We turned on WFMY News2 at 6PM this evening to catch the headlines and weather while we were having a quick supper before going out to put campaign signs at the polls. I was surprised and amused to hear Sandra Hughes give an update on the Greensboro Coliseum - verbatim excerpts from my November 4 post on that very same subject, including the "hotbed for religious events" quote - with no acknowledgment that this blog was the source. My husband jokingly wondered if I would be receiving a paycheck for writing the story copy.
I'm aware that the media frequently consults my blog for stories and updates, and I am honored that they trust and use the information I provide. Most of the things I post are public information, and it's certainly not copyrighted. In my opinion, the more citizens who are supplied with accurate information, the better off we all are, so I am genuinely pleased that the information is being passed along.
BUT, it sure would be nice if they would acknowledge the source of their story - particularly when it's a direct "borrow" - and give me a little credit for it now and then. (And to be fair, many reporters do indeed do that already.) {smile}
Monday, November 07, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
You might consider adding a creative commons license to your blog. It's sort of like a copyright, but you can specify the conditions under which your work can be copied (for commercial purposes or not, with or without attribution, modification allowed or not, etc.)
Check it out here.
Thanks for the suggestion and information, Roch. I really didn't want to come across as complaining, just wanted to give the media a gentle nudge in the ribs.
Sandy, I think you should *demand* compensation for WFMY's use of your 'blog without attributing the source.
This is why so many people have written off television news altogether. What a joke.
Best regards,
Tony Ledford
I've got a similar issue going with the N&R which used a post of mine without permission. There is an eagerness on the part of the media to tap the online community's resources. Unfortunately that eagerness has resulted in some serious mistakes, and in your case, outright plagiarism.
Hmm. I heard a presentation from an attorney that seemed to indicate that what we write on our blogs IS automatically copyrighted.
It's just up to you to enforce it, if you wish.
Most all news stations "rip" from sources they don't properly credit - unless they get it wrong. It's one of the reasons people have turned to bloggers, because the "middlemen" often spin the news.
Read it in the morning, watch it at night.
Don Moore
Hypothetically speaking, if I was serving as your political strategist, I would advise you of the obvious recourse which would be to ignore claims of litigation against local mass media outlets.
However, I can certainly identify with the frustration of copyright infringement and larceny of intellectual property, both online and offline.
In the end, publicity is a positive attribute for any political contribution, insofar as the alleged perpetrators pronounce and spell your name correctly.
Should read "political campaign" rather than "political contribution."
Clearly, I was espousing an egregious Freudian slip of the cyber-tongue.
Please refrain from presuming that a looming political contribution is underway, particularly in light of the notion that I am woefully impoverished and residing outside of your district.
Now I know where the TV people are getting their copy when they're not simply taking it from the newspaper...
Thanks for all the feedback. I certainly do not intend to sue anyone over this, but I am seriously considering Roch's suggestion about a creative commons license, mostly likely just asking for attribution when my "work" is used.
To "anonymous": My complaint is they did not pronounce my name at all, so no publicity was forthcoming that us politicians crave. {big smile}
Seriously, my post was intended to raise the question "What is the proper use and protocol when information from blogs is used?" Legalities aside, it's just plain common courtesy to acknowledge one's source. I know my high school English teacher certainly would have awarded a big fat "F" on any report I submitted if I had not properly referenced it.
News "screw" as WFMY is known, is really a hoot! They frequently misspell words and titles in their on-screen graphics and their reporterd have problems readin the teleprompter and written copy.
One probably shouldn't be surprised that they will report, verbatim, material that is far beyond the talents of their news writers.
Sorry about that. We've had that problem frequently over the years, and not just on TV -- some local radio "news" operations and even some smaller papers have plagiarized our work on occasion.
Book authors, print journalists, broadcast journalists, online/new media journalists and similar ilk have been known to plagiarize the work of others in the past.
In the case of a local television affiliate referencing material that appears on a weblog or personal website of an individual, whether an individual is classified as a private citizen or public figure, is generally erred on the side of proper attribution.
This, of course, presumes that the offending entity wishes to value ethics, integrity and professionalism in their dissemination and reporting of vital news and information to the masses.
Moreover, one must take heed of the notion that local radio and television reporters in a mass media market such as Greensboro/High Point/Winston-Salem are largely entry-level and garnering experience. Hence, the lack of attribution for sourcing material is often overlooked.
Roch's suggestion of seeking a creative commons license is certainly valid and option that I would certainly consider if you're interested in preserving your own intellectual property. Otherwise, relish the publicity that is generated by your weblog.
Clearly, the high level of participation on your weblog in the form of increased readership, in an era in which newspaper circulation figures are waning, radio listenership is dwindling and television viewership is declining, is a benefit of your weblog.
In the future, I think that the Internet will surmount traditional mainstream media sources for information and news that is able to be personalized for the interests of every unique reader.
You could also contact David Briscoe at WFMY-2 via e-mail or telephone in an effort to seek proper attribution for information from your weblog that appeared in the programming schedule.
WFMY News 2 And CBS Show Programming
Contact: David Briscoe
Phone: 336-379-5687
Email: dbriscoe@wfmy.gannett.com
"News "screw" as WFMY is known, is really a hoot! They frequently misspell words and titles in their on-screen graphics and their reporterd have problems readin the teleprompter and written copy.
One probably shouldn't be surprised that they will report, verbatim, material that is far beyond the talents of their news writers"
So when were you fired from WFMY?
I never worked for them. WFMY has been known as "News screw" for more than 20 years because of their ineptness.
I have now applied the creative commons license Roch suggested. Let's see if it will be effective.
The cool thing about the creative commons license, is that you can specify certain terms for use. By electing the "share alike" option, Sandy, you have probably effectively squelched any use by corporate media as it is unlikely they would substitute their existing copyrights with share alike. I don't know if that was your intention or not.
Thanks, Roch, for the evaulation of what I did. I have now gone back and altered it to "attribution only."
Post a Comment