by itself, only that you were in possession of it. Obviously if the other side can't establish possession any earlier than this then you're probably fine.
Again the IPO disagree with you http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about/c-about-faq/c-about-faq-protect.ht... .
> Fair point, I'm not a copyright solicitor but they exist and I'm sure they do very well out of it.
I'm sure they do I'd imagine copyright disputes are very lucrative. Can't see what this has to do with how one registers copyright though...
> There must be measures by which ownership can be authenticated, post the item to an independent solicitor, at a guess.
Again this can't really prove *authorship* by itself, only that you were in possession of it. Obviously if the other side can't establish possession any earlier than this then you're probably fine.
> Not ones self, although I have done so.
Again the IPO disagree with you http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about/c-about-faq/c-about-faq-protect.ht... .
In reply to speekingleesh:
How does posting it to ones self prove authorship anymore than posting it to a solicitor?
> (In reply to Lukeva)
> [...]
>
> I'm sure they do I'd imagine copyright disputes are very lucrative. Can't see what this has to do with how one registers copyright though...
>
> [...]
>
> Again this can't really prove *authorship* by itself, only that you were in possession of it. Obviously if the other side can't establish possession any earlier than this then you're probably fine.
>
> [...]
>
> Again the IPO disagree with you http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about/c-about-faq/c-about-faq-protect.ht... .
> [...]
>
> I'm sure they do I'd imagine copyright disputes are very lucrative. Can't see what this has to do with how one registers copyright though...
>
> [...]
>
> Again this can't really prove *authorship* by itself, only that you were in possession of it. Obviously if the other side can't establish possession any earlier than this then you're probably fine.
>
> [...]
>
> Again the IPO disagree with you http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about/c-about-faq/c-about-faq-protect.ht... .
How does posting it to ones self prove authorship anymore than posting it to a solicitor?
In reply to Lukeva:
It doesn't. But it doesn't prove it any less either, and is a lot cheaper
> How does posting it to ones self prove authorship anymore than posting it to a solicitor?
It doesn't. But it doesn't prove it any less either, and is a lot cheaper
In reply to Toreador: Haha! Right, I'm falling on my sword... and going climbing
In reply to Toreador:
>
This.
>
> It doesn't. But it doesn't prove it any less either, and is a lot cheaper
This.
In reply to tony:
You are quite right. Some years ago I wrote all the copy for a children's guide to walking in the Lake District, Rocky Rambler's Wild Walks published by LDNPA. My contract with the publishers clearly stated that copyright on the words would be theirs whilst the illustrator, Colin Chapman who had created the eponymous cartoon character retained copyright on all illustration. Cicerone Press later published an updated reprint, and presumably have also acquired or share with LDNPA the text copyright.
As regards rock climbing, there is only a finite choice of accurate ways to describe a traverse or a corner, so I guess that plagiarism, or, to put it more kindly, quoting the original author's words should be seen as a compliment rather than a breach of copyright. Whole sections of my 1988 CC guide to N Devon & Cornwall were 'lifted', by David Hope, Brian Wilkinson and the editorial team for the 1998 edition: I was delighted!
Of course when rival publishers produce guides to the same areas care is needed to avoid plagiarism, but if you look at all the modern guides you will notice not only huge improvements in production values but many close similarities, and (though I may well be blackballed by the CC for saying so!) the kick up the arse that Alan and Rockfax gave the traditional publishers benefited the climbing community as a whole and that's what anyone involved in providing information for climbers should be concentrating on, not petty squables over the ownership of content.
To the OP: I can safely say from bitter experience, that no guidebook writer should take any FA description as gospel! That is exactly why there are so many teams of dedicated volunteers out there who check every new (and old) route description and re-write them whenever necessary. You might think your words for your new route are the bees' knees, but if you really want to keep them unchanged then write the whole guide and the best of British!
> (In reply to Chris Craggs)
> [...]
> And it's certainly not the case that copyright is always automatically assigned to the author. It depends on the nature of the contract between the publisher and the author. I work in educational and academic publishing, and in many contracts, the copyright belongs to the publisher, and not the author.
> [...]
> And it's certainly not the case that copyright is always automatically assigned to the author. It depends on the nature of the contract between the publisher and the author. I work in educational and academic publishing, and in many contracts, the copyright belongs to the publisher, and not the author.
You are quite right. Some years ago I wrote all the copy for a children's guide to walking in the Lake District, Rocky Rambler's Wild Walks published by LDNPA. My contract with the publishers clearly stated that copyright on the words would be theirs whilst the illustrator, Colin Chapman who had created the eponymous cartoon character retained copyright on all illustration. Cicerone Press later published an updated reprint, and presumably have also acquired or share with LDNPA the text copyright.
As regards rock climbing, there is only a finite choice of accurate ways to describe a traverse or a corner, so I guess that plagiarism, or, to put it more kindly, quoting the original author's words should be seen as a compliment rather than a breach of copyright. Whole sections of my 1988 CC guide to N Devon & Cornwall were 'lifted', by David Hope, Brian Wilkinson and the editorial team for the 1998 edition: I was delighted!
Of course when rival publishers produce guides to the same areas care is needed to avoid plagiarism, but if you look at all the modern guides you will notice not only huge improvements in production values but many close similarities, and (though I may well be blackballed by the CC for saying so!) the kick up the arse that Alan and Rockfax gave the traditional publishers benefited the climbing community as a whole and that's what anyone involved in providing information for climbers should be concentrating on, not petty squables over the ownership of content.
To the OP: I can safely say from bitter experience, that no guidebook writer should take any FA description as gospel! That is exactly why there are so many teams of dedicated volunteers out there who check every new (and old) route description and re-write them whenever necessary. You might think your words for your new route are the bees' knees, but if you really want to keep them unchanged then write the whole guide and the best of British!
In reply to Chris Craggs:
As far as I know, Chris, that all depends on the contract that the author has with the publisher. It may well be that the publisher is happy for the copyright to be retained by the author who will then recieve royalties for the sale of 'their' work. Often, however, there is a flat fee negotiated for producing the text and the publisher effectively 'buys out' the copyright of the book. Author walks away with a cheque but no claim on the copyright or royalties.
Its a bit like producing a text at work - the copyright does not automatically belong to you; it probably resides with your employer.
As far as I know, Chris, that all depends on the contract that the author has with the publisher. It may well be that the publisher is happy for the copyright to be retained by the author who will then recieve royalties for the sale of 'their' work. Often, however, there is a flat fee negotiated for producing the text and the publisher effectively 'buys out' the copyright of the book. Author walks away with a cheque but no claim on the copyright or royalties.
Its a bit like producing a text at work - the copyright does not automatically belong to you; it probably resides with your employer.
In reply to andyathome:
It's a legal point, a basic starting point. The copyright does automatically reside with you, it just passes to your employer because you've chosen to give it to them. You have to choose to give it away. Then there's other questions about originality and whether it's something that can be copyrighted at all.
It's a legal point, a basic starting point. The copyright does automatically reside with you, it just passes to your employer because you've chosen to give it to them. You have to choose to give it away. Then there's other questions about originality and whether it's something that can be copyrighted at all.
In reply to thomasadixon:
Actually it doesn't
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-ownership/c-employer.htm
>
> It's a legal point, a basic starting point. The copyright does automatically reside with you...
> It's a legal point, a basic starting point. The copyright does automatically reside with you...
Actually it doesn't
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-ownership/c-employer.htm
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Copyright is an automatic right and no registration is necessary in the UK and most European countries. However, it's a bit more complicated in countries like the US. It's still an automatic right but unless you register I don't thnk you can litigate a claim and I think there are penalties if you register late, like loss of damages and costs.
As commented by others, the author is the first owner unless the work was produced in the normal course of employment (or as a result of a specific instruction probably). There's separate copyright in the typographical arrangement, owned by the publisher.
> (In reply to several)
>
> "In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office."
>
>
> "In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office."
>
Copyright is an automatic right and no registration is necessary in the UK and most European countries. However, it's a bit more complicated in countries like the US. It's still an automatic right but unless you register I don't thnk you can litigate a claim and I think there are penalties if you register late, like loss of damages and costs.
As commented by others, the author is the first owner unless the work was produced in the normal course of employment (or as a result of a specific instruction probably). There's separate copyright in the typographical arrangement, owned by the publisher.
In reply to Monk:
Ah yes, the old 'idea/expression dichotomy' problem. Copyright is often said to protect the latter, not the former. Database Right could complicate issues like this even more of course.
> (In reply to Juran C)
>
> If I remember right, the charge was not to do with copying route descriptions, but to do with using the BMC's database of routes as a source (i.e. the definitive guides).
>
> If I remember right, the charge was not to do with copying route descriptions, but to do with using the BMC's database of routes as a source (i.e. the definitive guides).
Ah yes, the old 'idea/expression dichotomy' problem. Copyright is often said to protect the latter, not the former. Database Right could complicate issues like this even more of course.
In reply to NEClimber: Cheers for all the replies. Didn't expect to get back from climbing and have so much to read. I am hoping to have some input in a new bouldering guide to my local area and thought this an important subject to know a little more about.
In my area where all the climbs are so small many of them have very simple descriptions and as such I was wondering where do you draw the line. There are only so many ways to say 'The arete on it's left side' or 'The crack in the corner'. Some routes are also like a set of instructions 'From the big hold at chest height pull over the bulge and up the wall'. With personal experience of the routes it's possible to add more information but other than that I guess it's just rearranging the words. 'The left side of the arete' or 'The corner-crack' as in the examples above.
Cheers again
In my area where all the climbs are so small many of them have very simple descriptions and as such I was wondering where do you draw the line. There are only so many ways to say 'The arete on it's left side' or 'The crack in the corner'. Some routes are also like a set of instructions 'From the big hold at chest height pull over the bulge and up the wall'. With personal experience of the routes it's possible to add more information but other than that I guess it's just rearranging the words. 'The left side of the arete' or 'The corner-crack' as in the examples above.
Cheers again
It appears that the copyright in an individual route description lies with the author of the description unless they choose to assign that right elsewhere. Unless people choose to assert these or assign these rights it would appear to be fair game within the original intention of publishing (ie submitting a description in a new routes book) that the information is for the community and not for a particular publisher.
Perhaps the way forward is for the BMC to draw up an open source / creative commons / public domain style license for route descriptions that is understood to operate unless the author indicates otherwise.
In any event it is not plagiarism unless you intend pass it off as your own work.
Personally I regard this post as (cc0) and would prefer all posts here to be (PDM) but UKC regard this post as their property:
"3.2 You agree that any material ... be ... the property of UKClimbing Limited. " -- http://www.ukclimbing.com/general/terms.html
And I guess this applies to any new route descriptions submitted via UKC in the crags database - I regard this as unenforceable where the material existed anywhere before.
In the meantime I think the view that route descriptions belong to the author and unless they assert their rights can be considered in the public domain should prevail.
Perhaps the way forward is for the BMC to draw up an open source / creative commons / public domain style license for route descriptions that is understood to operate unless the author indicates otherwise.
In any event it is not plagiarism unless you intend pass it off as your own work.
Personally I regard this post as (cc0) and would prefer all posts here to be (PDM) but UKC regard this post as their property:
"3.2 You agree that any material ... be ... the property of UKClimbing Limited. " -- http://www.ukclimbing.com/general/terms.html
And I guess this applies to any new route descriptions submitted via UKC in the crags database - I regard this as unenforceable where the material existed anywhere before.
In the meantime I think the view that route descriptions belong to the author and unless they assert their rights can be considered in the public domain should prevail.
In reply to bz:
Hmm, never seen that before!
Does that mean UKC own all the photos that we've uploaded?
> "3.2 You agree that any material ... be ... the property of UKClimbing Limited. " -- http://www.ukclimbing.com/general/terms.html
Hmm, never seen that before!
Does that mean UKC own all the photos that we've uploaded?
Yes - provided they weren't "owned" before (in which case they can't enforce ownership). Assuming you were the "owner" and uploaded them I suppose it is implicit that you transfer ownership to UKC. If someone else owns them then you should gain their consent to transfer ownership to UKC.
It is worth checking out how more liberal and more successful website handle this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Valkyrie_%28The_Roaches%29.jpg note the owner uploaded has used a version of a open license to put it in the public domain under GFDL . CC3.0.
IMO this is how UKC should treat users contributions (and we should all treat community donated routes).
It is worth checking out how more liberal and more successful website handle this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Valkyrie_%28The_Roaches%29.jpg note the owner uploaded has used a version of a open license to put it in the public domain under GFDL . CC3.0.
IMO this is how UKC should treat users contributions (and we should all treat community donated routes).
In reply to Toreador:
Similar problems exist with photos submitted to most big websites.
Back to plagiarism...as an academic you can try an interesting exercise with Turnitin plagiarism detection software: submit a section of a guidebook and then that of a subsequent rival publisher. Its obvious that changing the odd adjective or word order doesn't stop a good score. You need to be careful though about what you conclude: as permissions may have been sought and occasionally people change guidebook teams and it may be the person who moved teams who wrote both!
We get some lovely mess-ups in academia: I know of a student at my place accussed of plagiarism of his own work who got off from a clear cheating offence on the technicality of what he was really guilty of was using significant amounts of the same work for two different awards. Another student was accussed in writing of plagiarism (for something completely different that he hadn't even done) by a very dim Dean who really needed to read his rule book or at least a dictionary (we were lucky not to get sued on that one!).
Similar problems exist with photos submitted to most big websites.
Back to plagiarism...as an academic you can try an interesting exercise with Turnitin plagiarism detection software: submit a section of a guidebook and then that of a subsequent rival publisher. Its obvious that changing the odd adjective or word order doesn't stop a good score. You need to be careful though about what you conclude: as permissions may have been sought and occasionally people change guidebook teams and it may be the person who moved teams who wrote both!
We get some lovely mess-ups in academia: I know of a student at my place accussed of plagiarism of his own work who got off from a clear cheating offence on the technicality of what he was really guilty of was using significant amounts of the same work for two different awards. Another student was accussed in writing of plagiarism (for something completely different that he hadn't even done) by a very dim Dean who really needed to read his rule book or at least a dictionary (we were lucky not to get sued on that one!).
In reply to Offwidth:
Lend us that dictionary so I can look up 'accussed'; I'm guessing the past participle of 'sworn at'?
>
> Another student was accussed in writing of plagiarism (for something completely different that he hadn't even done) by a very dim Dean who really needed to read his rule book or at least a dictionary (we were lucky not to get sued on that one!).
> Another student was accussed in writing of plagiarism (for something completely different that he hadn't even done) by a very dim Dean who really needed to read his rule book or at least a dictionary (we were lucky not to get sued on that one!).
Lend us that dictionary so I can look up 'accussed'; I'm guessing the past participle of 'sworn at'?
In reply to NEClimber:
In that real world we all inhabit if you are trying to create a description of a problem and your words approximate to a previous description I don't think anyone is going to, frankly, give a damn. It's when people just cut and paste whole swathes of other peoples work that folks get touchy. So a paragraph long verbatim copy of a description from another work might not go down so well (unless of course you are creating edition 12 of a work for a particular publisher).
And to relate to an earlier point - you will find that many contracts of employment, especially in academia, specifically refer to to 'ownership' of anything created in work time.
In that real world we all inhabit if you are trying to create a description of a problem and your words approximate to a previous description I don't think anyone is going to, frankly, give a damn. It's when people just cut and paste whole swathes of other peoples work that folks get touchy. So a paragraph long verbatim copy of a description from another work might not go down so well (unless of course you are creating edition 12 of a work for a particular publisher).
And to relate to an earlier point - you will find that many contracts of employment, especially in academia, specifically refer to to 'ownership' of anything created in work time.
In reply to Offwidth:
Really? I've seen many that take the right to use them free of charge, but never any that claim ownership.
> Similar problems exist with photos submitted to most big websites.
Really? I've seen many that take the right to use them free of charge, but never any that claim ownership.
In reply to andyathome:
That did make me smile, however, you will soon get borred pikking meyup as I kent speel for toffey. Laos hwne oyu ytep oto afts iwht wto ifgnres osemitses elttres egt wspaepd! It's one of the reasons I became a passable editor as I know when it's important to check and when it's not.
Irrespective of how much leeway I'd give a senior manager (with good secretarial support) on this subject compared to an engineering academic spending a few minutes on the internet (assuming the point was a little barbed), the reference in question was clearly to the meaning of the word (plagiarism) not the spelling. Spelling nazis can sometimes forget dictionaries have other uses. Twas an accusation as twas never upheld.
That did make me smile, however, you will soon get borred pikking meyup as I kent speel for toffey. Laos hwne oyu ytep oto afts iwht wto ifgnres osemitses elttres egt wspaepd! It's one of the reasons I became a passable editor as I know when it's important to check and when it's not.
Irrespective of how much leeway I'd give a senior manager (with good secretarial support) on this subject compared to an engineering academic spending a few minutes on the internet (assuming the point was a little barbed), the reference in question was clearly to the meaning of the word (plagiarism) not the spelling. Spelling nazis can sometimes forget dictionaries have other uses. Twas an accusation as twas never upheld.
In reply to NEClimber:
Most magazines have an agreement that gives them "First British Publication Rights", or something similar. You retain the copyright, but they have the option to "exclusive" first publication of your work in GB. This can create a problem if they don't actually publish your work, as it effectively prevents you publishing it yourself.
In the software world copyright issues can be very involved. I am involved in one project where the contributors retain the copyright (fairly normal), but the publication of their work is governed by the terms of the software licence. In this particular case the person in charge of the project decided to alter its licence from GPL2 to GPL3, which was allowed under the terms of the licence. However, he later decided that he wanted to revert to GPL2 (not specifically allowed). He had to contact each of the several hundred contributors to ask for their agreement.
Most magazines have an agreement that gives them "First British Publication Rights", or something similar. You retain the copyright, but they have the option to "exclusive" first publication of your work in GB. This can create a problem if they don't actually publish your work, as it effectively prevents you publishing it yourself.
In the software world copyright issues can be very involved. I am involved in one project where the contributors retain the copyright (fairly normal), but the publication of their work is governed by the terms of the software licence. In this particular case the person in charge of the project decided to alter its licence from GPL2 to GPL3, which was allowed under the terms of the licence. However, he later decided that he wanted to revert to GPL2 (not specifically allowed). He had to contact each of the several hundred contributors to ask for their agreement.
In reply to Offwidth:
If UKC really do now own my photos, then can they sue me because I've used them elsewhere?
If UKC really do now own my photos, then can they sue me because I've used them elsewhere?
yes if you else them elsewhere (ie from the time you submitted them) but not if before
In reply to NEClimber:
Apologies if this repeats something that's been said umpteen times already but I can't be ar*ed to wade through all 70 odd replies.
Copyright exists in any original work, from a personal letter to a multi volume novel and beyond. It does not have to be published to be copyright and putting it on a message board/forum/data base does not alter that. All these posts are actually copyright but putting them on UKC gives implied consent to publish, though only on this forum.
However, there is no copyright in information or an idea, merely in the way it is presented. So if another person re-writes your description, even using your info, there is no breach of copyright. How much needs to be changed for it to cease to be copyright infringement is the sort of thing lawyers get rich on.
This brings us to the second and, in practical terms at least, the more important part. If someone breaches your copyright you are entitled to recompense. In most cases this is usually the amount they would have paid for that work in the first place plus a bit on top (often double the original fee). In terms of a route description that's likely to be very little indeed and not worth pursuing.
Apologies if this repeats something that's been said umpteen times already but I can't be ar*ed to wade through all 70 odd replies.
Copyright exists in any original work, from a personal letter to a multi volume novel and beyond. It does not have to be published to be copyright and putting it on a message board/forum/data base does not alter that. All these posts are actually copyright but putting them on UKC gives implied consent to publish, though only on this forum.
However, there is no copyright in information or an idea, merely in the way it is presented. So if another person re-writes your description, even using your info, there is no breach of copyright. How much needs to be changed for it to cease to be copyright infringement is the sort of thing lawyers get rich on.
This brings us to the second and, in practical terms at least, the more important part. If someone breaches your copyright you are entitled to recompense. In most cases this is usually the amount they would have paid for that work in the first place plus a bit on top (often double the original fee). In terms of a route description that's likely to be very little indeed and not worth pursuing.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...