Alternet plagiarism

This is infuriating. Today, Alternet published an essay titled "14 Surprising Benefits of Being Unemployed" by Jeffrey A. Dvorkin.

It was taken verbatim from an essay on my Web site, "The Surprising Benefits of Being Unemployed", posted there some years ago. I wrote it. My name is David Dvorkin, not Jeffrey Dvorkin. And I'm extremely upset by this.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/141703/14_surprising_benefits_of_being_unemployed_/

It looks like a stupid mistake rather than plagiarism -- then again, I'm not the one to make that determination.

I suspect that a deeply humble apology will soon be appearing in David D's e-mailbox.

--d!

It's here: http://www.dvorkin.com/essays/unemben.htm

My guess is that they will pull it.

Ron Paul groupies! http://www.dailypaul.com/node/101654 (they link to alternet for it, and credit 'Jeffrey')

http://www.onepennysheet.com/

Thanks for letting me know about that.

Mistake? How does anyone make a "mistake" like that? Reach into your blog archives and OOOOPS!!! cut and paste your work...by mistake?

The baastids owe you some MONEY.

and a link.

That's not stealing; it's stupidity and a misunderstanding of fair use.

an author about a subject of interest to my blog (or even a few chapters--let's go with Baba Wawa's AUDITION, for example) you don't think her publisher is going to be up my ass with a lawsuit in two shakes?

I don't think "stupidity and a misunderstanding of fair use" would cut it as an excuse. I wouldn't even TRY shopping that to a judge.

I'd probably have to pay damages, lots of them.

If ALTERNET is "misunderstanding" fair use, they just need to get the fuck off the web. They've been doing this for awhile. It's not like they are babes in the woods. Some jerkwad STOLE that thing.

What's wrong with LINKING to the guy's blog? How hard is that? Or ASKING for permission? That's pretty easy too.

Sheesh. I am amazed you'd defend the indefensible. They ripped that guy off and thought he wouldn't notice.

that if you give proper attribution, then it's okay.

Not so, of course.

That's brass balls.

Demand a pile of money from them! Get pissed off!

And I wouldn't want to put them out of business.

On the other hand, I'm out of work and would certainly appreciate fair pay for my work - without having to threaten legal action to get it.

are/were involved, at least initially.

someone has money, & they pay staff & as you noted, they pay writers - at least those with enough name not to be easy marks for theft.

i hate phoney "progressives".

http://www.narconews.com/hazenstory1.html


"-- Alternet's cavalier theft, on two occasions, of stories from our own publication, and Alternet's dishonesty in having later claimed that it did not offer one of those stories for sale, when, in fact, it did."

Kos, in particular. He would get noticed.

you get their attention & challenge the theft.


This seems to be the new business model: stealing content. Google is scooping up mass stuff without regard to copyright, leaving it up to writers/copyright holders to assert their copyright or lose it.

I was saying it wasn't theft - because they cited the source of the piece.

It was a violation of fair use and copyright.

A lot of people, justifiably, see that as a form of plagiarism, but generally that happens in another context. For instance, a number of years ago a very experienced and well-respected historian paraphrased another author's work in a book - but he didn't paraphrase sufficiently. He did cite the work in his footnotes, but failed to place the only slightly modified quotation in quotes.

He was eaten alive - his reputation never really recovered. What he did was considered plagiarism, despite the fact that he cited the work; but he incorporated it into his own work - in essence he made it look (even if it wasn't deliberate) like the information was his original thought.

This is different. Alternet is not attempting to incorporate the piece in a larger body of their own writing. All they did was copy it from David's site without asking permission (and got his first name wrong - which is weird, but not necessarily nefarious).

I'm sorry this upsets you so much. I agree they should have asked permission to use the piece in its entirety and they most certainly should have gotten the name right. But it's not theft. Just stupidity.

I don't understand how stealing something from someone without asking permission is not theft.

And then having the cojones to assert COPYRIGHT over what they've stolen?

An excerpt is one thing. The whole thing with a name change? Naaah. Now I wonder if they've done this to others.

And headed in opposite directions.

;)

They don't dare do it to people who are Heavies and Lawyered UP, though....

"Fair Use" = excerpting a few paragraphs, not an entire work. This is widely understood, though knowledge of details may not be.

Alternet is the biggest syndicator (near-monopoly) of alternative media content. They're a publisher with paid staff & lawyers to protect their own content.

They knew what they were doing, they've stole people's content before, & your repeated claim that it's an honest mistake = disingenuous.

who am I to argue with such a succinctly stated answer?

permission, copyright it & resell it. get it?

alternet has been in business for years, it's the #1 alternative media syndication service, & it's run by people with long experience in media & publishing, well-connected in media & dem politics, btw.

it's not an innocent mistake.

and i doubt your defense is so innocent either.

Funded by:

Alki Fund of the Tides Foundation
Arca Foundation
Bauman Foundation
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Cloud Mountain Foundation
Compton Foundation
Funding Exchange (Donor Advised)
Glaser Progress Foundation
LP Brown Foundation
Nathan Cummings Foundation
Panta Rhea Foundation
Park Foundation
Anonymous Donor of RSF Social Finance
Wallace Global Fund
Working Assets Grantmaking Fund of the Tides Foundation


Paid staff:



Rights & Liberties
Editor: Liliana Segura
Protecting your rights, habeas corpus, torture, death penalty, eavesdropping, spying, no-fly lists and more.

Corporate Accountability & Workplace
Editor: Joshua Holland
Economics, immigration, worker rights, and the global economy.

Democracy & Elections
Editor: Steven Rosenfeld
Election theft, voting rights, money and politics, and political reform.

Environment
Editor: Tara Lohan
Global warming, healthy food, clean water, population control, and nature protection.

Media Culture
Editor: Jan Frel
Provocative commentary on media reform, news bias, Net Neutrality, corporate media control and more.

Reproductive Justice & Gender
Editor: Jill Filipovic
Women's rights, reproductive health and education, gender, race, sexuality and more.

Health & Wellness
Editor: Heather Gehlert
Personal health and fitness, health care legislation, Big Pharma, medical developments and more.

War on Iraq
Editor: Liliana Segura
News and analysis on Sunni, Shiites, Kurds, terrorism, troop withdrawal debates, and more.

Water
Editor: Tara Lohan
Commentary and analysis on the global water crisis.

Immigration
Editor: Joshua Holland
Coverage of the continuing American story of immigration, from the immigrants' point of view.

Drug Reporter
Editor: Jan Frel
Drug policy, and the "war on drugs."

Sex & Relationships
Editor: Tana Ganeva
Stories about sexuality, love and relationships.



Yep, just a bunch of hicks there.

I misinterpreted your post.

I'm oscillating between mild amusement and a level of anger that fuzzes my reading ability.

and even people who 'should' have a handle on it may not.

I at no point implied they were hicks - or even unintelligent, deliberately obtuse, or anything else - anymore than I suggested they were within their rights to do what they did (as another poster suggested). Fascinating how I could do both at the same time; I'm obviously far more clever than I've ever believed myself.

Trademark fair use law wound up in the Supreme Court before it was resolved; higher education struggles with it every day. The growth of Internet blogs and websites has complicated the issue even further. It is EASY to say 'just don't do it' or 'just ask' - but people frequently don't bother. Look at DU - people violate fair use almost every day; most aren't doing it deliberately, but they're smart people . . . by your lights they shouldn't ever do it at all.

Every single case seems to be handled differently by the courts.

It seems to me that David is dealing with this in a responsible way, and since the issue is his, he is the one that matters. He admitted, up thread, that he hadn't bothered to put a copyright disclaimer on his work, which he didn't need to do as it is assumed - but what one needs to do and what it is wise to do are frequently two different things (and David admits that, as well).

use.

It was on his blog/website, it's under copyright.


10 Big Myths about copyright explained


1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."

This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html


"Fair use is generally a short EXCERPT and almost always attributed."

They copied the entire article, without permission, and attributed it to someone else.

There's NO possibility they "didn't understand the law".

for Alternet, for their "stupidity" and a "misunderstanding", and now you disparage the OP's wisdom. Nice.

Exactly who do you think you're fooling?

Edit: to correct quotes

There is a lot of knee-jerk 'off with their heads' and very little thought going on in this thread - rational discussion can't compete with the poo-slinging.

The OP actually grasps the situation as it stands, even though he is understandably upset, and is dealing with it in a responsible manner.

You? I have no idea what's going on in your head.

Sent via a form on their site. I wish they provided an actual e-mail address.

Apparently they do pay for articles, so if they use my writing, they owe me money. Which would be particularly appreciated, since I'm currently unemployed. (Oh, the irony!)

contact them and I'm sure they will correct it

There seem to be other articles by Jeffrey A. Dvorkin.

Moreover, I was completely unaware of this. I haven't submitted anything to them, nor have they contacted me to ask for permission.

Linking to a Web page is one thing. Copying it entirely in a publication is another.

Jeffrey A. Dvorkin

I bet you'll hear back from alternet after the weekend. :hi:

or your blog that indicates anyone needs to contact your for permission before using your work.

They probably don't understand fair use (though they should), and copied the entire article believing that posting the link was sufficient.

And they probably didn't get it from your site, but from another site (or from a circulating email). Perhaps if you ask them where they got it from originally, you'll be able to trace the route it took to their computer.

It's not professional, but they did provide the link to your site, so it's not exactly plagiarism.

It shouldn't be necessary because copyright is automatic as soon as you write something, and Alternet should know that.

I've resisted adding a copyright notice to each page, but I guess it's time to do so.

That they took the step of adding their copyright statement is particularly egregious and definitely deserves a head smack.

I don't understand the name change, unless they received the piece from someone else and simply assumed that you were the other fellow.

Assumption is damned stupid and it's made them look damned stupid.

I teach history and often use copyrighted work (within fair use) - but I'm constantly fighting to make my students understand fair use/copyright infringement, plagiarism, intellectual property. The internet has made it so much more difficult.

It seems they know enough to do that ... even over stuff they don't have rights to.

Reproduction of material from any AlterNet pages without written permission is strictly prohibited.
© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

Makes me wonder what else the bastards have stolen over the years...

:)

without payment unless he gets their attention.

who may now *own* the copyright of the work unless he fights it.

They direct you to their feedback form, and when you fill it in and submit it, you get a message saying they appreciate feedback but can't respond to all such messages - i.e., most of them aren't even looked at.

They really need to have a separate way to contact them regarding, oh, say, legal matters.

Well, I've contacted them, put it on my blog and here and Facebook. If nothing comes of any of that, then the next step is to get SFWA, Science Fiction Writers Association, involved; we have a lawyer member who writes stern letters on behalf of wronged members.

Hmm. I wonder if Bartcop would find this interesting? Or Drudge! Drudge would be the last resort, and one I'd hate to use, but it's a possibility.

run or fund alternet.

http://www.alternet.org/discuss/

http://newcafe.org/

Thanks.

not an e-mail or leaving feedback on their website.

This is their phone number:

1 415 284 1420

http://whois.domaintools.com/independentmedia.org

Call them up and get this straightened out. There's no excuse for publishing your entire article with a mis-credited author name and a lousy cite link. They need to publish a correction at the very least.

I'll ask to have it deleted.

OS

which he said has a near monopoly in the market of "alternative" news syndication.

He outlines a number of problems with Alternet's operation and its director: in addition to taking half the fee paid for content, he says Alternet also stole content and blacklisted writers.

He also touches on the sometimes rivalry with "alternative" news groups, including FAIR, Project Censored, and IndyMedia, and expresses hopes for looming competition. In the fight to legitimize "alternative" media, are the evils of the mainstream unavoidable?"

http://www.metafilter.com/tags/AlterNet.




-- Alternet's cavalier theft, on two occasions, of stories from our own publication, and Alternet's dishonesty in having later claimed that it did not offer one of those stories for sale, when, in fact, it did.


Not only stole your content: they can make $ selling your content:


"Today I explain for our readers why Narco News and I will no longer allow Alternet to republish our work.

I have never been enthusiastic about Alternet's charging of a usurious 50 percent fee for the articles it resells. But until now, Alternet has been the only game in town. It has had near monopoly status as a syndication agency for a particular niche of "alternative" news. But, as with other monopolies, Alternet has grown fat in abusing its position in a manner that now causes more harm than good..."



http://www.narconews.com/hazenstory1.html

http://www.blogger.com/profile/00353032260504750650

According to his bio, he's all about ethics in Journalism. I bet he wouldn't appreciate Alternet putting his name on something he didn't write.

Waiting for a reply.

this is so bizarre and irresponsible of them ....

That's not cool.

According to the e-mail I got, that's not supposed to happen. They do have agreements with various Web sites allowing them to copy content without getting permission for each item, and somehow the fact that mine is not one of those sites slipped through the crack. How that happened will be looked into.

I got a nice e-mail from an Alternet editor, apologizing and promising to fix the byline. That has been done.

She said that the incorrect attribution was an honest mistake because Jeffrey Dvorkin was already in the database and someone assumed he was the author of this article. (That's a disadvantage to having an unusual name that I hadn't thought of before. I thought it would always be an advantage for a writer.)

She said the essay should not have been used without permission and she'll try to find out how that happened.

She also offered payment, which I gladly accepted.

Jeffrey Dvorkin replied to my e-mail in a friendly way, complimenting the article.

So I would say that the clouds and rain have passed away and the skies are blue and clear, except that I greatly prefer cloudy skies and rain and cool temperatures in the real world, so that's not a good image. But in this case, I'll make an exception.

Thanks, all of you, for your sympathy and encouragement.

you're supposed to get some of it.)