Plantagenet Connection - Denial of Permission to print.
Rosie Bevan
Montgomery research in The Plantagenet Connection. His request was couched
in the phrase, " Do you gave [sic] objection to a reprint?"
Mr Finton has already flouted my request not to print a post of mine once
already,
so for the record I would like it publicly known that I deny him permission
to reprint the research.
The reasons for this are
1. I object to Mr Finton's practice of taking material from SGM to publish
for his private commercial gain, without asking permission from the poster.
Despite
his protestations he continues to take material posted to the newsgroup,
either without asking permission of the author, or ignoring the wishes of
those who deny him permission.
2. I do not feel he has the editorial skills nor ethical practice I would
expect from an editor of such a journal.
3. I am intending to publish the research elsewhere with a reputable body.
Rosie Bevan
D. Spencer Hines
Crystal-Clear....
You are doing everyone here a great service when you take a stand such
as this ---- and stick to it.
Aloha,
Spencer
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
""Rosie Bevan"" <rbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:00d601c29efb$10b87860$de00...@mshome.net...
Douglas Richardson
While I enjoyed reading Ms. Bevan's original post on the Montgomery
family, I see no purpose in this latest post of her's below. It has
nothing whatsoever to do with medieval history. This is basically a
private matter between herself and Mr. Finton. Moreover, the tone of
this post lacks the collegiality that is necessary for the newsgroup
to function on an even keel. We need a new mantra for the newsgroup
in 2003: Keep it friendly, keep it on topic. Ms. Bevan's post fails
on both accounts.
As for Ms. Bevan's allegation of Mr. Finton's "private commercial
gain," this is surely a figment of Ms. Bevan's wild imagination.
Truth is very few people get wealthy working in genealogy. For all
purposes, it remains a glorified hobby. In contrast, I know many
wealthy people in insurance, banking, medicine, real estate, and law.
As for Mr. Finton's endeavors, I appreciate the fact that the
newsgroup has a related journal which publishes significant newsgroup
posts in digest format. This is a great service, not a hindrance to
the newsgroup. As for Mr. Finton's editorial skills, I've been
writing all my adult life. I find Mr. Finton's journal is
informative, well presented, and free of typos.
My impression is that Ms. Bevan has an ax to grind with Mr. Finton
that has nothing to do with his journal. If so, I encourage the two
of them to work things out privately with each other. Good luck to
both of them. Now let's return to medieval genealogy.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royalancestry.com
rbe...@paradise.net.nz ("Rosie Bevan") wrote in message news:<00d601c29efb$10b87860$de00...@mshome.net>...
Reedpcgen
<the tone of this post lacks the collegiality that is necessary for the
newsgroup>
So as long as you personally decry it, it is o.k. for you to commit what you
accuse others of? Yours was a message you should have sent privately, rather
than publicly reinterpreting what you think Rosie meant, and then reprimanding
her for what you designed.
Best always, Paul
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
Asking for Rosie's permission isnt the same thing as getting it...
And one is under NO obligation to give it, whether it be to publish elsewhere or just to wait till the right moment
what the heck is this strange idea about having some male perogative to usurp another's work, under pretext they are women, have worked for you before, or are subscibed? I can understand how you may not have realized that someone might object (happens to me) but then when you find out, best to say oops! & decide not to slip up again... RESPECT for others is the only hope of respect for oneself (& Lord knows, it has never worked for me, but I refuse to become the joke they want to make of me, & suggest you take care to do the same...)
There is no substitute for respecting your contributors, who make your paper... cutting out a contributor of the quality of Rosie Bevan, as everyone knows, is like cutting off the nose to spite your face... you're lucky to have her, you should be showing her appreciation, paying her for her work, adding to your prestige -- rather than making her pay for a subscription which you then illegally terminate... in fact, anyone contributing to your publication (I certainly never would) should automatically have a lifetime free subscription... but then you wouldnt have any paying subscribers, would you? making them pay you for a publication that they also make for you, is a clever trick, but...
I mean, what's this about terminating someone's (apparently paid for) subscription, if they dont let you rape their work when ever you want to?
it is of course, a COMPLETE coincidence, that all the searcher's mentioned, whose works you feel free to usurp, are women... what a bunch of milksops the rest of you are to not use your alleged "aristocratic powers" to influence this poor, misguided phallocrat, to change his wicked ways...
Because there's no advantage to driving him out; what you need to do, if you can drive, is drive him correctly...
Guys like him & the rest of you, are why a lot of other people including myself, have an only approximative idea of copyrite... my rights & copyrights have NEVER been honored in publication, which is why I no longer publish... which is I think, the only alternative for those who would take no risks...
It also seems strange that ken doesnt seem to distinguish the difference between the duties of a for public, profit publication & the leeway & tolerance allowed for nonprofit & personal use.
Perhaps if instead of attacking him, someone tried again to take the time to explain? naaahhh... at some point, he just has to get it, all by himself...
-----Message d'origine-----
De : KHF...@aol.com <KHF...@aol.com>
À : GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : lundi 9 décembre 2002 06:39
Objet : Re: Plantagenet Connection - Denial of Permission to print.
In a message dated 12/8/02 1:50:50 PM, rbe...@paradise.net.nz writes:
> 1. I object to Mr Finton's practice of taking material from SGM to publish
> for his private commercial gain, without asking permission from the poster.
> Despite his protestations he continues to take material posted to the
> newsgroup,
> either without asking permission of the author, or ignoring the wishes of
> those who deny him permission.
>
It was not necessary to print this on the forum. My understanding was that Ms
Bevan was co-writing this or researched this with Mardi Carter and MichaelAnn
Guido -- both of whom have written for THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION. I am not
particularly interested in the material, but MichaelAnn had written an
article on the Carters for this next issue and some new findings caused her
to have to pull that article until she could research the matter further and
find some different connections. I thought that Ms Guido might want to
substitute the Montgomery materials if she had helped to research them.
A simple, I am saving this for another journal would have sufficed. Instead,
Ms Bevan decided to flout her personal taste publicly. For the record, I
obviously asked her permission to reprint this material, so the reason for
her number one are make little sense. The rest is a matter of opinion. I am
quite happy to not publish anything buy Ms Bevan. Her subscription has been
terminated.
Kenneth Harper Finton
__________________________________________
HT Communications / PO Box 1401 / Arvada CO 80001
VOICE: 303-420-4888 FAX: 303-420-4845
<A HREF="http://htcommunications.org/homepage.html">http://htcommunications.org/homepage.html</A>
KHF...@AOL.com
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
Asking for Rosie's permission isnt the same thing as getting it...
And one is under NO obligation to give it, whether it be to publish elsewhere or just to wait till the right moment
what the heck is this strange idea about having some male perogative to usurp another's work, under pretext they are women, have worked for you before, or are subscibed? I can understand how you may not have realized that someone might object (happens to me) but then when you find out, best to say oops! & decide not to slip up again... RESPECT for others is the only hope of respect for oneself (& Lord knows, it has never worked for me, but I refuse to become the joke they want to make of me, & suggest you take care to do the same...)
There is no substitute for respecting your contributors, who make your paper... cutting out a contributor of the quality of Rosie Bevan, as everyone knows, is like cutting off the nose to spite your face... you're lucky to have her, you should be showing her appreciation, paying her for her work, adding to your prestige -- rather than making her pay for a subscription which you then illegally terminate... in fact, anyone contributing to your publication (I certainly never would) should automatically have a lifetime free subscription... but then you wouldnt have any paying subscribers, would you? making them pay you for a publication that they also make for you, is a clever trick, but...
I mean, what's this about terminating someone's (apparently paid for) subscription, if they dont let you rape their work when ever you want to?
it is of course, a COMPLETE coincidence, that all the searcher's mentioned, whose works you feel free to usurp, are women... what a bunch of milksops the rest of you are to not use your alleged "aristocratic powers" to influence this poor, misguided phallocrat, to change his wicked ways...
Because there's no advantage to driving him out; what you need to do, if you can drive, is drive him correctly...
Guys like him & the rest of you, are why a lot of other people including myself, have an only approximative idea of copyrite... my rights & copyrights have NEVER been honored in publication, which is why I no longer publish... which is I think, the only alternative for those who would take no risks...
Douglas Richardson
This matter is a private one between Ms. Bevan and Mr. Finton. We
need to leave it to the two of them to work out. I sincerely hope
they do. As a woman of honor, I know Ms. Bevan will do the right
thing by Mr. Finton.
New mantra in 2003: Keep it friendly, keep it on topic. If you go
off topic, mark it that way, so people can skip it if they choose.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/9/02 7:46:12 AM, Xan...@wanadoo.fr writes:
> I mean, what's this about terminating someone's (apparently paid for)
> subscription, if they dont let you rape their work when ever you want to?
>
Rape the work? That is a strange metaphor. No _paid_ subscription is ever
terminated without a refund. Ms Bevan can still get an international PDF file
from me if she requests it. She has in the past received free printed copies,
but the cost of mailing to New Zealand is far greater that the publishing
cost. I was taken back by Ms Bevan's hostility and lack of etiquette in not
sending me a personal reply that she prefers that I not publish that
material. What I meant was that I will not be sending issues to her in New
Zealand for free at my expense if that is the way she feels about the
journal.
Remember that everyone has the right to quote things that are posted on a
scholarly forum such as this as long as sources and credit is given for the
original content or discovery. This is not to say that complete posts can be
taken verbatim without permission, but the act of writing a report on new
discoveries by the press is a right given by law to anyone who reports on
such things. All news journals do just that. The difference between the
PLANTAGENET CONNECTION and other journals is that I often report on new
findings that are of interest to the subscriber base. It is, in many ways, a
news journal for medieval research. Whenever possible, I refer people to
full-length texts that are published elsewhere or are planned for publication
elsewhere. Since this subscriber base also includes a number of genealogical
libraries, this is a public service. Full texts or articles that are
forthcoming can then be examined by those who are interested.
<<Asking for Rosie's permission isnt the same thing as getting it...>.
Obviously, and since Ms Bevan wants to reserve her complete report, she
certainly can. All it takes is a "Thank you, but I want to reserve this for
another purpose as a PRIVATE e-mail, not badmouthing in a forum. If one has
the desire to slander and vilify, it is best done privately.
-Ken
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor and Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
____________________________________________
HT Communications LLC / PO Box 1401 / Arvada CO 80001
Rick Eaton
go
> off topic, mark it that way, so people can skip it if they choose.
Ditto.
Nathaniel Taylor
...I was taken back by Ms Bevan's hostility and lack of etiquette in not
>sending me a personal reply that she prefers that I not publish that
>material.
While it may have ruffled feathers, it was a useful way to secure
witnesses, a step she appears to have deemed necessary since Mr. Finton
has in the past disregarded such denials of permission.
>... PLANTAGENET CONNECTION ... is, in many ways, a
>news journal for medieval research. Whenever possible, I refer people to
>full-length texts that are published elsewhere or are planned for publication
>elsewhere.
On the contrary: in the past, more than one extensive post has been
plagiarized verbatim in Mr. Finton's journal (that is, copied and
inserted without attribution). This new definition of the format of Mr.
Finton's journal is interesting. If it is correctly done, it should
point many to specific discussions on sgm that are worthy of a wider
audience, without stealing the thunder of those whose careful work is
posted, critiqued and honed on the net.
>Obviously, and since Ms Bevan wants to reserve her complete report, she
>certainly can. All it takes is a "Thank you, but I want to reserve this for
>another purpose" as a PRIVATE e-mail, not badmouthing in a forum. If one has
>the desire to slander and vilify, it is best done privately.
If Finton can so mischaracterize Ms. Bevan's post here, imagine what he
must do to genealogical posts he 'edits' for his journal!
Nat Taylor
R. Battle
<snip>
> Obviously, and since Ms Bevan wants to reserve her complete report, she
> certainly can. All it takes is a "Thank you, but I want to reserve this for
> another purpose as a PRIVATE e-mail, not badmouthing in a forum.
It shouldn't even require a private letter. She didn't submit the report
for your publication, so the onus would be on you to secure permission,
and not on her to deny it.
> If one has
> the desire to slander and vilify, it is best done privately.
<snip>
It's hard to slander (or libel) and vilify privately. ;-)
-Robert Battle
Rosie Bevan
considering his past record of snide remarks and condescending
putdowns to anyone disagreeing with him. Those who have been on the
receiving end of these will know what I mean. He may have his reasons
for being satisfied with Mr Finton's editorial practices - and this
could be interpreted as a reflection of his own standards - but I am
not. Nor should anyone who cares about fair dealing.
As Mr Finton takes material from this newsgroup, and indeed often
manipulates the discussion of topics he is interested in, by adopting
various opinions, in order to elicit some kind of response which he
can then print, his actions are of concern to anyone who posts here.
Mr Finton does not adhere to the normal editorial practices, to which
most academic posters are accustomed. His behaviour has irritated and
alienated a good many people whose contributions would be very
valuable to a journal truly reflecting the accomplishments of SGM.
Furthermore most of the material published in The Plantagenet
Connection is of a second-hand nature previously published elswhere,
and not original research. One of the obvious recent exceptions is
Robert Todd's "Amie" article of which, to my regret, last year I
naively agreed to make a critique because Mr Finton was desperate to
know whether he should publish it after the hoax "Russian" posts made
by Robert Todd.
As regards the article, even coming to the subject cold as I did, the
logic of the arguments was so flawed it was difficult to know where to
begin. What concerned me most, were the highly selective quotations
and misleading conclusions drawn from them. As a critique is meant to
be confidential between editor and reviewer, I was not aware until
four months later (after the rewrite of the article) that my comments
had been relayed to Messrs Richardson (I was surprised to be informed
by Mr Finton that "Doug has been working with Todd on his articles
from the beginning"), and Todd. I certainly did not expect to see
sentences from my critique lifted into the body of the text, as they
were. Nor did I expect to be subjected to a web of lies as Messrs
Finton and Richardson
fell out and complained to me about each other's behaviour. What self
respecting editor would put a reviewer through that kind of nonsense?
The article certainly did not reflect well on Mr Richardson's ability
as a contributor, and Mr Finton suspected he was following an agenda
of his own. Disgusted by the whole situation, I told Mr Finton that I
did not want anything more to do with the review. I also added that I
did not want any post of mine going into The Plantagenet Connection.
Mr Finton chose to flout my request, by publishing an innocuous post,
(misedited), on the very first page of the Winter 2001 edition of the
Plantagenet Connection. This was a pointed act showing that he
intended to do just as he liked, that he had no intention of
respecting my wishes, and that he thought it a big joke that I might
tell him what he could not do. As Nat has remarked, I had little
choice but to post to the public arena after Mr Finton indicated he
intended to publish my Montgomery research. Mr Finton's own actions
have caused this situation, and he should take responsibility for it.
Incidentally I do not have a subscription to Plantagenet Connection,
so Mr Finton's cancellation of it is something of a theatrical
gesture.
I apologise to list members for the unpleasant nature of this matter,
especially the timing of it just before Christmas. It is not my
intention to
start a flame war, but sometimes it is important to make a stand
against
those who seek to deceive and exploit, and to make others aware of
what they may be dealing with.
Rosie
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.02120...@posting.google.com>...
D. Spencer Hines
left verbatim, infra, for record purposes.
These are problems that several of us have addressed before and they
create a severe "chilling effect" on what is posted here, because
honest, hard-working folks don't want to see their Intellectual Property
stolen by the data miners.
One often hears complaints from the guilty, and others, that these
complaints should all be handled *privately* by email.
That is rubbish....
It is important that we ALL know when someone has been badly treated or
their intellectual product has been ripped off.
To hide such important facts from the readership here on SGM, to keep
them in the dark and give them the mushroom treatment, would be worse
than a crime ---- it would be a blunder.
So, we should all carefully read what Rosie Bevan says and take it to
heart ---- lest we be both ignorant and foolish.
I urge anyone who has perhaps read her post casually to read it again,
closely....
Cheers And Aloha,
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Rosie Bevan" <rbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:accbf2a2.0212...@posting.google.com...
Douglas Richardson
>
> Mr Finton chose to flout my request, by publishing an innocuous post,
> (misedited), on the very first page of the Winter 2001 edition of the
> Plantagenet Connection. This was a pointed act showing that he
> intended to do just as he liked, that he had no intention of
> respecting my wishes, and that he thought it a big joke that I might
> tell him what he could not do. As Nat has remarked, I had little
> choice but to post to the public arena after Mr Finton indicated he
> intended to publish my Montgomery research. Mr Finton's own actions
> have caused this situation, and he should take responsibility for it.
>
>
Dear Rosie ~
I've told Mr. Finton repeatedly that he MUST obtain permission from
people before he publishes someone's post. He knows how I stand on
this matter. I've had to ask him to pull my material he planned to
publish because he failed to obtain my permission. However, I don't
bear a grudge towards Mr. Finton. Rather, I've encouraged him to
improve his communication with posters here on the newsgroup. That
includes you.
As the father of six children, perhaps I have more patience than
average. I find patience usually wins out in the end. I've gotten
used to saying to my children, "What part of NO don't you understand?"
They usually get the message. Mr. Finton wants to publish our posts.
It is up to us posters to determine the how, if, and when that
happens. While you may personally find Mr. Finton irritating,
regardless I encourage you and Mr. Finton to work things out
privately, not publicly.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/11/02 11:44:22 PM, bat...@u.washington.edu writes:
> It shouldn't even require a private letter. She didn't submit the report
> for your publication, so the onus would be on you to secure permission,
> and not on her to deny it.
>
Agreed -- lack response is the same as negative response. However, that it
not what happened. Instead, she rails on about Robert Todd and Douglas
Richardson and spreads a good deal on untruthful accusations online in a
public place. The onus WAS on me to ask permission -- and I did -- it is
simple as that. I had learned that Ms Bevan was a difficult person to work
with from the Todd materials. I am quite happy she said 'no', as the piece
would have truly been a waste of pages for me anyway. My motivation was
simply to find an alternative piece for the canceled Carter article. Much
better materials exist.
Leo van de Pas
This was a cheap shot, unworthy of you. You wanted it, you asked for it and
when No was the answer, suddenly "it wasn't worth it anyway, it was a waste
of space". To me this seems a tantrum, again, unworthy of you.
Leo van de Pas
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/11/02 3:39:05 PM, rbe...@paradise.net.nz writes:
> Mr Finton chose to flout my request, [sic] by publishing an innocuous post,
> (misedited), on the very first page of the Winter 2001 edition of the
> Plantagenet Connection. This was a pointed act showing that he
> intended to do just as he liked, that he had no intention of
> respecting my wishes, and that he thought it a big joke that I might
> tell him what he could not do.
>
This simply is not so. Neither was it misedited nor was it protected
intellectual property. Ms Bevan's very short post was in the form of a
question about Robert Bruce that was answered by Robert Baxter and I had
permission to reprint Mr. Baxter's reply to the question. It is not necessary
to have permission to reprint such a question and there was no ulterior
motives involved. I simply credited her for asking the question -- which is
better that any other alternative open to me, such as asking the question
myself (when I did not). The only reason the question was published was so
that the answer could be known. It is the answer that was the primary focus,
obviously.
Ms Bevan obviously misunderstood most of the communications about Robert
Todd's paper. Her attempt to critique it for me before publication ended up
in an unfortunate series of misunderstandings. I simply wanted a neutral
observer's reaction to the piece, but instead got involved in allegations
from Ms Bevan over which I had no control. I informed her from the start that
I found some things that were wrong with the Todd article. If I were to
publish it, I wanted these things rewritten. Thus, the purpose of the
critique was to make the article better, not to pass judgment on the
conclusions. As it turned out, it was far too huge a job to do such a
critique. Many thousands of pages were written on this forum after the
article was published -- all of them critiquing the article.
Neither I not Douglas Richardson made any claim that Mr. Richardson helped to
write Todd's article. Had he done so, he would have been credited. Robert
Todd sent him an advance copy for comment before the article was revised and
eventually published. What comments he made were between himself and Mr.
Todd.
Ms Bevan is correct that she never had a paid subscription to THE PLANTAGENET
CONNECTION. I sent the issues to her in New Zealand at my expense.
Sorry to take the time to reply to this off-topic slam, but since these are
archived materials, it is sometimes necessary to reply to such things for the
sake of clarity and understanding. Some accusations need to be addressed.
Spencer Hines can be ignored because of his track record. Rosie Bevan is a
serious genealogical researcher. I always take her seriously and that is why
I solicited her help on the Todd article. Obviously, in hindsight, that was
the wrong place to turn, but I had no way of knowing that at the time.
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/12/02 1:08:35 PM, leov...@bigpond.com writes:
> This was a cheap shot, unworthy of you. You wanted it, you asked for it and
> when No was the answer, suddenly "it wasn't worth it anyway, it was a waste
> of space". To me this seems a tantrum, again, unworthy of you.
>
If that is so, I am sorry, but it is also unworthy to be vilified in public
for asking permission to reprint an article.
Robert S Baxter
RSBMD
----- Original Message -----
From: <KHF...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Connection - Denial of Permission to print.
>
Reedpcgen
>Instead, she rails on about Robert Todd and Douglas Richardson and spreads a
good deal on untruthful accusations online in a public place. >
Ken, if you are going to accuse Rosie of lying, you'd better be specific,
rather than making a general smear on her character. I too have private email
from you which I've kept which verify what she's said.
<The onus WAS on me to ask permission -- and I did -- it is simple as that>
She had already denied you permission before. Yours should have been a private
query. You'd done the samething to me in the past.
< I had learned that Ms Bevan was a difficult person to work with from the Todd
materials.>
Another smear on her character which I do not believe is true. Because she did
not think the article should be published, she is difficult? How do you
justify taking parts of her commentary and then using them in the article
without attribution to her? How is that ethical?
<I am quite happy she said 'no', as the piece would have truly been a waste of
pages for me anyway. >
Ah, a smear on the material you were so eager to have.
You once publicly said you would not publish anything of mine with or without
my permission, yet you have much material posted by me in an article you intend
to publish in this issue, specifically in spite of my strong and direct
objections. I even specifically withheld the citation from the marriage
agreement of John le Scot because I suspected it was exactly the type of thing
you would swipe. If there is no oral agreement, you are in blatant violation
of copyright where my former Amie material, the Dudley/Bagley material, and
Nixon ancestry are concerned. If there is an oal agreement, you are in blatant
violation of that. Your record for holding to what you agree to is not good.
You have quite a legal and ethical track record which has yet to be proved
reversed (we would remind you that you published a post of Ms Bevan AFER she
denied you permission to publish anything, but will refrain from going into
detail about what you did to Stewart Baldwin's material)..
Paul
Renia
If there was "much better material" and your are "happy she said no as
the piece would have truly been a wast of pages", then why did you
bother asking her?
This doesn't wash. Rosie Bevan is no waste of space, and you know it.
Renia
MWelch8442
said no that's it. Nobody has to answer with there two cents worth of insults.
If anyone of you have read her last post she doesn't want a flame war going on
before Christmas. So stop the thread now. Because I won't post on this thread
again.
Mike
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/12/02 4:28:05 PM, Re...@otenet.gr writes:
> If there was "much better material" and your are "happy she said no as
> the piece would have truly been a waste of pages", then why did you
> bother asking her?
>
I often ask to publish things well in advance so that I have a stock to
choose from in case I am short articles or something falls through. My
request to Ms Bevan was made primarily because she cited two writers who had
planned an article for the new issue that had to be curtailed. I thought that
these authors would be much happier if they were represented in the new
issue. Later, I find that Ms Bevan has taken 100 percent credit for the
piece. Evidently, she was only thanking these two writers for their research
help and not crediting them with any discovery.
Many of my requests for permission that have come through never actually make
it to the pages. This created a backlog for me that I can draw on when
necessary.
I have no idea what the materials were that Ms Bevan published. I scanned
them briefly, so I really do not know it they are of interest to a wide
group. I saw only that the materials were well presented. I have no idea to
this day of the actual content. I read fewer and fewer SGM posts as time goes
by. I do not have the time anymore to deal with this kind of thing. In the
past, I have tentatively formatted articles and sent PDF copies to people for
their approval only to find that they do not wish to be published. Now I
save time and effort by asking in advance before going to a lot of editorial
work.
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/12/02 3:28:45 PM, reed...@aol.com writes:
> How do you justify taking parts of her commentary and then using them in the
> article
> without attribution to her? How is that ethical?
>
Please refrain from talking about subjects about which you know nothing.
Nothing of Ms Bevans was used in the Todd article. And Todd wrote it, not
me. He is responsible for the content.
<< If there is no oral agreement, you are in blatant violation of copyright
where my former Amie material, the Dudley/Bagley material, and Nixon ancestry
are concerned. If there is an oal agreement, you are in blatant violation of
that. Your record for holding to what you agree to is not good. >>
Once again, I have no agreement with you -- oral or written. You are
rehashing things that are four to six years past. As I have said before,
anyone has the right to report on anything at all that appears in print -- on
a forum or in a journal. Once you write it and put it out, it is then public
knowledge and wide open to further interpretation, fair use quotation, or
review. You cannot have it both ways. We either have a free press or we do
not. It seems that you prefer that we do not have a free press, but luckily
you do not make the laws of the land. The law is quite clear about the
freedom allowed for the discussion and dissemination of scholarly materials:
US CODE 107: Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use. Notwithstanding the
provisions of section 106, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such
use by reproduction in copies or phone records or by any other means
specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news
reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining
whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use, the
factors to be considered shall include:
* The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
* the nature of the copyrighted work;
* the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential
market for or value of the copyrighted work. (Added pub. l94-553, Title I,
101, Oct 19, 1976, 90 Stat 2546).
Nathaniel Taylor
>...The law is quite clear about the
>freedom allowed for the discussion and dissemination of scholarly materials:
>
>US CODE 107: Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use...
Ken, if I were you I would not attempt to educate others on 'fair use',
considering your track record with this issue. Why don't you just stop
now, before you dig yourself a hole to the Antipodes (especially since
that's where Rosie is).
Nat Taylor
D. Spencer Hines
Finton is backsliding...
Retrograde Motion....
He has proven to be a liar, a reneger and a man not to be trusted ----
on many previous occasions.
Now he's doing it to Rosie Bevan.
Appalling!
He has not an iota of Integrity.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
KHF...@aol.com> wrote in message news:44.2ab4a6c...@aol.com...
Sutliff
button. For those who might care, please read further.
It is easy to sit on the side lines by never taking a stand and let the
bullies have their way. It is also one thing to try to remain impartial and
quite another to repeatedly ignore unethical behavior. It would appear some
would prefer Mrs. Bevan and others be intimidated into silence rather than
have the truth exposed to sunlight. I also strongly commend Rosie Bevan's
courageous example. She has demonstrated that the sacrifice of integrity and
honor for profit or vanity is unacceptable.
It is unquestionably disturbing to see this happen, but in fact, all of us
have been hurt by this. The violation of trust leaves all the lesser for it.
What may appear to some as unprincipled activity by three Stooges, is
actually much darker and much more deceptive, more like an axis of evil. The
paucity of truth in the posts seen thus far is evident.
For not only was Mrs. Bevan deceived, but an intended side benefit was to
inflict a genealogical hatchet job on the reputation of a forum F. A. S. G.
The monotonous cherry picking, the stupefying ignorance and deliberate
misrepresentation in many posts were primarily directed at this same
individual.
For over a year we have been subjected to vile, menacing and threatening
posts made under the pseudonym "Uriah N. Owen." In October Uriah was
unmasked in an obscure thread called "Instrumenta" (which is exceedingly
ironic as Peter Stewart and Spencer Hines were accused of being the same
person about the same time). However, it is still disturbing to recall
Uriah's obsession which even extended to the type and color of vehicle and
license plate of our member. It is beyond ability to understand twisted
thought or this obsession.
Date: 21 Apr 2002 17:54:34 -0700
From: Uriah N Owen<U_N_...@pobox.co.uk >
Message-ID: <f1777542.02042...@posting.google.com>
Subject: Re: hypocritical calls for collegiality [OT]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<sinp>
Stunned by someone sitting in your chair? - Tell me then, to what sort of
"animal" that is imprinted on the licence plate of your grey truck refer ?
The impression I receive from all this is that 'animal' must refer to a
large commercial cattle ranch you own, as you are the biggest bull shipper
around.
<snip>
Most of us dislike confrontation, but the poisoned atmosphere in this forum
has been triangulated by those who deserve the blame and who should be held
accountable for their actions.
Understand this is not about a clash of egos or a matter of one-upmanship
among scholars. It is a matter of integrity versus deceit. Regrettably it
would appear that some do not understand or want to avoid the difference or
are simply so interested in the data that they do not care. It is easier to
bury one's head in the sand than stand up for what's right. I just hope
there are enough who understand that without personal integrity, you cannot
have genealogical integrity. One is dependent upon the other.
Respectfully,
Henry Sutliff
<All messages snipped>
Chris Phillips
Ken Finton wrote (in May)
<<
I already publicly stated that in the past I had not paid much attention to
asking permissions for small contributions in the "Question and Answer"
section which I felt fell under the fair use provisions of the law. I have
changed that policy and ask permission for these now ...
>>
Ken Finton wrote (today):
> Once again, I have no agreement with you -- oral or written. You are
> rehashing things that are four to six years past. As I have said before,
> anyone has the right to report on anything at all that appears in print --
on
> a forum or in a journal. Once you write it and put it out, it is then
public
> knowledge and wide open to further interpretation, fair use quotation, or
> review. You cannot have it both ways. We either have a free press or we do
> not. It seems that you prefer that we do not have a free press, but
luckily
> you do not make the laws of the land. The law is quite clear about the
> freedom allowed for the discussion and dissemination of scholarly
materials:
As we are having this discussion, please could you clarify the situation so
that people know where they stand?
Your contribution today makes it sound as though you have reverted to a
policy of enforcing what you see as your legal rights, regardless of the
writers' wishes. The disadvantage of this, from your point of view, is
likely to be the alienation of many of those who have not in the past
withheld permission for more substantial pieces.
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
I agree, Chris. Ken needs to clarify his position. I personally
don't mind if he reprints my posts, provided he obtains my permission
before so doing. I think that is the ethical thing to do. In one
case, he went to reprint something of mine which I had already
promised to publish in article form with another editor. I had to ask
him to pull the material from that issue. This could have been
avoided had Ken asked for permission BEFORE pulling my material for
publication in his journal. I believe the burden is on Ken to obtain
permission.
Having said that, Ken tells me he has e-mailed people and asked for
permission to reprint something and they don't bother to reply. I
think courtesy demands a short reply to Ken's request, even if it is
"No." If Ken is going to go to the trouble to ask permission, we need
to respond with a simple "Yes" or "No."
Ken is providing a helpful service of publishing newsgroup posts in
digest form. I enjoy reading his journal and learn something from
each issue. To the degree we are able, I think we should cooperate
with him. The same is true with Chris' website. Cooperation makes
for happy families. It also helps the newsgroup function smoothly.
Reedpcgen
to reprint something and they don't bother to reply. I
think courtesy demands a short reply to Ken's request, even if it is
"No." If Ken is going to go to the trouble to ask permission, we need
to respond with a simple "Yes" or "No.">
Having had accounts through Qwest/USWest I have old accounts which still accept
email, but which I cannot access. Also, email can be deleted as junk by
accident, or a block may be on email from certain individuals.
It is still a basic requirement that Ken receive a "yes" from an individual,
not just send an email.
Paul
Phil Moody
sentiments.
Best Wishes,
Phil
"Sutliff" <ss...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%wcK9.2885$j_4.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/13/02 2:06:27 AM, c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
> Your contribution today makes it sound as though you have reverted to a
> policy of enforcing what you see as your legal rights, regardless of the
> writers' wishes. The disadvantage of this, from your point of view, is
> likely to be the alienation of many of those who have not in the past
> withheld permission for more substantial pieces.
>
I do not understand the question. I will obviously stand up for my legal
rights. I always ask permissions when it is appropriate and ethical to do so.
I give people credit for their contributions. Hundreds of subscribers think
that I do an excellent job of presenting the news. The vast majority of any
issue is entirely original articles. Though Ms Bevan stated that there were
no original articles in the issue she reviewed, 99 percent was indeed totally
original.
Will I ask for permission for every sliver of quotes that I make? Of course
not. It is not necessary to ask for permission to quote a passage as this
is part of fair use. If the article is worth writing, I reserve to write to
quote what is necessary to make it a good article just as every other writer
does. However, it is necessary to ask permission to reprint a complete
article. There is a significant difference there. One is fair use and one
is infringement.
I trust that has answered your question.
- Ken
Chris Phillips
Ken Finton wrote:
> Will I ask for permission for every sliver of quotes that I make? Of
course
> not. It is not necessary to ask for permission to quote a passage as
this
> is part of fair use. If the article is worth writing, I reserve to write
to
> quote what is necessary to make it a good article just as every other
writer
> does. However, it is necessary to ask permission to reprint a complete
> article. There is a significant difference there. One is fair use and
one
> is infringement.
>
> I trust that has answered your question.
I'm afraid it hasn't, really.
What I was trying to clarify was whether your previous statement still
applied (that your policy was still to ask permission even for small
contributions in the "Question and Answer" section).
From what you say above, I guess that it doesn't apply.
I think what many will find offputting is that on the one hand you are
asking for people to help you by giving permission for substantial articles
to be reprinted, and on the other you are saying to people - sometimes the
same people - that you will reprint smaller articles even when they
expressly ask you not to, because you see it as your legal right.
If you're trying to foster goodwill, I think it would be more helpful to say
that, as a courtesy, you won't reprint any items when the author asks you
not to.
Chris Phillips
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
> actually much darker and much more deceptive, more like an axis of evil.
"
So let's try to avoid adopting his metaphors for the friendly little quiproquos of the politely dysfonctional family of gen-med...
Besides, I believe Ken has already repeated that he's sorry & wont do it again, will you Ken?
Heck, Look at what I got from GRHale:
"I am going to spread you "Virus" dissertation to other sites, unless you object.
Hell, I'm going to do it even if you do object. It is just too good not to do so."
Gordon Hale
& I sure hope he wasnt being serious, or I might have to fly out there & clean his clock...
but it wasnt even my stuff anyway, just some anonymous moodlifters... take two & call in the morning...
Rosie was quite correct to make sure there was no mistake about her right to allow or refuse publication; Ken is correct about fair use, except in the case that somebody specifically states that they refuse permission to use any part or quote from them... Even if Ken might go ahead & print it, confident his lawyers can out finagle hers, he should not & must not do it... any editor too stupid to respect his contributors is doomed... who will contribute, if they know they wont be respected? & someday, he just might run up against a tougher lawyer than his... prudence counsels respect. There are enough things out there to say, that nobody need step on anybody's toes.
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Phil Moody <moody...@cox.net>
À : GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : samedi 14 décembre 2002 17:30
Objet : Re: Plantagenet Connection - Denial of Permission to print.
D. Spencer Hines
applied (that your policy was still to ask permission even for small
contributions in the "Question and Answer" section).
From what you say above, I guess that it doesn't apply.
I think what many will find offputting is that on the one hand you are
asking for people to help you by giving permission for substantial
articles to be reprinted, and on the other you are saying to people -
sometimes the same people - that you will reprint smaller articles even
when they expressly ask you not to, because you see it as your legal
right.
If you're trying to foster goodwill, I think it would be more helpful to
say that, as a courtesy, you won't reprint any items when the author
asks you not to."
Chris Phillips
---------------------------
Precisely! Daily changing callsigns and retrograde motion. ---- "What I
say today, may change tomorrow, particularly if I get mad at you."
And:
1. "If you don't answer my email and grant permission I may just
publish it anyway and say I tried."
2. "Fair Use is whatever I say it is, because my lawyer tells me I have
lots of leeway there."
3. "Small contributions" are defined by me.
4. "If you don't like it, don't post substance to SGM/MED."
Hence The Chilling Effect....
He's essentially been doing a buck and wing on these issues for YEARS.
Saddam Hussein could have done no better.
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/14/02 9:37:38 AM, KHF...@aol.com writes:
> I trust that has answered your question.
>
Let me say one more thing and then be silent, as I have no time for this
discussion and will be gone for several days.
There is an existing notion among some contributors that this is a _private_
forum where they can get help with their works progress. It is true that this
is a good place to come for help. However, this is not a private forum --
it is a public forum. I am well aware that many people post things
tentatively and are looking for corrections or approvals. I see this as one
of the purposes of this forum. For that very reason, among other, I
communicate with people about whether they stand by their data and statements
and ask permissions.
It is not now and has never been my intent to either break existing laws,
behave in an unethical manner, or appropriate other peoples ideas and call
them my own. I am careful to give credit where credit is due. I ask for
permissions with regularity whenever I feel that certain threads of posts
deserve to be reported on in print. If denied permission, I do not reprint
the materials. If they material is very important to an article I am
creating myself and permission has been denied to reprint a lengthy post or
article, then I obviously still have the right to report on the material in
my own words to illustrate what has been made public so long as I credit the
person who made the materials public in the first place. All writers have
that right. It does not matter if the person who has written a public piece
on a forum or in a journal or in a b ook is a friend, an enemy, or a complete
stranger. Anyone can respond to the material in any way that they please.
Anyone can quote another's public words or views. That is part of the free
press and the free dissemination of ideas that we all hold dear.
I would be very careful, Nat, Paul, and Spencer Hines about making false
accusations in the future. Part of the law about slandering people is based
upon economic hurt. Those who call me unethical, a liar, a thief, etc. should
be ready to prove their case in a court of law from here on, as you cause
potential financial loss to me with your mudslinging. You may feel that it is
simple flaming words on a forum, but I am very, very tired of your games and
am not likely to stand idly by while being slandered in the future.
D. Spencer Hines
material is very important to an article I am creating myself and
permission has been denied to reprint a lengthy post or article, then I
obviously still have the right to report on the material in my own words
to illustrate what has been made public so long as I credit the person
who made the materials public in the first place."
K. H. Finton
---------------------
This avowed practice, of course, violates all the standard scholarly
conventions, which are that if a scholar, a colleague, is about to
publish something ---- one does not rush in and make her or his
discoveries known ---- and steal his or her thunder.
This is done as a matter of simple professional courtesy and ethics ----
as well as financial rights.
Mr. Finton has clearly stated that he has no use for such established
scholarly conventions ---- but will treat any such revelation as a "news
item" and will publish the findings "as a matter of important interest
to his readers."
Ay, there's the rub.
Mr. Finton also does not understand the liability and slander laws of
the United States and is sorely erroneous in his hip-pocket analysis of
where the burden of proof lies. He had best watch what he does on
SGM/MED, because people are sick and tired of his shenanigans and his
long-running buck and weave tap-dance.
D. Spencer Hines
> Unless you are willing to spend a weekend and read several
> hundred posts, dating back half a decade, as well as trade emails
> with a dozen people for the important events that have never
> appeared in public, the true import of what is being discussed
> will almost certainly be lost. It is probably not worth the
> effort that it would take to understand it.
Todd A. Farmerie
------------------------
That is disingenuous, misleading, unhelpful, content-free ---- and the
conclusion is quite false.
I'm surprised, moderately, that a professed scientist could write such
gibberish.
taf's first impulse is often, not always, to sweep a problem under the
rug ---- rather than confront it directly and honestly.
A bad trait in a leader.
He needs to grow some backbone ---- or get a transplant.
Cultivated Ignorance of Evil is never a Good Practice.
The essential problem can actually be summarized in a nutshell ---- and
I have already done it ---- several times.
Paul Reed, Rosie Bevan, Nat Taylor and Stewart Baldwin have also spoken
out ---- when their own oxen are being gored.
I draw attention to it even when my own oxen are *not* being gored. I
seem to be unique in that role. "Fools rush in where angels fear to
tread," perhaps. <g>
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
John 5:14
Reedpcgen
<I do not understand the question. I will obviously stand up for my legal
rights. I always ask permissions when it is appropriate and ethical to do so.
I give people credit for their contributions.>
You will defend your legal rights? So it is incumbent on us all to defend our
legal rights?
And you will decide when it is ethical to ask permission?
I will not draw this out, but you are currently planning on publishing a large
series of my posts under the guise of "fair use" and criticism--not just a
sliver of material (or enough slivers to make a log).
In the past you published extensive posts (complete, and sometimes
misattributed) in long "roundtable" discussions, you included much information
from me in the article on the Dudley matter, including using legal material I'd
posted verbatim without quotes or attribution to me, and used material I'd
posted correcting a claimed link in Nixon's ancestry, all without showing me
the material before publication. You clearly plagiarized Stewart Baldwin's
material (which has been discussed before). What you will be doing in this
next issue is, in my opinion, a violation of copyright.
Before you begin throwing your legal rights around, you ought to face the
reality of your past and keep it in mind.
By stating you can "report" on anything--any important discovery posted
here--or you can "criticize" something, and thus publish the material without
permission, you twist what fair use actually is. You ought to talk to a lawyer
about exactly what fair use is, Ken, as a publisher.
Of course, this is entirely aside from ethical considerations.
Paul C. Reed
PS As your magazine generates no money, what do you do for income to support
your house and family? I've never heard that discussed. Or are publications
indeed your income?
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
In this case, it's the interesting nuance between two different species of reprobates...
Ken with his journalistic outlook is correct in his frame of reference...
Hines in his alleged scholarly frame of reference, makes sense to an academic world based on a tightly controled play of power politics, which often involves signing one's own work to students & subordinates' original works, with the unspoken code, that if you want to get your degree you'll keep your mouth shut about it, & content to do the same later with your own students... but about publishing, it's considered wise to be polite about not jumping the gun on somebody with more power than one has oneself... but that dont mean they hesitate to do it when they think they can get away with it...
in any case, this is not a university classroom, & the rules are those of the laws of copywrite, closer to that of a newspaper, than a classroom; there are no degrees or goodies to dole out for being nice about getting shafted, so it's in nobody's interest to let it happen...
If we all sit back & politely refuse to work on anything that somebody else might be working on, we'll none of us get anything done, nor will we be of any help to one another...
We have to do what we can to each evolve our own ideas on important questions; I dont think it would be healthy to discourage that... as to publishing them, if aware of a work in progress, it would be poor manners to suddenly jump in & try to usurp the subject, materials, & previous posts while working on details, to be the first to score, but it is what happens in the real world, & it's sort of an obligation for journalists... everybody dislikes it, but they understand that it happens... If on the other hand, you're already working on a project & find out that somebody else is too, there's no obligation for either to drop it... it is possible to politely benefit from one another, & yet remain independant & evolve their own different viewpoints on a matter; with a little luck, they might even arrange things to be complementary, giving a better coverage to a given matter than either might have done alone... this requires having one's goals rather higher... having the goal be !
maximal coverage for the benefit of the public, with a concentration for each author on the aspects that stimulate their own imagination most.
At some point, both Hines & Finton must stop taking their personal inclinations as graven in stone law, decide on a lawyer to set the limits for them & adhere to it... although I know its much more fun to beat one's spear against the shield & make a lot of noise & fierce expressions, slinging mud & threats back & forth, as I would too, no doubt, in their place... but fortunately, Im not in their places...
-----Message d'origine-----
De : D. Spencer Hines <D._Spenc...@usa.yale.edu>
À : GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : samedi 14 décembre 2002 20:30
Objet : Re: Plantagenet Connection - Denial Of Permission To Print.
"If denied permission, I do not reprint the materials. If they [sic]
material is very important to an article I am creating myself and
permission has been denied to reprint a lengthy post or article, then I
obviously still have the right to report on the material in my own words
to illustrate what has been made public so long as I credit the person
who made the materials public in the first place."
K. H. Finton
---------------------
This avowed practice, of course, violates all the standard scholarly
conventions, which are that if a scholar, a colleague, is about to
publish something ---- one does not rush in and make her or his
discoveries known ---- and steal his or her thunder.
This is done as a matter of simple professional courtesy and ethics ----
as well as financial rights.
Mr. Finton has clearly stated that he has no use for such established
scholarly conventions ---- but will treat any such revelation as a "news
item" and will publish the findings "as a matter of important interest
to his readers."
Ay, there's the rub.
Mr. Finton also does not understand the liability and slander laws of
the United States and is sorely erroneous in his hip-pocket analysis of
where the burden of proof lies. He had best watch what he does on
SGM/MED, because people are sick and tired of his shenanigans and his
long-running buck and weave tap-dance.
Reedpcgen
<For that very reason, among other, I
communicate with people about whether they stand by their data and statements
and ask permissions.>
Then let me state YET AGAIN as clearly as possible. The posts I made
concerning Gwladys Ddu would NOT have been made if I knew you were going to
publish them. I do not stand by what is in them, and deny permission to
publish them. Many were made late at night.
I would have gone through things carefully and revised material if it was going
to be published. But, again, I should have the right to decide WHERE my
material should be published. I should not be forced or coerced to have it in
your journal.
[Ken also wrote:]
Part of the law about slandering people is based upon economic hurt. Those who
call me unethical, a liar, a thief, etc. should be ready to prove their case in
a court of law from here on, as you cause potential financial loss to me with
your mudslinging.>
So, you can suffer a financial loss, even though you also claim no money is
concerned and you make nothing from TPC? And though I am a professional, so my
reputation, and hence income, is affected when you swipe and publish my
material, that is no consideration?
Stop threatening the law, Ken.
Paul C. Reed
D. Spencer Hines
He deserves Honest, Straightforward Answers ---- Not More Buck and Wing.
These points are particularly important:
"Then let me state YET AGAIN as clearly as possible. The posts I made
concerning Gwladys Ddu would NOT have been made if I knew you were going
to publish them. I do not stand by what is in them, and deny permission
to publish them. Many were made late at night.
I would have gone through things carefully and revised material if it
was going to be published. But, again, I should have the right to
decide WHERE my material should be published. I should not be forced or
coerced to have it in your journal."
And so is this one:
"PS As your magazine generates no money, what do you do for income to
support your house and family? I've never heard that discussed. Or are
publications indeed your income?"
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Reedpcgen" <reed...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021214173623...@mb-cu.aol.com...
Rick Eaton
This is an academic question; that is all. I am truly
interested in the answer.
Why would anyone, who does not want his or her information
"lifted" for private, or public use -- in print or in an
electronic medium, present that information to a free,
public discussion list?
I am particularly interested in the answers of those whose
information has been used, with or without permission.
Another question:
Do any of the professional genealogists here use information
posted here and then use that information in their work?
If so, how is that different (in terms of use, not profit)
from a publisher putting the same information in a book?
Having asked these questions, I really wish that this
subject would disappear. However, I now realize that it is
relevant to the governance of this list, if not to Medieval
genealogy?
While I would really *hate* this if it happened, I wonder if
those who don't want their information used shouldn't just
not post it. This begs the first question. Why do they/you
post here?
Just curious, but very curious.
By the way, thanks to all for posting your research. You
haven't gotten around to my closest Medieval ancestors yet.
But, there is hope.
Rick Eaton
Voice: 203.453.6261 Fax:203.453.0076
----------
>From: "Annie Natalelli-Waloszek" <Xan...@wanadoo.fr>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: Plantagenet Connection - Denial Of Permission To
Print.
>Date: Sat, Dec 14, 2002, 5:18 PM
>
> while I keep finding the discussion boring, there's always
> something to pull you back in...
> In this case, it's the interesting nuance between two different
> species of reprobates...
> Ken with his journalistic outlook is correct in his frame of
> reference...
> Hines in his alleged scholarly frame of reference, makes sense to
> an academic world based on a tightly controled play of power
> politics, which often involves signing one's own work to students
&
> subordinates' original works, with the unspoken code, that if you
> want to get your degree you'll keep your mouth shut about it, &
> content to do the same later with your own students... but about
> publishing, it's considered wise to be polite about not jumping
the
> gun on somebody with more power than one has oneself.... but that
GRHa...@aol.com
eaton...@cshore.com writes:
> Why would anyone, who does not want his or her information
> "lifted" for private, or public use -- in print or in an
> electronic medium, present that information to a free,
> public discussion list?
>
This is possibly the best, most intelligent, question I have read in all of
this hullabaloo.
If you don't want anyone to use your information, don't tell anyone about it.
Simple as that. I have always felt that if the information was posted on
the Internet, or in a newspaper, or even in a book, I would have a right to
use it if I merely cited the source.
I have had articles I printed in trade journals used by others without even a
citation. I guess that I have never made my living writing gives me a
different viewpoint.
I had thought that I would not get involved in this "battle of the pens", but
it just goes on an on, so the above is my two cents worth. I will make no
more comments.
Gordon Hale
Gordon
D. Spencer Hines
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
""Rick Eaton"" <eaton...@cshore.com> wrote in message
news:200212150005...@smtp-test.cshore.com...
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: <GRHa...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Connection - Denial Of Permission To Print.
> In a message dated 12/14/2002 6:06:07 PM Central Standard Time,
> eaton...@cshore.com writes:
>
> > Why would anyone, who does not want his or her information
> > "lifted" for private, or public use -- in print or in an
> > electronic medium, present that information to a free,
> > public discussion list?
> >
>
> This is possibly the best, most intelligent, question I have read in all
of
> this hullabaloo.
>
Dear Gordon,
You are not sincere are you? I, and most of us, have a library full with
published books,
is all they contain up for grabs? "If they don't want it to be used, they
shouldn't publish".
You cannot mean that.
For a few months now I am working on a project concerning ancestors of
Prince William.
To enliven the pages I want to use portraits and coat-of-arms. In the books
I have, I have all the portraits I want. In "Burke's Guide to the Royal
Family" I have all the coat-of-arms I want.
Should I just go ahead and copy them? After all "If they don't want me to do
this, they shouldn't publish"? BUT for instance,, the National Portrait
Gallery in London has a site and they explain that if they catch you
copying, for instance, their postcards, they can make you pay double the
right for copy right----I think they charge about $100 per portrait--and
then a fine on top.
I think, what some do not appreciate is what actually is being talked about.
I understand that
if Paul Reed or Douglas Richardson, or anyone of us, produces genealogical
data that is new, others are allowed to extract the details, because
genealogy is not copyrighted, but the wording in which they are recorded
is!! Genealogical displays are copyrighted but the genealogy is not, you
have to produce your own 'display'. The original display is the personal
possession of Paul Reed, Douglas Richardson or whoever.
Ken Harper Finton, I believe, is stealing their explanations, reasons and
so-on. He needs their permission to do so, and he knows that.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
GRHa...@aol.com
leov...@bigpond.com writes:
> Dear Gordon,
> You are not sincere are you? I, and most of us, have a library full with
> published books,
> is all they contain up for grabs? "If they don't want it to be used, they
> shouldn't publish".
>
You should be able to use any information in a book you have paid for, as
long as you cite the source. I don't think it would be right to print page
after page verbatim, but it has long been custom to cite other authors, in
paragraphs and phrases. You cannot take credit for the information, but you
certainly have the right to pass it on to demonstrate something you are
trying to show.
I know this has always been a sore spot in genealogy and I really didn't want
to get involved, but I just can't keep my fool fingers off the keys at times.
Gordon Hale
GRHa...@aol.com
leov...@bigpond.com writes:
> , but the wording in which they are recorded
> is!! Genealogical displays are copyrighted but the genealogy is not,
We are in agreement here. The public record data cannot be protected but the
way you exhibit it can, and should. Everyone should do their own work in
their own style. If, however, one author disagrees with a statement made by
another author, the person disagreeing has the right to print the statement
being disagreed with verbatim so that he can state where he disagrees.
Gordon Hale
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: <GRHa...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Connection - Denial Of Permission To Print.
> In a message dated 12/14/2002 7:40:29 PM Central Standard Time,
> leov...@bigpond.com writes:
>
> > Dear Gordon,
> > You are not sincere are you? I, and most of us, have a library full
with
> > published books,
> > is all they contain up for grabs? "If they don't want it to be used,
they
> > shouldn't publish".
> >
>
> You should be able to use any information in a book you have paid for, as
> long as you cite the source.
Dear Gordon,
You are quite right, but the use is what is in question. No-one would copy a
whole book, but some copy a whole article, a whole message. And there are
legal restriction as to how much of an item can be reproduced and why.
I don't think it would be right to print page
> after page verbatim, but it has long been custom to cite other authors, in
> paragraphs and phrases. You cannot take credit for the information, but
you
> certainly have the right to pass it on to demonstrate something you are
> trying to show.
>
> I know this has always been a sore spot in genealogy and I really didn't
want
> to get involved, but I just can't keep my fool fingers off the keys at
times.
I think another point involved is the "respect for the author" and that
appears to be lacking.
"You place it on gen-med and it is up for grabs?", I don't think so.
Best wishes
Leo
GRHa...@aol.com
leov...@bigpond.com writes:
> Ken Harper Finton, I believe, is stealing their explanations, reasons and
> so-on. He needs their permission to do so, and he knows that.
>
I really cannot write to that point because I have read nothing he has
published.
Are you saying for instance that if you say, "The sky is blue", I don't have
the right to say "I think that the sky is blue."? I realize this is the
ultimate simplification, but I hope you get my point. Some things just
cannot be stated without repeating some portion of what someone else has
written, or said.
I knew when I sent that first message off that I had done a boo-boo. I am
really in over my depth on this subject because I have no direct relationship
to the problem.
Gordon Hale
GRHa...@aol.com
leov...@bigpond.com writes:
> To enliven the pages I want to use portraits and coat-of-arms. In the books
> I have, I have all the portraits I want. In "Burke's Guide to the Royal
> Family" I have all the coat-of-arms I want.
>
In this situation, you would be printing their work verbatim. Since it is
artwork I think that there is a legal difference, although I don't know just
what that difference is. I can see where if someone paints a picture it
would not be just for someone else to mass produce that picture for profit.
If, however, someone wanted to print the picture as an example of, say,
modern art, I think that would be allowed. In fact I think that is allowed.
You should not just copy the pictures from the book and use it in the manner
you plan on using it.
Gordon Hale
Reedpcgen
Simple as that. I have always felt that if the information was posted on the
Internet, or in a newspaper, or even in a book, I would have a right to use it
if I merely cited the source.>
So if information is on a web page as a scholarly presentation with notice of
copyright, or in a newspaper or book, there is no copyright? What about
information in TAG, TG, NEHGR, etc.?
Why do large institutions like newspapers, publishing houses, or the likes of
Ancestry, Inc., have lawyers? Why is there even legislation on copyright?
Do you suggest, then, that Rosie, I, Hap, and others who produce the quality of
material Ken would like, and who have been productive members of this forum for
years, should withdraw from helping anyone in this group in public? That seems
to be what you are suggesting is the simple answer.
Again, noy one of the leading journals would publish something that is
specifically objected to by an author. Here Ken is an anomaly.
Paul
Rick Eaton
weakened, but not broken, by research lately, the Eytons of
Shropshire and elsewhere.
Rick Eaton
Voice: 203.453.6261 Fax:203.453.0076
----------
>From: "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spenc...@usa.yale.edu>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: Plantagenet Connection - Denial Of Permission To
Print.
>Date: Sat, Dec 14, 2002, 7:15 PM
>
> | Why would anyone, who does not want his or her information
> | "lifted" for private, or public use -- in print or in an
> | electronic medium, present that information to a free,
> | public discussion list?
> |
GRHa...@aol.com
leov...@bigpond.com writes:
> I think another point involved is the "respect for the author" and that
> appears to be lacking.
> "You place it on gen-med and it is up for grabs?", I don't think so.
>
> Best wishes
> Leo
>
But, isn't GEN-MED a more or less gossipy operation. I read a note from
Spencer Hines recently in which he said he would not be responsible for the
accuracy of anything he put on GEN-MED, and I think he is correct in that.
In a way Spencer is like me, he places more importance on PRINTED words than
on what he gets over the Internet. It is much more work to get data prepared
for print in a book or journal, and you know that better than I, and you pay
much more attention to the details.
I don't think it is just to make a profit from the work of others. The
problem is that it is a can of worms to decide just what portion of a work an
author should be able to use, without first obtaining permission.
Spencer puts a little blurb at the end of his messages stating that they are
copywrite protected, or something to that effect. If I had copied the
message from him that I mentioned above and put it in this message verbatim,
without first obtaining his permission, would I be wrong? I don't think so,
but he might.
Gordon Hale
Leo van de Pas
I understand that Ken Harper Finton most of the time does not participate in such conversations,
therefor his actions are correctly coined as "data mining". The conversation should remain where it is held, if a third party wants to lift it out into another media, the participants may not know what is done with their "copyrighted" material. I for one gave Ken permission to use whatever I display as I believe I may be 'contributing' in general, I do not contribute sensitive information. Again "respect for the author" is at stake, never mind legal ramifications.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: GRHa...@aol.com
To: leov...@bigpond.com ; GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Connection - Denial Of Permission To Print.
GRHa...@aol.com
leov...@bigpond.com writes:
> Again "respect for the author" is at stake, never mind legal ramifications.
>
I agree that among gentlemen there should be respect, but, the problem is
that there are so few gentlemen among us today. Especially in business this
is true. And when you are publishing for your livelihood you are in a
business.
I don't think that I would ever use information derived from someone else
without giving them an opportunity to decline it's use.
Nor would I ever want credit for something that was not my product. I just
don't understand that desire. I have had it done to me time after time
however, in the business world. A superior without such honorable mores has
several times listened to my suggestion, put it off as unworkable, and then
instituted it six months later as his product. He lost my respect the first
time he did this and the fifth time I went to his supervisor, to no effect
that I could determine.
Gordon Hale
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: <GRHa...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Connection - Denial Of Permission To Print.
Dear Gordon,
I think you are in interesting but untested waters. When I started to try to
learn about copyrights on pictures, I approached two people, one Brigitte
Gastel Lloyd, and was told by both they never have had problems "because
they are not a commercial venture". Making a magazine and selling it, is a
commercial venture, whether you "profit" or not---this places me and Ken
Harper Finton in a totally different category. I am trying to prevent
hassles afterwards and am trying to do 'first' the right thing, not
afterwards. At the moment I am planning to produce at the most 50 copies and
it is going to be expensive for me to produce them, therefor I have to sell
them.
The same applies to Ken.
D. Spencer Hines
-----------------------------------
No, I have never said that ---- in six years and more of posting here.
Please don't gloss me.
Quote me, if you like, so we can see precisely what I said ---- but
don't gloss me.
I word my posts to SGM quite carefully and what you say above is quite
misleading. I don't talk or write that way.
Thank you.
Sadly, you got this wrong too:
| Spencer puts a little blurb at the end of his messages stating that
they are
| copywrite protected, or something to that effect. If I had copied the
| message from him that I mentioned above and put it in this message
verbatim,
| without first obtaining his permission, would I be wrong? I don't
think so,
| but he might.
|
| Gordon Hale
It's quite clear in what I have written below ---- please read it again.
Thank you.
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
<GRHa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:7f.30da333...@aol.com...
D. Spencer Hines
challenges ---- in order to generate data he can then mine ---- but he
obviously doesn't want to do the hard work required actually to
"contribute."
He likes to play Gadfly ---- in order to see what he can scare up.
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
""Leo van de Pas"" <leov...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:00ba01c2a449$361c7e00$000efea9@old...
Nathaniel Taylor
>I would be very careful, Nat, Paul, and Spencer Hines about making false
>accusations in the future. Part of the law about slandering people is based
>upon economic hurt. Those who call me unethical, a liar, a thief, etc. should
>be ready to prove their case in a court of law from here on, as you cause
>potential financial loss to me with your mudslinging. You may feel that it is
>simple flaming words on a forum, but I am very, very tired of your games and
>am not likely to stand idly by while being slandered in the future.
I see that I'm the third of the above named people to respond to this
outrageous paragraph.
I have never made any 'false accusations' about Mr. Finton's 'journal'
_The Plantagenet Connection_. I have in the past denounced what I
conclude to be plagiarism, found in an article he wrote (ostensibly) and
published in his journal.
My assessment of the plagiarism was made in message
<ntaylor-1302...@mid-tgn-ngx-vty62.as.wcom.net>
which I posted to this Usenet group (soc.genealogy.medieval) on 13
February 2002, with the title "the abduction of Cunobelinus: plagiarism
(was...)"
This critique was not posted for malicious purposes; it is neither
'slander' nor 'mudslinging' nor 'flaming'. It was a critique of a piece
of published writing according to specific scholarly and ethical
criteria, appearing in a forum explicitly dedicated to the discussion of
such material.
This bears repeating: the forum <soc.genealogy.medieval> is for the
discussion of medieval genealogy (and, by extension, medieval
genealogical writing), *not* for discussion of the people who are
posters. Far too many people on this forum take criticism of their work
too personally.
Now, if Mr. Finton wants to revisit my finding of plagiarism, by all
means we can dig it up and perform another autopsy.
The rest of Mr. Finton's paragraph is incredible--a threat of legal
action! Didn't Roderick Stuart threaten someone with legal action when
_Royalty for Commoners_ was panned in a review in a major genealogical
journal?
Nat Taylor
D. Spencer Hines
Mr. Finton fails to understand that when someone writes the UNVARNISHED TRUTH about
his actions, and backs it up with hard, cold facts ---- it is by no means actionable
for either libel or slander.
DSH
--------------------
From: Nathaniel Taylor (nta...@post.harvard.edu)
Subject: the abduction of Cunobelinus: plagiarism (was...)
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2002-02-13 08:30:22 PST
In article <157.8de214...@aol.com>, KHF...@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 2/11/02 5:52:27 PM, sba...@mindspring.com writes:
>
>>You took my comments, reworded them, and then put your name on them as
>>if they were your comments, without any acknowledgement that "your"
>>comments were simply a rewording of mine. That is plagiarism, pure
>>and simple...
>
>I took a few facts that you posted (not your comments) and rewrote them to
>introduce the material. I am sorry, but you do not own the facts. One can
>reword facts. Sometimes it can be tricky. If one says, "Columbus sailed to
>America in 1492," that is a simply fact. If, when using that fact as a
>source, one says, "In 1492, Columbus sailed to America," then it is a
>reworded fact. This is not plagiarism, pure and simple. It is reporting,
>pure and simple ...
<snip rest>
Let me be blunt. It is saddening to see these evasive and ignorant
denials. What Mr. Finton did with Mr. Baldwin's post *is* plagiarism.
If one compares Stewart Baldwin's post of 12 December 1998, titled
'Cunobelinus and Caractacus', available on the gen-med archive at:
http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GEN-MEDIEVAL+1998+
1454229566890+F
to the first 1000 words of Kenneth Harper Finton's 'article' "Harleian
Genealogy, Number 16: an Interesting Mystery. Comments by Kenneth Harper
Finton"
(http://www.htcommunications.org > file Harlein MS [sic]),
one finds many sections of text (and the chart entire) lifted right out of
Baldwin's message with minimal alteration in word order, or substitution
of a word or phrase here and there--typical 'mosaic' plagiarism, or
uncited paraphrasing. The common-knowledge fact test does not even apply
because Mr. Finton has actually reproduced many of Stewart's words and
phrases (including the phrase used in the article's title)--not just the
'facts' contained there.
And although, after 800 words, Mr. Finton cites and quotes Mr. Baldwin's
message directly (but does not cite it with any accuracy, which is perhaps
only an editorial failing and not an attempt to obscure his source), not
only do the preceding several paragraphs preserve many of Mr. Baldwin's
phrases (and the chart) intact, but the entire structure of the discussion
mirrors Stewart's post exactly--all this without citation.
Now, even if Mr. Finton had not committed this obvious plagiarism, and had
lifted only 'a few facts' uncited from Stewart's post, the 'facts' in this
passage are exceedingly far from 'common knowledge'--either among the
public at large, readers of this forum, or readers of Mr. Finton's
journal. The analogy of Columbus made above (in Mr. Finton's post) is
laughably misleading. Could Mr. Finton's readers, on their own, quickly
ascertain, in reference works, the date of composition of Harleian MS
3859? Could Mr. Finton?
I believe the material speaks for itself. As to my qualifications to
judge this, I have experience as a university professor and dean, where I
have sat on a committee which examines and adjudicates allegations of
plagiarism among college students, and disciplines them when found
culpable. In my mind this case is quite clear.
Mr. Finton is not a college student; he and Mr. Baldwin are out in the
real world. I am no lawyer (and don't know anything about plagiarism law
or litigation in the US or elsewhere), so I have no knowledge or
suggestion about what to do about it in the real world (or specifically in
this forum, which is and must remain open). To anyone engaged in any form
of intellectual work and writing (let alone to anyone engaged in *selling*
his work, as is Mr. Finton) the ethical boundaries of plagiarism should be
clearly understood and respected.
Nat Taylor
----------------------------
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." --
Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque Paenitentia, Legem
Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your
philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of
Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original material
contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It may be quoted only in
discussions on this forum and with an attribution to the author, unless permission is
otherwise expressly given, in writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:ntaylor-70A8E3...@nnrp03.earthlink.net...
Richard Smyth at UNC-CH
"Yes", there is no copyright of information, that is, of the factual content
of what is published. The copyright goes to the presentation of the
content, not to the information that is presented. If you re-type a number
from a phone book, the phone company cannot prevent you from publishing that
information.
> So if information is on a web page as a scholarly presentation with notice
of
> copyright, or in a newspaper or book, there is no copyright? What about
> information in TAG, TG, NEHGR, etc.?
Regards,
Richard Smyth
sm...@nc.rr.com
Reedpcgen
that is presented. >
Yes, we have established this. But if one takes a number of letters someone
has written and publishes them, there is no copyright on those letters?
Even paraphrasing extensively is limitated by the law, as we have seen with
lawsuits concerning several prominent historians this last year, even with
attribution in footnotes. (poor Doris...)
Paul
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
> "lifted" for private, or public use -- in print or in an
> electronic medium, present that information to a free,
> public discussion list?
like the dog, "because one can"...?
to make it available to individual searchers who might not find it otherwise?
to feel like they have a contribution to make?
to build up a basic reputation from which to attempt to publish later?
to give enough data on a question that needs resolving,
for another researcher to be able to understand & respond usefully?
because people who respect others, think that everybody is morally upright
so they can in good confidence, post data which one will ask permission to reprint...
because in surfing around the net, one has found so much useful information that
would otherwise have been unfindable, that one thinks it only natural to contribute?
because lurking is a bore & the pleasure of the list is getting involved in a fruitful,
informative discussion that brings everybody forward?
etc etc etc
you mean, you really didnt know?
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
family? I've never heard that discussed. Or are publications
indeed your income?"
ummm, Im not sure that's anyone's business...
violation of privacy...
one abuse doesnt justify another...
unless you work for the IRS...?
maybe he's got a good retirement plan?
he has the right to run a publication as a hobby...
& if in fact it generates no profit, then
the objection about him using it for personal profit, is caduc...
I would think that the material posted is in public domain, & can be used if correctly credited unless otherwise specified by the author; if he asks & the author does not deign to respond, I think he'd have a fair chance in a court of law, by stating he had no refusal of permission, as long as he quoted faithfully & credited the author but if he went to the sources & put it in his own words, Im not sure you'd have a leg to stand on; It's not fair, but then what is? The solution would be to stop publishing data, in which case the whole beauty of the internet availability of data is lost... which is why, I think, most people try to let go of the idea of hanging on to it... when you feel it's out of hand, you stop posting... but then, you miss the fun & cease to be the local authority... its Catch-22...
"The posts I made concerning Gwladys Ddu would NOT have been made
if I knew you were going to publish them. I do not stand by what is in
them, and deny permission to publish them. Many were made late at night.
I would have gone through things carefully and revised material if it was going
to be published. But, again, I should have the right to decide WHERE my
material should be published. I should not be forced or coerced to have it in
your journal. "
This is funny... you mean, Im not the only one who was making posts late at
night & not as carefully as I might have? Then howcome I was the only person
getting jumped on about it? I want equal abuse for males!!!
& Thanks for the warning... I thought you were serious about it! I was often paranoid about
things offlist being intentionally misleading, but now I see that onlist was risky too?
Professional? wouldnt a pro have stood by all he posted? "I do not stand by what is in
them, and deny permission to publish them." like a guy who swears he doesnt love a
damsel, but will fight to the death, anyone else who tries to court her...poor girl!
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Reedpcgen <reed...@aol.com>
À : GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : samedi 14 décembre 2002 23:30
Objet : Re: Plantagenet Connection - Denial of Permission to print.
[Ken wrote:]
<I do not understand the question. I will obviously stand up for my legal
rights. I always ask permissions when it is appropriate and ethical to do so.
I give people credit for their contributions.>
You will defend your legal rights? So it is incumbent on us all to defend our
legal rights?
And you will decide when it is ethical to ask permission?
I will not draw this out, but you are currently planning on publishing a large
series of my posts under the guise of "fair use" and criticism--not just a
sliver of material (or enough slivers to make a log).
In the past you published extensive posts (complete, and sometimes
misattributed) in long "roundtable" discussions, you included much information
from me in the article on the Dudley matter, including using legal material I'd
posted verbatim without quotes or attribution to me, and used material I'd
posted correcting a claimed link in Nixon's ancestry, all without showing me
the material before publication. You clearly plagiarized Stewart Baldwin's
material (which has been discussed before). What you will be doing in this
next issue is, in my opinion, a violation of copyright.
Before you begin throwing your legal rights around, you ought to face the
reality of your past and keep it in mind.
By stating you can "report" on anything--any important discovery posted
here--or you can "criticize" something, and thus publish the material without
permission, you twist what fair use actually is. You ought to talk to a lawyer
about exactly what fair use is, Ken, as a publisher.
Of course, this is entirely aside from ethical considerations.
Paul C. Reed
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
> "lifted" for private, or public use -- in print or in an
> electronic medium, present that information to a free,
> public discussion list?
like the dog, "because one can"...?
to make it available to individual searchers who might not find it otherwise?
to feel like they have a contribution to make?
to stimulate a discussion where more questions
are answered than one thought to ask?
to build up a basic reputation from which to attempt to publish later?
to give enough data on a question that needs resolving,
for another researcher to be able to understand & respond usefully?
because people who respect others, think that everybody is morally upright
so they can in good confidence, post data which one will ask permission to reprint...
because in surfing around the net, one has found so much useful information that
would otherwise have been unfindable, that one thinks it only natural to contribute?
because lurking is a bore & the pleasure of the list is getting involved in a fruitful,
informative discussion that brings everybody forward?
etc etc etc
you mean, you really didnt know?
I think the best way to stop a thread is to just dump the bundle when it comes in;
if nobody reads it, they dont get tempted to respond...but it does fluff up the
rather sparse mailings lately...
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
they are not a commercial venture". Making a magazine and selling it, is a
commercial venture, whether you "profit" or not---this places me and Ken
Harper Finton in a totally different category."
why?
"I am trying to prevent hassles afterwards and am trying to
do 'first' the right thing, not afterwards."
so did he... just he maybe didnt stop when he got no positive answer...
"At the moment I am planning to produce at the most 50 copies and
it is going to be expensive for me to produce them, therefor I have to sell
them."
so you're in the same boat as Ken...
the pot calling the kettle black...
what's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander...
You're relying on public domain for this, but if the work has been copywrited
by others than the authors, as with many reprints & artistic works,
you're still in troubled waters... you either have to get permission,
give them away, give up the project, or hire a very expensive lawyer...
(however, you may be able to work up a scam of some sort, where you
give complementary copies with each paid membership to your private club
or something... but that would still be a scam... is that what you want to do?
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Leo van de Pas <leov...@bigpond.com>
À : GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : dimanche 15 décembre 2002 04:15
Objet : Re: Plantagenet Connection - Denial Of Permission To Print.
----- Original Message -----
From: <GRHa...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Connection - Denial Of Permission To Print.
> In a message dated 12/14/2002 7:40:29 PM Central Standard Time,
> leov...@bigpond.com writes:
>
Kevan
Folks,
I can't believe I'm writing this. Yuk.., but here are my two cents worth.
Legalities are not at work here, at least I don't think so. I've got to
admit that it is handy having something that distills the data bantered
about here on this mailing list. Sometimes, I can't find the conclusions in
some of the threads. If the intent of PC is to pull together the
conclusions and present them in a concise forum, then that intent is good.
It's the process of getting that data and presenting it that is the problem.
Those that participate in the mailing list are not books, but people.
Keeping the focus on legalities is forcing us to think of people as nothing
more than printed matter. However, the mailing list is more of a pot-luck
dinner, where friends come together sharing what they have. It is a body of
human beings, all sharing in the success of the meal presented. We have
hearts, feelings, ethics, all of which printed matter does not have. A
guest in my house might be stunned by my wife's cooking (I cook too, but not
as well) and ask for the recipe. My wife would give it; she's that type of
sharing person. But, don't let her see it compiled and published without
her permission. It is betrayal that is the heart of the matter here. If
you're goin' to come to dinner, then there is an implied behavior that is
expected. Legalities be damned. If you want trust, friendship, a sampling
of great cooking, then show trust, friendship, and understanding of those
sharing their fare.
I am not accusing anyone, but the feelings shown by folks reflect what I am
saying.
If, by the way, PC is almost wholly the product of data mining SGM, the
author's level of ethics should be excruciatingly clear and held to. After
all, what you hear over dinner shouldn't be found in the papers the next
day, or people will stop talking for they've found a fox in the hen house.
Cheers,
Kevan
brad verity
>I sympathize entirely with Paul Reed in this, but regrettably the answer is
>"Yes", there is no copyright of information, that is, of the factual
>content
>of what is published. The copyright goes to the presentation of the
>content, not to the information that is presented. If you re-type a
>number
>from a phone book, the phone company cannot prevent you from publishing
>that
>information.
Richard is correct, to my understanding.
If I posted to this newsgroup the statement "Queen Isabella had an affair
with Pope Clement V that resulted in an illegitimate son, John of Eltham,"
and a heated discussion arose from it, whatever information results,
including my original argument, can be used by Ken Finton in an article.
HOW he uses it has been the issue from day one. In the past his wish was to
print the whole newsgroup debate as an article - or, what he termed - a
Roundtable Discussion.
If the post he wanted to use was a question, which received one thorough,
detailed answer, then he printed the query post and response in his Question
& Answer section.
The initial problem with this was quickly uncovered: Ken often neglected to
alert the people who had particpated in the discussions that he was
publishing their newsgroup posts in THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION (TPC), though
he did give them credit in TPC as the authors of their posts.
This caused distress for several reasons. Most of the newsgroup discussions
and responses to queries which Ken was interested in publishing were
authored by folks like Paul Reed, Stewart Baldwin, etc., who had spent much
time researching the information they posted to the newsgroup.
If Ken had been a graduate student working on a doctorate thesis in the
treatment of 14th century queens who had affairs with Popes, and used
information that he gathered from the Queen Isabella/Clement V newsgroup
discussion (with proper citation, in footnotes), that's one thing. But Ken
(at first) lifted the posts completely as written and reproduced them in
TPC, re-formatted as if they were articles and rebuttals and letters to the
editor written directly for TPC publication.
TPC Problem #1: Though he gave all the original posters credit for what they
had said, he left his readers with the false impression that these newsgroup
posters were active contributers to TPC, when many of them were entirely
unaware their newsgroup posts had been published in it.
TPC Problem #2: When they discovered what had happened, of course, damage
was done. Many of the authors of the newsgroup posts Ken had duplicated
objected to their use in a publication that did not meet the research and
editorial standards of the journals for which they wrote specific articles.
They pointed out that the informal methods used in posting to a newsgroup is
not the same method they would present the information in an article for
publication, nor did they appreciate being made to look like contributors to
a publication that did not meet those standards.
Ken apologized and asserted he thought that as long as he credited the
newsgroup author, he had the right to publish newsgroup posts. He then
assured everyone he would not publish anyone's posts without their
permission.
So, ideally, if I refused Ken's request to publish my Queen Isabella/Clement
V newsgroup posts, that should be sufficient.
Had the whole thing ended there, the situation might have blown over, but
more problems arose.
TPC Problem #3: As anyone participating in the newsgroup can see, topics
often cause discussion and debate with several members. If the debate was
one that interested Ken, he wanted to publish it as before, but this time
getting all the members' permission beforehand. He sent them the article
(usually the newsgroup posts reformatted by Ken) and as the TPC editorial
standards hadn't changed, the predictable result occured: some gave
permission, but others did not wish their name or posts presented.
Ken then found himself in an editorial position he proved too inexperienced
to handle. He was left with half a debate. His readers would be left with
an article equivalent to hearing only one side of a phone conversation. So
he filled in the other half, with disastrous results.
Had my Queen Isabella/Clement V post resulted in a lengthy newsgroup debate
between me, Joe Shmoe and Mary Ellen, and Ken had Shmoe's and Ellen's
permission but not mine, yet still desperately wanted an article on the
topic, he could of course still get one. He would need to research the
original sources I cite in my discussion, have Joe Shmoe and Mary Ellen
rewrite material so that its not them responding to my newsgroup posts but
responding to the general arguments, and credit in the text or a footnote
that I had made the original statement in a newsgroup post on such and such
date that can be found at sgm, etc.
This is not done easily or quickly, and requires an editor skilled in
research and scholarship. Ken, lacking the time and skill, took the worst
route possible and reworked by himself the posts he had been denied
permission to use. This resulted in, as Nat Taylor pointed out, a variation
of plagiarism. The authors who had denied permission still had their posts
published in TPC, with some slight sentence restructuring, their names
completely removed except for a terse statement at one point in the article
that they had denied permission.
Not a scholarly approach, to say the least. I understand why scholars such
as Paul Reed and Rosie Bevan want nothing to do with TPC.
It should also be noted that Ken Finton announced he's added John Parsons
and Kay Allen as editors of TPC. Both are respected members of the
newsgroup and highly professional. There has not been an issue of TPC since
their addition, so it's hard to determine if the procedures Ken used in the
past have been remedied.
In my own experience, I was approached by Ken to write an article about the
points I'd made on the newsgroup this past year rebutting several of Robert
Todd's arguments in his Joan Gaveston TPC article. I declined, but did
offer to review an article if he could find another writer who wished to use
points I'd made on the newsgroup. Ken sent me an article he wrote which
incorporated several of my arguments. I was not misrepresented in what he
wrote, if he pulled sentences from my posts they were enclosed in quotes and
ascribed to me. I found nothing objectionable in the way my material from
my newsgroups posts was used in the article, though I did not agree with
certain arguments within the article (specifically, that the possibility
existed for Amie Gaveston to be born illegitimate to Margaret de Clare after
Piers was executed). I had some slight changes of wording I wished in the
article draft I reviewed, which Ken agreed to, and granted him my permission
to quote from my posts. My understanding from him is that the article is on
hold at this point.
The interaction proceeded without acrimony, perhaps because I had granted
permission.
Rosie Bevan is a researcher and a person who has my complete respect and
trust. I fully understand her firm wish to not have anything to do with
TPC. Ken's editorialship in the past has been a complete mess, caused a lot
of distress to members of this newsgroup, and the damage may indeed prove
irreparable.
Ken's appointment of John Parsons and Kay Allen to TPC, and his effort to
use my material in a cooperative way with my full agreement, was a positive
step in the right direction, in my view. But the ultra-defensive tone and
cutting remarks he made in response to Rosie's posting of her denial of
permission and her reasons why, erased much of the improved impression he'd
made, and I fear Ken and TPC are once again a big mess.
---Brad Verity
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
-----Message d'origine-----
De : brad verity <bat...@hotmail.com>
À : GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : dimanche 15 décembre 2002 12:51
Objet : Re: TPC - Denial Of Permission To Print [not medieval].
Nathaniel Taylor
bat...@hotmail.com ("brad verity") wrote:
<snip>
> ... and I fear Ken and TPC are once again a big mess.
Brad, your summary thoughtfully and dispassionately reviews the history
of Mr. Finton's journal vis-a-vis this newsgroup, and echoes the
objections that (I believe) many have had to his editorial practices.
Thank you.
Nat Taylor
Nathaniel Taylor
>Now, if Mr. Finton wants to revisit my finding of plagiarism, by all
>means we can dig it up ...
I do not want to prolong this thread. I merely wish to add reference to
one other post which I sought but didn't find last night: it is a post
made by Mr. Finton as a belated response to my posting of 2/13/2002,
which I cited last night:
Message-ID: <a6.217db3e...@aol.com>
Date: 18 Feb 2002
Subject: "Re: TPC: Ethics in publication"
In this post--which was buried in a 47-message thread--Mr. Finton made a
clear admission of plagiarism ("What I did with [the material in
question] is indeed the classic definition of plagiarism!"); and,
further, he admitted his imperfect knowledge about plagiarism ("What is
even more upsetting is that I did not see it that way until today!").
One can see how this sort of admission (the second as much as the first)
would fuel concerns about his fitness as an editor. It is perfectly
understandable to me why several professional or scholarly genealogists
on this list might want nothing to do with Mr. Finton's publication.
Nat Taylor
GRHa...@aol.com
Xan...@wanadoo.fr writes:
> "The posts I made concerning Gwladys Ddu would NOT have been made
> if I knew you were going to publish them. I do not stand by what is in
> them, and deny permission to publish them. Many were made late at night.
> I would have gone through things carefully and revised material if it was
> going
> to be published. But, again, I should have the right to decide WHERE my
> material should be published. I should not be forced or coerced to have it
> in
> your journal. "
>
Can you tell me who this quote is from? If it is from someone other than
Spencer Hines then I owe him an apology.
Gordon Hale
Nathaniel Taylor
>> "The posts I made concerning Gwladys Ddu would NOT have been made
>> if I knew you were going to publish them. I do not stand by what is in
>> them, and deny permission to publish them. Many were made late at night.
>> I would have gone through things carefully and revised material if it was
>> going
>> to be published. But, again, I should have the right to decide WHERE my
>> material should be published. I should not be forced or coerced to have it
>> in your journal. "
>>
>
>Can you tell me who this quote is from? If it is from someone other than
>Spencer Hines then I owe him an apology.
This was written by Paul C. Reed, in message
<20021214173623...@mb-cu.aol.com>
dated 14 December 2002.
It was quoted by Spencer Hines, in message
<2aPK9.60$QI....@eagle.america.net>
of the same date, posted in reply to Reed's message.
Nat Taylor
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Nathaniel Taylor <nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
Seconded.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org
Richard Smyth at UNC-CH
information that is presented. >
>
>someone has written and publishes them, there is no copyright on those letters?
No, there is a copyright on letters; the rights are part of the estate of
the sender.
Many years ago there was a furious exchange in the TLS about the merits of
the original, Ogden, translation of Wittgenstein's Tractatus. The adherents
of the Cambridge Epipheny, who were backing a new translation, included the
executors of Wittgenstein's estate. Wittgenstein had written a letter to
Ogden indicating his approval of the latter's translation. When an Ogden
supporter introduced that into the TLS correspondence as a relevant
consideration, Elizabeth Anscombe's rebuttal letter asserted a copyright
violation. I thought that was a remarkably obtuse response, even for a
woman who was not noted for her sensitivity.
I guess my point is that I come down on the side of those who want to put
Paul Reed's case as an ethical, rather than a legal, issue. On the other
hand, an editor who is cutting and pasting rather than re-phrasing has
problems on both fronts.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
sm...@nc.rr.com
D. Spencer Hines
Mr. Reed also deserves an apology.
He certainly did NOT say:
"he would not be responsible for the accuracy of anything he put on
GEN-MED..."
["I read a note from Spencer Hines recently in which he said he would not be
responsible for the accuracy of anything he put on GEN-MED..."]
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque Paenitentia,
Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in
your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of Hamlet,
Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original material
contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It may be quoted
only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution to the author,
unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:ntaylor-0F2A28...@nnrp04.earthlink.net...
Todd A. Farmerie
> Have I ever been published in TPC without my knowledge? I know
> that taf has repeatedly forwarded my posts, even against my
> expressed written request to not do so, to the SGM group, but
> this is a new one... without informing the contributor?
I make it a point of ignoring most paranoid ravings, but this
bears directly on the running of the group, and cannot be
overlooked.
The GEN-MEDIEVAL mailing list and the soc.genealogy.medieval
USENET group are joined by a two-way gateway, such that
EVERYTHING posted to either is transfered to the other. This is
automated. It is done by a computer. It is fully explained in
the FAQ for the groups, on the web page for the groups, and in
repeated postings to the groups. That is the way that the
GEN-MEDIEVAL mailing list has run since it was set up. In fact,
this is the reason WHY the GEN-MEDIEVAL list was set up to begin
with - to be a means for those who prefer the mailing list format
to participate in soc.gen.med. The submission of a message to
the GEN-MEDIEVAL mailing list _IS_ submission of it to the USENET
group soc.medieval.genealogy.
Annie is well aware of this, as it has been explicitly explained
to her numerous times. That she continues to pretend otherwise
indicates that the axe being ground is independent of the actual
complaint being made.
Todd A. Farmerie
co-Listowner
GEN-MEDIEVAL
His Jadedness Andy
>USENET group are joined by a two-way gateway, such that
>EVERYTHING posted to either is transfered to the other. This is
>automated. It is done by a computer. It is fully explained in
>the FAQ for the groups, on the web page for the groups, and in
>repeated postings to the groups. That is the way that the
>GEN-MEDIEVAL mailing list has run since it was set up. In fact,
>this is the reason WHY the GEN-MEDIEVAL list was set up to begin
>with - to be a means for those who prefer the mailing list format
>to participate in soc.gen.med. The submission of a message to
>the GEN-MEDIEVAL mailing list _IS_ submission of it to the USENET
>group soc.medieval.genealogy.
This is, in the minds of a few, the one GREAT failing of both the Newsgroup AND
the Mailing-List. It offers the worst of both types without bestowing the
benefits of either.
"May your Morn be bright and sunny, your Noon be warm and clear, your Dusk be
calm and tranquil and your Night without a fear"
His Jadedness, Andy
Known Descendants of Queen Victoria Message Board
http://members3.boardhost.com/KDQV/
D. Spencer Hines
Todd is absolutely correct here.
This has all been explained many times.
The poster is clearly being disingenuous and is indeed prevaricating and being
deliberately obtuse.
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque Paenitentia,
Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in
your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of Hamlet,
Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original material
contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It may be quoted
only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution to the author,
unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3DFCD4EA...@interfold.com...
Todd A. Farmerie
> In a message dated 12/14/2002 6:06:07 PM Central Standard Time,
>
>>Why would anyone, who does not want his or her information
>>"lifted" for private, or public use -- in print or in an
>>electronic medium, present that information to a free,
>>public discussion list?
>
> this hullabaloo.
>
> If you don't want anyone to use your information, don't tell anyone about it.
> Simple as that. I have always felt that if the information was posted on
> the Internet, or in a newspaper, or even in a book, I would have a right to
> use it if I merely cited the source.
Perhaps when viewed in the context of professional scholarly
pursuits in general (from which perspective many of those
involved are viewing things), the answer to this question will be
more clear.
A distinction is made, in all scholarly fields, between what has
been published in the scholarly journals of the field, and all
other forms of public dissemination of information. While
lectures, seminars, and exchanges at meetings are an integral
part of the academic experience, they are viewed differently. It
is not uncommon to bounce ideas off of collegues, to discuss
troubling issues, to float trial-balloon theories and get
feedback, etc., but once it is published on paper, in an academic
journal, you are saying "this is what I conclude is true, and
what I will stake my career and reputation on". It is the
published record that serves as the basis for scholarly criticism
and is often the sole basis for career advancement and individual
evaluation. This evaluation is based not only on content, but
also context, and impact. Thus the decision on when and what and
where to publish is critical.
This is, in fact, a 'good thing', for several reasons. If a
researcher is not permitted the liberty of discussing his
research with others with knowledge in the areas in question, his
own work will be insulary, and perhaps stillborn. Likewise,
those collegues benefit, because they know the general course
that the research is taken, and the conclusions may be helpful to
their own work. It is a win-win situation, as long as the ethics
of the process are respected. When they are not, it becomes a
lose-lose - when researchers find themselves deprived of the
career benefit of their own work they suffer directly, but so
does everyone else, as the researcher will be both less open in
discussion, and their product will be inferior, lacking the
benefit of such discussions. Particularly in the latter, the
entire field of research can be misled. Once something is in
print (because of the permanence and heightened scrutiny that
publishing represents) it is given much more credibility than a
handwritten note or taped conversation. There are published
errors from the 1600s that are still being cited, with the
explanation that "he must have had some good reason for it, or he
wouldn't have put it in his book'. Likewise, individuals such as
Round, Dugdale, Salazar y Castro, the brothers Garcia Carrafa,
etc., are still being evaluated even centuries later, based not
on their private notes or discussions, but based on their printed
record.
It is a major breach of professional ethics to violate this code.
To take data revealed through such academic discussions and
publish them (even to find out what someone is working on and go
back through and 'reresearch' it from scratch, as if it was
discovered independently) may get you a publication ahead of your
collegue, but will also burn a whole lot of bridges. Even to lay
out another's findings, giving them full credit, is unethical, as
it deprives them of the ability to cast their argument as they
see fit, it deprives their publication of its impact by this
preemption (and in fact, transfers the impact to one's own
publication), and in some cases, it may convey an opinion that
they decided not to publish because they were not confident
enough to make it permanent. This it should not, under any
circumstances, be done without explicit permission. (This is not
hypothetical. As we speak, I have been sitting on an article for
6 months, because it relies heavily on the work of another, and
they have not seen fit to publish their work yet. It is even
possible, probable at this point, that I will never be able to
publish my own work due to this encumberance, but this can't be
helped - it would be wrong to act otherwise.) Most academics
take these responsibilities very serously. Those who respect
them will find collegiality and reciprocation in return. Those
who do not find their collegues not very collegial.
Setting aside the legal issues of copyright (which also are at
issue here) this is primarily an ethical issue, and the problem
with ethics is that they are not codified and yet require
everyone to accept similar ethical standards for the system to
function. When one person decides that the accepted ethics do
not apply to them, and does things which under the 'controling'
system are damaging to others, it should then not be surprising
that all hell breaks loose. If they continually offend, they
invariably become the target for public vituperation, both to
warn others that they are not to be trusted, but also in an
attempt to force a change in behavior through public embarassment
and peer pressure.
So, in light of this established ethic of scholarly research and
publication, and considering that it is the printed record on
which they will, in the end, be judged by their peers, not just
now but for centuries in some cases, it is not that odd that
people would want to use this forum for causal discussions, to
bounce ideas off one another, etc., but might still want to
retain the right to decide when, where, and how their ideas
should be conveyed into print?
taf
Gordon Banks
I would recommend the following for a good discussion of "Fair Use:"
http://www.cetus.org/fair5.html
My reading of this is that posts made here could not be reproduced an any
sort of journal whether for profit or not, without the permission of the
poster. Small excerpts of the posting could be used for "critical reviews"
(and in a review column, one would assume, not a feature article), but the
amount of the posting used in a review compared with the total amount of the
posting should be minimal.
Those in this group whose academic or professional careers are tied to their
discoveries might find their ability to publish their results in a scholarly
journal impaired should the substance of their work has already been
published, as many journals want to publish only material that is "new."
I'm not a copyright attorney, but based on my reading of this, publishing a
journal consisting of posts from SGM would be on very shaky legal ground
unless permission is obtained from each poster published therein. I further
believe, that such permission would have to be in written form in order to
be consider safe should such a matter come before a court. Simply not
replying to an email asking permission would hardly be considered as
granting permission.
I'm sure the journal in question is valuable to many persons and that it
isn't a big money maker for the publisher, but I doubt if the courts would
cut it any slack on those grounds should it come to that. And publishing
something when permission has been expressly denied would likely be
considered an egregious violation which could lead to punitive damages.
Todd A. Farmerie
> Are you saying for instance that if you say, "The sky is blue", I don't have
> the right to say "I think that the sky is blue."? I realize this is the
> ultimate simplification, but I hope you get my point.
Certainly, the 'obviousness' of an observation plays a role. If
you are blind (if you are basing this statement on something for
which you do not have direct knowledge) then you are pushing the
envelope, but in this case there would be little room for
complaint, as the content is common knowledge, while there is
only so many word combinations possible to convey that
information, and that which you have selected is the obvious one.
If, rather then "the sky is blue" you say that "the sequence of
the CRE of the equine GSUalpha promoter is TGACGTTA", that is
still an undeniable fact, and you can state this without
violating copyright, but ethically, you had better have a
citation (and a very specific one at that), as this is far from
common knowledge. If it is not common knowledge, and you don't
know it through your own research, it is wrong to use it without
citation (in scholarly work, everything not common knowledge and
related without citation or other for of credit is assumed to
represent the work of the author). If the material that serves
as the basis for your statement is unpublished, then you should
not repeat it without permission (and even if you go back and
research it yourself, this does not make it right, as you were
led to it by knowledge of another's discovery of the same thing).
> Some things just
> cannot be stated without repeating some portion of what someone else has
> written, or said.
In quoting your post here, I am legally and ethically within my
rights to utilize your material for scholarly comment and
criticism. Were I to just print your post and sell it (even at
cost) in it's entirety (or were someone else to do the same to
this post in which I quote you) without permission, that would
violate both copyright and ethics. In the eyes of the law, the
distinction is based on how much of the entire work is quoted,
whether scholarly value is being added by comment or criticism,
and whether it is being sold (or depriving the original author of
selling it). The requirements of ethical behavior are more
stringent, and involve the above, but also the degree to which
the material is commonly known, how much you yourself have
researched the question and whether it has been formally published.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
be sure, that they go absolutely bananas whenever we have a vigorous
discussion here on:
Genealogical Methodology
Sound Scholarship
Scholarly Conventions
Frauds
Charlatans
And:
Data Miners?
This discussion was kicked off by a very intelligent woman, who is certainly
neither hysterical nor unbalanced, Rosie Bevan. The hystericals would be well
advised to remember that ---- and then go back and reread what Rosie said.
These discussions are perfectly proper here and represent a self-cleansing
effort by the newsgroup.
I think one of the reasons they become so hysterical and begin whining and
kvetching is that they simply can't stand it "when the experts disagree." It
confuses and confounds them and they go bananas. "I tell you Annie, I just
don't know who to believe. It's so frustrating."
They would be wise to take a large glass of warm milk, perhaps with an ounce
of brandy in it, and a long nap.
They should also adopt a sound rule of USENET behavior:
"If you are not interested in a thread or it makes you go bananas ---- just
don't read the damned thing. And above all, spare us your hysterical whining
and kvetching about it. The people posting to that thread, have good reason
to do so and don't need your caterwauling. There are plenty of other threads,
and newsgroups, to keep you gainfully occupied."
Of course, the malefactors ---- the frauds, charlatans and data miners ----
are well aware of this Hysterical Person Syndrome [HPS] and exploit it
skillfully to keep doing their nefarious deeds.
Why do you think Finton was so outraged that Rosie did not contact him
"privately"?
Because he wants to sweep this entire matter under the carpet, of course. The
last thing he wants is a General Awareness on SGM/MED of his past and present
transgressions ---- so it is decidedly in his interest to see that any such
discussion is shut down as quickly as possible ---- before he is exposed any
further.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Reedpcgen
Pope Clement V that resulted in an illegitimate son, John of Eltham," and a
heated discussion arose from it, whatever information results, including my
original argument, can be used by Ken Finton in an article.>
A fact is a matter of public record if it IS a fact and public record. Here
you have made a statement, but no citation to a document. As it is, unless
this information can also be found in other sources, it is merely your
statement, not a "fact." Without a citation to documentary record, I would
wonder if this was completely your material and copyright.
For instance, some while ago I posted what I said was the marriage agreement
for John le Scot, knowing it was exactly the type of thing Ken would like to
swipe and publish without my permission.
Well, Ken has swiped it, and intends to publish it in the next issue, in spite
of my refusal, as he attempted to coerce me into it beforehand.
Now, if this was actually my invention, and it was taken and published by Ken
word for word, or even paraphrased, though I purported it to be factual when I
posted it, if Ken took it and published it, a work of my imagination and
creation, would this not legally be a blatant violation of copyright, and
challengeable in court?
Paul
Reedpcgen
and considering that it is the printed record on which they will, in the end,
be judged by their peers, not just now but for centuries in some cases, it is
not that odd that people would want to use this forum for causal discussions,
to bounce ideas off one another, etc., but might still want to retain the right
to decide when, where, and how their ideas should be conveyed into print?>
In the past, I had presented much original material on this forum, but after it
became clear Ken would take what he wanted, I stopped, answering only specific
questions from time to tie to help people, and challenging errors.
Ken attempted to coerce me into publishing on a specific matter for his
journal. This has already been discussed and need not be rehashed here, other
than to point out that I had previously refused him publication of my material
(as Rosie had), but he went ahead anyway.
I would also note that to my knowledge we have NEVER made one complaint against
respected journals such as The American Genealogist, The Genealogist, The
Genealogist's Magazine, The New England Historical and Genealogical Register,
The National Genealogical Society Quarterly, The Virginia Genealogist, The New
York Biographical and Historical Record, etc.
All of these journals have backlogs of articles awaiting publication. All of
these journals operate on completely legal and ethical lines.
It is only The Plantagenet Connection that has elicited so much rancor on this
forum, for violations of practices against respected individuals who have
proven themselves to be extremely careful about research, and helpful in
public.
In this field, the highest honors and awards are given for the scholarship and
care taken in one's publications. Given this environment and background,
publishing someone's material in spite of denial of permission is a matter of
import. One something is in print, shot of pulping all copies, it is permanent
record.
Paul
D. Spencer Hines
it became clear Ken would take what he wanted, I stopped, answering only
specific questions from time to tie to help people, and challenging errors."
He's certainly not the only one who has done this.
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque Paenitentia,
Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in
your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of Hamlet,
Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original material
contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It may be quoted
only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution to the author,
unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Reedpcgen" <reed...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021215182719...@mb-mq.aol.com...
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
Yes what? I HAVE been published in TPC?
he never asked me anything...where do I go to sue?
If so, you're deadmeat in my book, Kennyboy...
nope, Im not being intentionally obtuse...
Im just a naive person who thought that
nobody would dare to *publish* anything
by anybody without permission...
PS I didnt say I didnt understand about the gateway practice, just that I didnt like it & didnt give my permission, which doesnt seem to have bothered him at all, so it's hard to understand why he thinks there's a big difference about another's doing the same... but I dont bandy about publishing other people's work, so I AM pretty upset at the idea...
PS: inter alia : Todd is not the least bit correct here nor anywhere else, about anything, because he has a lousy attitude. but why discuss it; he stilll labours under the delusion that it's ok ... I think he must be an atheist... otherwise he wouldnt assume that God & most mortals, must be too stupid to see his cheap putdown gambits... heck, Im just an obtuse little girl, & I can see right through him ... if he thinks it's going to make him look intelligent, it's just proof that he's not...
& there's nothing particularly luminous about YOUR post, either, hines... but please, dont comment; nobody cares.
-----Message d'origine-----
De : D. Spencer Hines <D._Spenc...@usa.yale.edu>
À : GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : dimanche 15 décembre 2002 21:30
Objet : Re: TPC - Denial Of Permission To Print [not medieval].
Yes.
Todd is absolutely correct here.
This has all been explained many times.
The poster is clearly being disingenuous and is indeed prevaricating and being
deliberately obtuse.
Deus Vult
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque Paenitentia,
Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in
your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of Hamlet,
Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original material
contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It may be quoted
only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution to the author,
unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in writing.
------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
D. Spencer Hines
it became clear Ken would take what he wanted, I stopped, answering only
challenging errors."
Paul C. Reed
-------------------
He's certainly not the only one who has done this.
It's _The Chilling Effect_.
The Genealogical and Historical substance used to be much greater here ----
meaty, filling, original postings.
Folks don't post as much substance because they don't want Finton scarfing up
their Work Product, mangling it and then ripping them off by publishing it.
They have good reason to think and feel this way. Finton is simply not
qualified, either intellectually or ethically, to serve as the editor of a
genealogical journal.
This has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with people using what they read here in
their OWN PRIVATE DATABASES, as they see fit, or as a guide for further
research ---- but not PUBLISHING IT ---- without the author's permission, in
writing.
That's a point that Finton often likes to obscure with the Red Herring that
"if you don't want anyone to use what you post here don't post it ---- keep it
to yourself."
Flimflammery... Three Card Monty at its most blatant.
Nathaniel Taylor
reed...@aol.com (Reedpcgen) wrote:
I believe this is the rationale behind those false streets that many
mapmakers add to their maps, in order to snare unwary plagiarists (a
real street cannot be under copyright!). This would be an interesting
outcome of the whole sorry state of affairs: posters deliberately
inserting imaginary information into posts, in order to have a basis to
nail data miners down the road. I wonder if any poster has already done
this?
The best way to avoid being fooled by such genealogical "paper streets"
is simply to adhere to good scholarship: ask for source citations for
anything you see posted here that interests you, and check up on them
yourself.
Nat Taylor
brad verity
>A fact is a matter of public record if it IS a fact and public record.
>Here
>you have made a statement, but no citation to a document. As it is, unless
>this information can also be found in other sources, it is merely your
>statement, not a "fact." Without a citation to documentary record, I would
>wonder if this was completely your material and copyright.
I don't know. If I did take two documented facts - let's say I came across
a Close Roll document where John of Eltham is called "my dear son" by the
Pope, then I showed that the itinerary of Queen Isabella had her in Avignon
at the time of her son John's conception, and incorporated those into the
post where I first make my conclusion that John was Isabella's son as a
result of her affair with the Pope, I don't know the legal ramifications.
Ethically, I should be credited as the orginator of the "Pontiff fathered
John of Eltham" theory whenever it is discussed in the future, whether the
arguments support or oppose it, and a citation to the post where I first
laid it out should be provided.
Legally, do I own the idea? I don't know the answer. I certainly own my
presentation of it, and should have the right to agree beforehand to the use
of the reproduction of my presentation of it in other public media.
But if Joe Shmoe did a lot of his own research in arguing against my
conclusion, and wished to publish the results, can I legally stop him, if
I'm not misrepresented and am properly credited within Shmoe's article?
This is the legal area that confuses me.
>For instance, some while ago I posted what I said was the marriage
>agreement
>for John le Scot, knowing it was exactly the type of thing Ken would like
>to
>swipe and publish without my permission.
>
>Well, Ken has swiped it, and intends to publish it in the next issue, in
>spite
>of my refusal, as he attempted to coerce me into it beforehand.
You've proven the bear will still walk into the trap if the bait is right.
>Now, if this was actually my invention, and it was taken and published by
>Ken
>word for word, or even paraphrased, though I purported it to be factual
>when I
>posted it, if Ken took it and published it, a work of my imagination and
>creation, would this not legally be a blatant violation of copyright, and
>challengeable in court?
If your post is taken and published word for word, or paraphrased with no
significant alteration to the wording and content, that's plagiarism,
whether your post and arguments prove to be real or invented.
The general issues I see are this:
1) To what extent are posts to the soc.gen.medieval newsgroup 'published'
once they hit the forum? Are they to be considered informal conversations
but in printed rather than verbal format? Or are they considered as letters
to the editors are in printed media?
2) What, if any, restrictions can be placed on newsgroup members who
participate in the forum? Should a restriction from publishing posts that
appear on soc.gen.medieval be a condition for all who wish to participate?
The specific issues surrounding TPC and Ken Finton's mining of posts for
content will have to take specific measures.
Starting with notification to TAG, NEHGR, etc. that any appearance of
material in TPC in any format should not preclude the material from being
published in those journals in the formats acceptable to those standards.
At this point, I don't think anyone familiar with TPC would mistake it for a
journal on the same level as TAG, etc. Once the other publications are made
aware of the editorial violations TPC engages in, and that people whose
names appear connected to material discussed in TPC, can in no way be
certain to be consenting contributers, I can't see how they could refuse to
publish a scholarly article on a topic on the grounds the topic appeared
already in TPC.
I hope that may help remedy some of the anxiety those who publish in those
journals feel about participating in newsgroup discussions. If anything, it
can be an active step until the newsgroup comes to agreement on defining its
posts and their use by members and the general public.
Cheers, ------Brad
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Todd A. Farmerie
> 2) What, if any, restrictions can be placed on newsgroup members who
> participate in the forum? Should a restriction from publishing posts
> that appear on soc.gen.medieval be a condition for all who wish to
> participate?
This is a simple one to answer. There is no structural way to
restrict participation in soc.gen.med. Even 'moderated' groups
only limit who can contribute to the discussion, while all are
free to read it. The only way to prevent someone from publishing
soc.gen.med material is by convincing them that it is in their
own best interest to refrain from so doing.
taf
William Addams Reitwiesner
I haven't done this deliberately, but on several occasions I've noticed
that something I've written, either in a post to Usenet or on a webpage,
had an error, sometimes a minor spelling error and sometimes an incorrect
date (digits transposed, etc.). I usually fix the webpage (if it's one
that I control), but I like to Google for the incorrect data -- it's fun to
see who steals from me. See <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=368
2a8c7.2272412%40news.erols.com&output=gplain> (watch the line wrap) for an
example of someone publicly caught doing so :)
>The best way to avoid being fooled by such genealogical "paper streets"
>is simply to adhere to good scholarship: ask for source citations for
>anything you see posted here that interests you, and check up on them
>yourself.
Amen.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
Brad Verity
> If the material that serves
> as the basis for your statement is unpublished, then you should
> not repeat it without permission (and even if you go back and
> research it yourself, this does not make it right, as you were
> led to it by knowledge of another's discovery of the same thing).
And what if I credit the person who led me to the knowledge as the
originator of the discovery? I still can't repeat it without
permission?
Your recent posts on this issue have been very helpful to me, Todd,
and I appreciate them. The above point, though, I see as a huge gray
area which might take some adjustment of the definition of this
newsgroup.
Let's take Finton out of the equation, as his abrasive personality and
past editorial disasters overwhelm the general arguments.
Harper Collins has commissioned me to write a biography of Margaret de
Clare (Hey, I can dream!). But as there is very little published
mention of her, I rely on many of the newsgroup posts of the past year
- all ascribed correctly to the proper authors - as sources for the
details of her life that I include in my text.
There has been a fierce debate on the newsgroup over whether Margaret
was six foot five inches tall or not. Joe Shmoe insists that a
statement in the Calendar of Christmas Lists that Edward II looked up
to Margaret proves she was because we know Edward II was at least six
feet. Shmoe provides a transcription of the Christmas List entry from
the PRO original to the newsgroup. The entry also states that
Margaret was a redhead.
In my Margaret biography, I dismiss the idea that she was six foot
five, but do mention her red hair, citing Shmoe's newsgroup post of
the Christmas List entry transcription as my source. Shmoe, preparing
his own article on Margaret for the Journal of Medieval Women Over Six
Feet has refused permission for me to quote from his newsgroup posts.
But it was Shmoe's translation of the PRO Christmas List entry that
led me to the knowledge that Margaret was a redhead. So, ethically, I
should take out all reference to her being one because Shmoe has
refused permission?
The above scenario is silly on purpose but my confusion over the
ethics of the situation is genuine. For my instinct would be: Shmoe
be damned, I'm publishing that Margaret was a redhead in my biography
and quoting the original PRO Christmas List, if Shmoe doesn't want his
name to appear in my work.
Cheers, -------Brad
Chris Phillips
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
> > If the material that serves
> > as the basis for your statement is unpublished, then you should
> > not repeat it without permission (and even if you go back and
> > research it yourself, this does not make it right, as you were
> > led to it by knowledge of another's discovery of the same thing).
Brad Verity wrote:
> And what if I credit the person who led me to the knowledge as the
> originator of the discovery? I still can't repeat it without
> permission?
I do think we have to take account of the fact that the world of Internet
newsgroups and mailing lists is a bit different from academics giving
seminars and discussing their research with colleagues over dinner.
I feel that there's a lot to be said for the view Rosie Bevan stated, that a
post on a newsgroup, where it can be seen by anyone with Internet access and
will probably remain available for a very long time, is about as public a
form of publication as you could wish for. Of course, that doesn't mean its
contents are fair game for anyone to do with as he or she wishes, either
legally or ethically.
The legal position over copyright has been explored in the past as much as
anyone could wish.
As for ethics, isn't this largely a matter of courtesy, consideration and
common sense? Brad has already discussed a lot of the issues in his
excellent overview of the history of the Plantagenet Connection business. In
cases where copyright doesn't come into play, the main issues are that
proper credit should be given, that preliminary or informal contributions
should be accurately reflected as such, and that if the author would like
others to hold back from publishing the work because he or she is planning
his or her own publication, that should be respected.
I think this last consideration still has to apply even if a newsgroup post
is seen as a "publication" in its own right, because obviously much of the
world still sees paper publication as having a higher status, and that's
unquestionably true if the paper publication has an element of peer-review
by others about it. (Not that there's anything to stop Internet publications
having that, but newsgroup posts obviously don't!)
So as a courtesy the author's wishes should be respected. Of course, if an
author were to behave unreasonably, for example trying to embargo someone's
work on the basis that he had posted a trivial piece of information that was
also cited by them, such courtesy would become inappropriate. As we're
talking about ethics rather than law, I think it has to be for each person
to decide, if the circumstances are unusual.
Chris Phillips
Nathaniel Taylor
Perhaps one could draft an amendment to the charter of the group / list
(or at least the faq, which would be much easier) which says something
to the effect that the participants in the group must agree to abide by
a certain code, which includes not violating copyright laws and ethical
standards of scholarly use in reproducing and redistributing the
material posted to the site. Compliance could not be enforced (least of
all with any access to past posts via google or the list archives), but
a consensus of ethical expectations could be stated and then referred to
in future discussions.
Nat Taylor
www.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/
Vickie Elam White
>I usually fix the webpage (if it's one that I control), but
>I like to Google for the incorrect data -- it's fun to
>see who steals from me.
I do this several times a year, and it can be quite sobering.
I usually contact the webmaster and, depending on what has
been stolen, ask for its removea, a fix of any errors, or a citation
to my work. Quite often I receive no response or nasty responses,
so nothing further can be done on my part without resorting to
legal methods.
Unfortunately, lots of my material has ended up on WFT discs
and can't be removed or at least attributed to me in retrospect.
Vickie Elam White
Vickie Elam White
>Legally, do I own the idea? I don't know the answer.
I hope not. <G> Many times people come to the same
conclusions independently of one another. In fact, that's how
I "met" Kay Allen -- we realized we were both working on the
same line and had reached some of the same conclusions, so
we teamed up.
>I certainly own my presentation of it, and should have the right
>to agree beforehand to the use of the reproduction of my
>presentation of it in other public media.
I agree 100%
Vickie Elam White
Vickie Elam White
Brad Verity, not Paul Reed.
Vickie Elam White
Chris Phillips
Vickie Elam White wrote:
> I usually contact the webmaster and, depending on what has
> been stolen, ask for its removea, a fix of any errors, or a citation
> to my work. Quite often I receive no response or nasty responses,
> so nothing further can be done on my part without resorting to
> legal methods.
The oddest thing along these lines that's happened to me was finding the
"Medieval English families on the Internet" section of my website
transplanted wholesale into a Russian genealogy site, with a Russian title
(and with a link to the original).
When I contacted the owner of the site, politely expressing surprise and
suggesting that it would be better just to link to my site - particularly as
so much work has to go into maintaining current links in a listing like
that - for some reason he refused, and when pressed he was quite indignant
that he was doing a valuable job by providing a Russian language version of
a list of links to these English-language websites. (Rather like one English
County Record Office taking the trouble to translate its regulations into
Urdu - all very admirable, but not much practical help unless they are
offering to translate the documents into Urdu too!)
The Russian page is still there - about 2 years old, I'd guess, and bound to
be full of rotten links by now...
Chris Phillips