How many profilers find their efforts republished elsewhere?

Question

Just for Fun - Came across an article published in a local newspaper (identification of article now removed, both editor and journalist apologised and the story has been withdrawn from online publication) The article is a simple aggregation of bits and pieces I collected for three profiles I wrote up in Wikitree, the author adding nothing of his own except an old postcard used as a header. 

Post here revised - apology received and accepted.

PS: Article now back online with a nice recognition, and hand shakes all-round.

Comments

May I please present another point of view, Valerie.  When I write profiles I use the information and my own words, with the exception being I've added occasionally a newspaper obituary usually published a hundred years earlier.

I've seen photos I've posted on WikiTree used elsewhere with no listing it came from me.   Someone emailed me through WikiTree to say they wanted to use the profile I created for my ancestor on their Facebook Club (46,000 members) and I said sure, no problem.  I have no idea if I got credit.  It doesn't matter. I cared that they were interested in the woman I profiled.

If it bothers you, yes, try to get credit for the work you do, because it's important to you.  I may belong to a tiny minority but some of us are happy to share our profiles and photos without getting credit.  How can I explain it?  The credit in my case comes from the creation of the profiles. I keep returning to improve them.  

---

Maybe I'm wrong, but when you write a story, it is automatically copyrighted.  But you should add the (c) 2023 by Valerie Willis.  If you don't, and then somebody uses it, you then have to challenged it, maybe with lawyers, which is expensive.  If you don't try to fight it, then 1. they get away with it, and 2. because you didn't fight it, someone else can claim it as their work by adding the (c) 2023, or 3. it falls into public domain, because no one cared about where the info came from.  If it ever got to court, the Judge would probably throw it out!   There has to be a computer date stamp on the information to prove when the document was written or it has to be published in print somewhere to prove a date, but then again, how does the anyone know how you got the information?  

I think the whole system works on a fear of getting sued, but the chance of getting sued are so small and the chances of losing are so small, nobody is worried about stealing information.

I saw a person write a story, it ended up on a News website, and THEY copyrighted the story, with the note at the bottom that no one could use or re-publish the story!  It wasn't their story to begin with, then they copyright it!  Jerks!  

---

A work belongs to the originator, not  someone who later takes that work and sticks a© (date) on it.  Even if I do not place a copyright statement on my images, I can prove the original date of creation.  The same applies to written work.  The date of the original manuscript (or digital publication) is what matters, not who sticks that cc-date on it.  Profiles here have the change logs, and the site carries the statement "© 2008 - 2023 INTERESTING.COM, INC. CONTENT MAY BE COPYRIGHTED BY WIKITREE COMMUNITY MEMBERS."

edited for accuracy

---

Yes, Melanie!  But who wants to spend the money for lawyers to win a suit?  Then someone else comes along and does it again, over and over and over.  

---

The thing is, even if we place a copyright statement in the txt, it is simple enough to remove it when copying it elsewhere.  Or not, as is so often seen on profiles where the content is copied from places such as Wikipedia.  The statement is only icing on the cake, because very few of us would be willing to follow through with any kind of lawsuit — with or without the © (date) — and if we were, proving the original "manuscript" date would carry more weight than the © (date) statement.

---

Have received a nice apology from both journalist and editor here, and the offending article has been withdrawn from their webpages.

Answer 1

Thats a real piece of media, so they've monetized their site and are making money on such articles. I would ask for credit for the article as it will remain on the web indefinitely, and you can defend the work on here as your own, rather than what will likely come later, where people say its his work. I would email the editor and explain and its likely they will give you a byline on the story.

Answer 2

I haven’t come across it. But I would contact them and ask for acknowledgement.

Comments

Did that as soon as I spotted this a year or so ago, never received a response though. Someone researching for English Heritage is taking an interest in this William Willis, reminding me that someone had cobbled together this article.

Answer 3

I am sorry that you experienced that. I was at a workshop more than ten years ago. I was surprised to see my own work presented to me. It was unsourced. I did talk to the presenter of the workshop later. Plagiarism is a huge problem.

Comments

A, sorry that happened. I hope that workshop wasn't something you paid to attend!

Answer 4

I haven't found my WT work posted elsewhere but my wife has. A whole profile taken verbatim with no source citation.

Answer 5

On another site, a person has copied as a document and saved as pdf a reply I gave to a question about an ancestor, leaving out some of the information so that it appears more definite than a possibility then uploaded it under their name.

I have asked this person to remove it, his reply was not polite.

Comments

I've had that happen to me - if its on FamilySearch, you can report the document for abuse and let them know your work has been plagiarized and you'd like it remove. They've done it every time I have asked. Ancestry is not as easy to deal with.

---

If it had been a document to start with I would have been annoyed.

But as the information I provided was a reply to a question to me sent through the Ancestry online message system, no one else could see the message history. And it really feels like an invasion of my privacy.

The person could have edited the presentation of the  information, so it didn't appear like a private conversation, which it was.

Answer 6

Yes, this has happened to me, both with biography language and personal photographs I have taken. Couple other sites which I won't mention, have used the pictures I had posted on their ancestor and memorial profiles. While I really didn't get bent out of shape by it, a contact by them asking to use the photograph or contents of the bio would have been nice. I have since quit posting personal pictures I have taken on profiles. Another concern of mine has been where photographs have been posted on profiles that I manage. Some of those photos I'm sure came from other sites and I have no way of knowing if permission was asked for or gained for the use of those images.

Comments

I started adding the Research Group that I work with as a source right on the picture, along with the names, birth and death dates of the people in the picture.

Not because I think it will dissuade people from saving it to another tree more because it stops people from attaching the pic to the wrong person.

On occasions people have said they thought a particular person in a photo looked like an ancestor so they attached the photo to someone else, who was born in another country at the wrong time.