China Mieville' speaks for us

[jurble]

You shouldn't be hatin' on Facebook, it's a machine, you should hate Zuckerberg. It's funnier that way. The man could charge five bucks to let people punch him, and quadruple his net-worth.

[Werthead]

The reposting of blog posts continues. In fact, I wonder if they have some automatic update thing going on, given their complete obliviousness to the comments made about how the page is a fake and is violating copyright.

I think we need more people reporting the page as a scam/spam and more people commenting about how the page is unofficial. People are STILL thinking it's an official GRRM page.

Check this out for an example of how online copying is carried out by people under the delusion that everything online is fair use.

[LugaJetboyGirl]

The reposting of blog posts continues. In fact, I wonder if they have some automatic update thing going on, given their complete obliviousness to the comments made about how the page is a fake and is violating copyright.

I think we need more people reporting the page as a scam/spam and more people commenting about how the page is unofficial. People are STILL thinking it's an official GRRM page.

Check this out for an example of how online copying is carried out by people under the delusion that everything online is fair use.

I just reported it as spam. I wonder if you could start a discussion thread on the 'discussion page' that more clearly lays this information out? That way it wouldn't get lost in the comments.

[Werthead]

They seem to have removed all of the pics apart from the header, which is the same pic GRRM has in some of his books and may be okay under Fair Use as a pre-used publicity photo (someone with more knowledge may need to look at that).

They're still reposting the blog posts in full, however, and have not made it clear it's an unofficial page.

[Parris]

wow, LJB, that link is a wonder. I could easily round up a dozen editors/writers/publishers with big sticks to roundly knock some sense into this woman who thinks anything available on the net is in the public domain.

But I won't have to make the effort - looks like several people and sites are already at work, finding many examples of the rag that ripped off one writer of medieval recipes also using other people's work in the offending 'publication'.

There really needs to be some sort of on-going Internet 101 class that anyone who gets on the net has to read and prove they understand that using other people's work without permission is a big no-no. In the case of some offensives, there are even European countries considering out right banning people who constantly rip off everything from music to music to poetry and art and photographs and stories from using the 'net at all. I think that's pretty Draconian, and as a liberal who believes in free speech and the spreading of information and ideas are basically good things, yet still trying to get the word out that FB has fake GRRM pages up that includes my copyrighted photographs, and having to spend some time getting 'free' fiction sites to take down George's copyrighted works every week, I'm feeling pretty Dragonish myself these days.

[Maltaran]

The main problem, I think, is that if you don't defend your copyright then you lose it, and George presumably wants to keep control over all his writings.

[mormont]

I would agree that people letting you download the books (illegally) should be closed down. Althought it's a lost cause imo.

What I'm talking about is something completely different.

I'm talking about the FB page specifically.

I don't get what the problem is with the FB page. It even has a link to the LJ account, and that person is not actively impersonating GRRM. (i/e not actally writing anything other than what GRRM wrote on NAB).

That person is indeed actively impersonating GRRM: by posting things that GRRM wrote without attribution and without any disclaimer or indication that the page is unofficial, that it's owned or controlled by anyone other than GRRM, or that the page's author did not create the articles himself or is reproducing them without permission. That's self-evident, and even if it wasn't, you can see it from the number of people here who've been surprised to discover that the page is not genuine. Clearly, these fans have been duped - which is reason enough to close the page down.

The page also breaches FB's own Terms of Use, as I pointed out. It's acceptable for people to set up fan pages on FB. But impersonation is out, as is breach of fair use (which the page is also guilty of). Remember, every time you post something to FB you are asserting that you have the right to reproduce it, which in this case is not true.

Finally, there's the issue of copyright, as Malt says. Were GRRM to ignore this (having been made aware of it), anybody could then reproduce his blog articles in full for any purpose. I could collect them and sell them in a book, and GRRM likely wouldn't get a penny even if he sued.

Morally, legally and by FB's own terms of use, the page in its current format is unacceptable.

[Maltaran]

Is my forum post here my copyright? did I allow you to quote me? Seriously, this is the internet.

Your point being? Just because it's on the Internet, that doesn't mean you can do what you like with it. Fair-use attributed quoting is legal, word-for-word unattributed copypasting is not.

[mormont]

Probably half of FB is breaking the FB TOS.

Yup. And people get busted for it all the time. I've seen accounts banned for considerably less serious breaches than this. Besides, this is not an excuse.

Is my forum post here my copyright?did I allow you to quote me? Seriously, this is the internet.

And it's well established in law that the internet is covered by copyright. Quoting a message board post for the purposes of discussion has been established as fair use, the rule being that this is in essence a conversation. Reproducing entire blog articles, on the other hand, is firmly established as not being fair use, such posts being equivalent to published articles. This is all pretty clear.

Again, the fans have been "duped" to what?

To believing that the page is authorised, that the articles are published with permission, that the page is approved, controlled or owned by GRRM, and so on. It's all right there in my last post.

Are the texts not what GRRM wrote? has the person that opened the page written something that GRRM didn't write in his NAB?

Yes, and no. This is the essence of the problem, in fact. If the texts were being commented on with an accompanying link instead of just reproduced, it would be discussion and not reproduction. It would also be a clue that this isn't an official page and that the author is not GRRM himself.

with a link saying ORIGINAL ARTICLE. How is that not clear that this is not the ORIGINAL article? I would say that that is a clear indication that this is not the original article.

But it's manifestly not a clear indication that the owner of the page is not the author of the original article, and doesn't have the right to reproduce it. In fact it clearly implies the reverse, particularly to anyone familiar with FB's Terms of Use.

Seriously, this FB page is only helping GRRM. I just don't see any harm in it.

Well. it's been explained to you why it's harmful. It robs him of control of something he wrote. It's clear that some fans consider it harmful to them, too, because they're upset to discover the page is not authorised. Now, I don't suggest that the person who set it up intended to harm anyone, but they are doing so. And ignorance, or good intentions, aren't an excuse. They should have approached GRRM before doing this. For a start, it would have been good manners.

[mormont]

So basically if that guy wrote "this is what GRRM posted in his blog" you'd be fine with it?

No. That's a misreading of what I said, which is that if there were commentary instead of wholesale reproduction it would be fair use. (And oddly, that's not even the bit of my post you quoted. The bit you quoted has nothing to do with that.)

As long as the updates are the same updates, I just don't see the reason for all this fuss.

That is the reason for the fuss. They're the same updates reproduced without permission, ergo it's a breach of copyright. That's pretty much the end of the conversation, certainly in the legal sense.

They have a link that's called "original article". I'd say that's not unattributed.

You'd be wrong. A link that merely says 'original article' says nothing about whether the linker is the author or not. It is therefore not a clear attribution, so long as there is confusion about the identity of the linker. And if the attribution's unclear, it's unattributed. Believe me, I do a lot of work on plagiarism and attribution. I know what I'm talking about here.

Why should fans feel upset that the page is not authorized? who cares? IMO what the fans should care about is that they get the REAL updates.

Clearly, many of them care. For most I imagine they care because they feel deceived by the page. They wouldn't have chosen to sign up for an unofficial page that breaches the author's rights. I'm not sure it's reasonable for you to say what people are allowed to care about, and certainly not to tell people that signing up to something under false pretenses is no big deal.

Nor is it reasonable for you to say whether GRRM is being harmed or not. Look, GRRM is a writer. Words are what he makes his living by. It's natural that he would be upset by someone using his words without permission.

I've already outlined a concrete example of how this could harm him. If this is allowed to continue, someone could collect and publish his Not-A-Blog entries in a book, for cash, against his will and without paying him a penny. That isn't a problem, to you? This could even be used to justify publishing unauthorised recordings of his readings for money, on the grounds that if GRRM allows his blog entries to be copied, his readings are also fair game.

That you don't understand the problem is not an argument that there is no problem, I'm afraid. This is harming GRRM, and it is harming those of his fans who mistake the page for an authorised page, because they're being duped. You're right that a FB feed of the NAB might be a good idea, but only if it's official. Unofficial fan pages are also fine, so long as they don't infringe the author's rights. But to claim this page is a good idea, is like saying it's ridiculous for me to make a fuss about someone letting themselves into my house, so long as they bring pizza. The 'benefit' is irrelevant.

[Ran]

Copyright notices are not required. Copyright in works are a right guaranteed under the Berne Act and agreed upon by all signatories, including the United States; copyright statements are a formality, but not a necessary one (copyright notices become important when you wish to pursue a lawsuit over the matter -- then you have to formally register the disputed material).

Fair use assumes you've right to extract short quotes for the purposes of informing and commenting. Reposting complete posts from someone's LJ/blog/website is not a fair use. Forum threads are somewhat different, but note that you are keeping the thread right here when quoting text -- you are not removing it to a third-party site, you are using the conventions built into forum functionality in a way that's intended to promote discussion on the forum.

Whether you feel that page and others like it are beneficial or not, GRRM doesn't seem to want it, and he absolutely has the right to pursue removing it. George is bothered by the fact that people believe it is actually an official page, that his image (copyright of Parris) is being used without permission, and so on. These are all legitimate concerns.

People want to follow Not a Blog? Great! Sign up for the RSS feed, it's quick and easy.

I don't see much of a problem with a GRRM fan page on LJ -- there's several which aren't in dispute at all because they're clearly unofficial and do not violate copyright -- but one that simply spits out the full content of his LJ, uses an image without permission, and unfortunately makes itself seem like it's an official page is not appropriate. If they removed the image, posted only a snippet of each LJ post, and made it clear they were unofficial and unaffiliated with GRRM, it would be entirely unobjectionable.

See Twitter, where GRRM's publishers retweet his posts (and those of the other authors they publish who have blogs/LJs with RSS feeds) -- that's perfectly legitimate.

[Maltaran]

GRRM is a writer. I would say that if someone stole his work and reprinted it, then ok, he's harmed. And I would be 100% for him to sue the other guy's ass.

When someone takes his posts on NAB and posts them FB with a link to LJ...

Books, LJ, it's still his work. Legally, there's no difference in the copyright status

I'll also add that the NAB and the books are two completely different things, as the NAB is a blog and the books are COMMERCIAL books.

See above.

[Werthead]

The FB page in question does have lots of replies from people assuming that it is GRRM's official Facebook page, dozens of them in fact. That alone makes the situation uncomfortable. Sure, the page in question is only reprinting LJ articles (to the extent that I wonder if the person who set the page up has some auto-script doing it and takes no actual hand on the page any more) and not falsifying information from GRRM, but it's still a misrepresentation of the situation that GRRM and his representatives are very much unhappy with.

[Ran]

Which in effect is zero (because the NAB posts have no commercial value).

Uhm, pretty sure that it does have commercial value as a source of information of GRRM's projects and a platform for him to interact with fans. That's a positive value. A difficult-to-quantify one, but a definite one.

Furthermore, the lack of commercial value is just one of several tests. Courts have held uses as copyright infringing for simply failing one of the tests. It all depends.

I would hardly call a PR pic of GRRM copyrighted.

I'm sure you wouldn't. The law disagrees.

Not least because it's not a "PR pic". It's a personal picture Parris took of George, and which only ever ought to be used with her permission.

[Werthead]

Not least because it's not a "PR pic". It's a personal picture Parris took of George, and which only ever ought to be used with her permission.

To play devil's advocate on this, is this the pic of GRRM at Loch Ness that also appears on the jacket of some of the books and on his website and so forth? Whilst I agree it's out of order, is there not an argument for Fair Use due to the previous use of the pic for publicity purposes?

OTOH there's also the pic of GRRM apparently chilling on the other Facebook page in dispute (the one that's now home to spammers), which appears to be a private home pic that's been lifted for purposes it was never intended for.

[mormont]

I think you'd be hard pressed to prove damages.

Not really, since I've already explained the harm. You may think the degree of harm is insignificant, but as I say, unless you have some kind of relevant knowledge, your opinion on that can't really be taken as seriously as that of the person suffering the harm. Ultimately, that person is the one whose opinion matters here, at least at this point. (I'd note that it clearly isn't just his opinion. As the OP shows, it's shared by other authors as well. So it's not like he's taking some wildly unreasonable fringe position.)

So if there wasn't any confusion about it, what's the problem?

If the link was a clear and unambiguous attribution, and the page clearly identified as being unofficial? It would still be a breach of copyright, but it wouldn't be quite so egregious, I suppose.

This goes again to my post about stating something on the top of the page.

Yeah, but since the person running this page hasn't made that statement, and has in fact behaved in most respects in ways that have led casual readers to believe the page is official and approved, I'm not seeing the argument there. If we're playing hypotheticals, you might as well be hypothesising that he made the page completely legal to start with.

Anyway, you've got to be kidding me. this is just a 'like' page on FB. "Signing under false pretense"? Are you joking?

No, I'm pretty much just repeating what people have said here and on the page.

GRRM is a writer. I would say that if someone stole his work and reprinted it, then ok, he's harmed.

Well, that is what has happened here. His blog posts are his work. Someone is reprinting it without permission. Simple.

Someone can print a book or sell anything anyway. This has nothing to do with this AT ALL.

It's the argument that underlay the whole lengthy and (for the author) distressing argument about the unofficial Harry Potter guide, I believe.

Either way, You DO NOT lose your copyright if you do not defend it.

Legal opinion on this point varies, but GRRM is on record many times as stating that like most authors he doesn't particularly fancy being used as a test case. Who can blame him?

I'll also add that the NAB and the books are two completely different things, as the NAB is a blog and the books are COMMERCIAL books.

But the blog posts do have a potential commercial value, however small it may seem to you. (On which point, consider that books of people's blog posts have been commercially published before.) And more to the point, whatever their commercial worth they are - indisputably - GRRM's intellectual property. Morally, legally, they're his work. He has a right to object to them being reproduced without his permission, especially in circumstances where people can reasonably but wrongly believe that the person doing it is either him, or is authorised by him.

No. That's not even close to what I'm saying. Someone breaking into your house? When did I say that?

You didn't, and nor did I say you did. The analogy is intended to illustrate the point that if someone does something illegal, something that breaches my rights, it's not a defence to say 'but you got something out of it'. That doesn't make it right.

If you were a politican, lets say, and you printed out some leaflets with your agenda, and then you heard of someone else printing leaflets for you and handing them out in another place you currently don't hand them out in.

I'd be happy.

I doubt you'd be happy if voters believed that person either was you, or was working for you, and yet you had no idea who they were. You would in fact be quite worried, because you wouldn't have any control over what that person might do or say, and yet it could reflect on you in the eyes of third parties. You'd be concerned at a risk to your reputation by someone posing as you. And that's got to be a concern for GRRM in this situation too.

On your summary, I'd agree that the person who started the page probably didn't intend harm or see his action as harmful. I've already said so. But that doesn't mean he isn't doing any harm, actual or potential. Of course, if that person would simply respond to messages or contact GRRM or something, I've no doubt a solution could be found: but as Wert says, the suspicion is that someone simply set this up to run automatically and that nobody is actually running the show at all, because there's been no response to date.

[Ran]

Heh... this is your reply to my post? I like how you ignored all of the things I've said about fair-use in law and court that basically contradict what you've said

You also claimed that Wikipedia is, "THE LAW", so...

I'm going to put this down to your grasp of English, because what I said did not contradict anything you quoted from Wikipedia. I noted, as the Wikipedia article noted, that a number of factors are considered together and weighed against one another. It's a test of several parts. Passing one part does not mean that it is a fair use. It's not that easy, as looking at case law will show.

Just because something has no commercial value (though I'll continue to dispute that NAB does not have value -- the importance of traffic to George's site so he can directly interact with and inform readers cannot be forgotten) does not mean a court would necessarily allow that any use is a fair use.

But, as you say, that was the last post you wanted to write on the subject, so feel free to consider that one mine.

Lets move on to other things...

The person who reported China Meville finally got that fake account brought down claimed that Facebook now has a way to report such things without needing an FB account. Where exactly do you even do that? Any links?

[Maltaran]

The Facebook page now has an update which isn't a NAB repost - it's plugging the EW set photos. It's also made more clear that the guy is pretending to be George, because he says he's visited the set.

[Ran]

That's a NAB post that just went up, actually.

[Maltaran]

Oops - it hadn't fed through onto my LJ friends page, so I thought the impostor was being original for a change.