Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Inappropriate usage?

5 September 2012 by Clark 22 Comments

A few days ago, my colleague Jay Cross wrote a post on plagiarism, dealing with the fact that some of his work (even an example of some of our collaborative work) was being used without attribution. He preceded me in the use of Creative Commons licensing, but from his example (and Harold Jarche), I placed a BY – NC – SA license in the side bar.  Fast forward to today, and I get alerted by a colleague (thanks, Martin!) that my stuff is appearing without attribution.

Site of my scraped contentAt their  site (see screenshot), 4 of the first 6 posts listed are mine.  Full grab of the text, graphics, and all.  Not all of mine are there, but many.   The posts may no longer be there by the time you read this, but they were when I was notified, as the screenshot shows.  And, apparently, for a while in the past.  Look at my list of blog posts, and you’ll see that these were my four most recent posts.

Now, the license I mentioned means three things I ask for.  First, you say who it’s BY (i.e. attribution). That it’s NC No Charge, i.e. you’re not making money off of it (if you are, let’s work out a deal). And that it’s SA Share Alike. Others can take your content too. So, you’re welcome to use any or all of a post  if you a) attribute it to me, b) don’t charge, and c) you are willing for any work created from mine to similarly be shared.  I see that this group has only violated one, but I’m inclined to think it’s an important one. It’s  my thinking, after all.

As you might imagine, this upsets me.  I work hard to put worthwhile information out.  I expect to at least get credit for it, given that it provides no direct revenue (yep, still ad-free).  To have someone take my intellectual property and redistribute under their banner, without at least providing a pointer back strikes me as less than appropriate.  I note Jeff Cobb is getting credit.  Why not me?

Sure I’m grateful that they find it worth quoting, but not if they’re implying it’s theirs.  They’re getting value from my thinking, and I’m not getting anything in return.  Other have redistributed my posts, and they can, as long as they credit me (and aren’t charging for it).  That’s of value to me.  Unattributed, not so much.

By the way, when I pointed this out, several others indicated that this site has or has had unattributed content from themselves or others in the past.  You have to wonder…

Am I too touchy about this?

 

 

Comments

  1. Clark says

    5 September 2012 at 12:38 PM

    And, for the record, I did try to contact them first. There’s no email, only a contact page. I tried to use it, but it has Captcha, which has been pretty broken of late. So I called to get an email address, indicating that the contact page wasn’t working. The message came back that the CEO said that the contact page was the only mechanism. Seriously? When I indicated why I was calling, I was told the CEO would get back to me after a meeting. Didn’t happen.

  2. Judy Unrein says

    5 September 2012 at 12:53 PM

    Of course you’re not being too touchy. This is ridiculous (oh, and illegal). Several of my colleagues have been in this situation lately and though it’s a small gesture, I’ve decided the least that I can do is never link to sites that practice this kind of behavior.

    And by the way, if they get touchy about you calling them out, here’s some inspiration from The Oatmeal: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk_letter. Consider it a special kind of performance support.

  3. Marianna Noll says

    5 September 2012 at 1:10 PM

    Not too touchy at all, in my opinion. Very disturbing actually.

  4. Brian Dusablon says

    5 September 2012 at 1:14 PM

    You’re not overreacting at all, Clark. This is ridiculous. I’ve seen website scraping and other forms of plagiarism and it’s all wrong. And unless someone stands up to it and calls the thieves out, it’ll only get worse.

    Keep us posted on how this is handled.

  5. Jay Cross says

    5 September 2012 at 1:24 PM

    It will be funny if Gilfus steals this post.

    This is sleazy behavior, no matter how you slice it.

  6. Clark says

    5 September 2012 at 1:28 PM

    An update, already they’re now linking the titles of the posts to my blog. That was quick, and appropriate. An apology would be welcome, but not really expected. Sometimes I guess it pays off to be a squeaky wheel. For the right cause, as you all point out.

  7. Tom Spiglanin says

    5 September 2012 at 1:32 PM

    Agree, Jay. We’re all watching now. In my opinion as an author of occasionally original thoughts, attribution should be a given even if not demanded by a license because that’s the spirit of online social media.

  8. Judy Unrein says

    5 September 2012 at 1:37 PM

    Jay’s comment made me laugh. :)

    That’s actually a good solution in many ways, since you tweeted a link to their site, and some of us retweeted it, and mine (and probably others) got picked up in a paper.li (which was just the link to their site, with no context). All links to their site that now point back to yours.

    I’m sure they didn’t ask if this was an acceptable solution for you, and it doesn’t excuse the impropriety (and then some) of it happening in the first place.

  9. Audrey Watters says

    5 September 2012 at 2:20 PM

    I see that Gilfus is now making some changes to its blogs. Still no link back to the original source, which while it doesn’t violate the CC licensing certainly violates the spirit of linking on the Web.

    Also, I screen-grabbed this before they deleted it: https://www.evernote.com/shard/s11/sh/455282b3-c234-4858-9698-7830d1ad3783/54240e5bef64ec5faf1e178f64326625

  10. Jim Schultz says

    5 September 2012 at 2:45 PM

    You should be upset. You provide original and relevant content for all of us. I’m disappointed in Steve, I expect more from him, especially after you pointed it out. A call with apology is the right thing to do.

  11. Dave Ferguson says

    5 September 2012 at 5:21 PM

    I’m late to the party, in part because I was wandering around on the Gilfus site, which among other things reinforces my personal prejudice that it’s not good to name your whole business after yourself.

    Their “terms of use” language comes to nearly 3,000 words, including this passage that appears under “Copyright” :

    Except as expressly authorized by Gilfus Education Group or such third parties in this TOU or as may be posted on the Services, you may not copy, reproduce, publish, distribute, modify, create derivative works of, rent, lease, sell, transfer, display, transmit, compile or collect in a database, or in any manner commercially exploit any part of the Content or the Services, in whole or in part. You may not store any significant portion of any Content or the Services owned by, or licensed to Gilfus Education Group in any form, whether archival files, computer-readable files, or any other medium. You also may not “mirror” any Content or the Services on any other server.

    So do as we say, not as we do.

  12. Sean Putman says

    5 September 2012 at 6:15 PM

    They actually did have this very post up for a short time. I saw it in the initial tweets that were posted. For the record you are not overreacting Clark.

  13. Mark says

    5 September 2012 at 11:58 PM

    Similar thing happened to me earlier in the year. One of my posts was 100% embedded into another blog and there was a conversation going on about my blogpost in their comments section. The only difference was it did at least link to my site. I only found out because it showed up in my feedjit feed as a from link. It must be said that when I fired a please explain at the offender, they were very apologetic, removed the embed and replaced it with a summary and link to my post and it did direct about 200 visitors to my blog so nice save in the end. Sometimes it’s done without thinking but in your case four unattributed versus two that were is a clear case on not good enough.

  14. Marilyn says

    6 September 2012 at 3:13 AM

    The image of their website doesn’t show up on your blog and the link to it gives a “page not found” error. Just being curious to see the scene of the crime! (And avoid them in future.)

  15. Clark says

    6 September 2012 at 8:54 AM

    Thanks for all your support. Audrey, that’s just too rich (and ironic). A keeper for sure!

  16. Gary Wise says

    6 September 2012 at 9:05 AM

    Clark, I do not think you are being too touchy or anywhere in the vicinity. I’ve found similar instances where content I’ve authored has been lifted without permission and with no attribution. I’ve been successful quoting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 – http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf – that covers on-line content publication. In short, if the website owner refuses to remove the content, you can go to their ISP with proof of original posting and the remedy is for the ISP to shut them down in total. I see this as a last resort, but I have had to go there twice in a previous life to put an anonymous site owner down. They were not so much interested in the content beyond what it might bring to a site full of advertisements.

    I write a blog with the intent of sharing knowledge. I feel honored when somebody uses a graphic, or quotes something, or re-posts an entire blog. I most cases, permission was requested, or at a minimum attribution provided. I’m okay with that. Just taking something under the pretenses of calling “yours” crosses a line.

    So the long and short of it…no…you are not being touchy at all. Thanks for posting!

    G.

  17. David Grebow says

    10 September 2012 at 2:30 PM

    Clarke et al.,

    I think you are all acting like dinosaurs. We live in the Idea Economy. I’ve had ideas I’ve written used, borrowed, taken, reposted all over the world in more languages than I can count. My name was not mentioned once. What was more important to me? Getting my name mentioned or getting the idea out there into the meme-o-sphere? Copyright is an analog printing press notion. Get over it. Unless you get paid for your work and want to ‘own’ the words, then fine. Earning a living as a thinker/writer is a job. When you put it out there for free, let it go. Further, wider, higher, faster. Great ideas need to fly, not have their wings clipped by antiquated notions of ownership and private property. And you can quote me on this with any attribution.

  18. Dick Carlson says

    10 September 2012 at 2:32 PM

    You’re just showing off. I’m getting more and more annoyed that this guy doesn’t seem to think that MY stuff is worth stealing. But here you are, going on and on about “am I too sensitive that my stuff is so wonderful that people take it to get their web pages right to the top of the search rankings?” “I guess my writing is so amazing that people just HAVE to HAVE it on their web site, and none of DICK’S writing is even worth hitting cut-and-paste.”

    Well, let me tell you, Mr. In over 300 posts, I’m SURE there’s one or two paragraphs that are worth stealing. And if you just wait a couple of years, SOMEBODY is gonna take something of mine and post it. Somewhere. In Pakistan, or Czechoslovakia, or on that damn Mars Rover.

    I KNOW they will.

  19. Clark says

    10 September 2012 at 8:13 PM

    David, I guess we’ll just have to disagree. My thoughts are freely out there, all I want is attribution. I don’t think that’s too much to ask, even in this day and age. Maybe it’s my academic background, but I believe in giving credit where credit is due. I don’t think that’s counter to the ClueTrain, instead I think it’s part of the principle of transparency.

    Dick, I think it’s just that you’re so gentle and nice. If your writing had more of an edge, perhaps. If you were a little more sarcastic. A little more opinionated. But then, it wouldn’t be you, then, would it. Be true to yourself.

  20. Tom Spiglanin says

    10 September 2012 at 8:44 PM

    So the argument in favor of what most of us have called boorish behavior is that it’s okay to completely ignore the Creative Commons license that generoulsy ALLOWS people to freely use what you share. I’m sorry, I can’t agree. If you don’t like the license, don’t reuse the content.

Trackbacks

  1. A little friction can be a good thing | Abject says:
    13 September 2012 at 2:27 PM

    […] people who had their work aggregated responded with shock and vitriol, among them Alan Levine and Clark Quinn. Personally, I was nowhere near as upset, though I do not diminish how others felt… and the […]

  2. Hell hath no fury like Intellectual Property unattributed « The Hitch Hiker's Guide to Learning says:
    16 September 2012 at 10:11 AM

    […] “genial malcontent”, Clark Quinn) are writing for Gilfus. **  (UPDATE: Here is Clark’s take on the issue and he notes that the eminent Jay Cross has also been victimized by this […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Clark Quinn

The Company

Search

Feedblitz (email) signup

Never miss a post
Your email address:*
Please wait...
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

Pages

  • About Learnlets and Quinnovation

The Serious eLearning Manifesto

Manifesto badge

Categories

  • design
  • games
  • meta-learning
  • mindmap
  • mobile
  • social
  • strategy
  • technology
  • Uncategorized
  • virtual worlds

License

Previous Posts

  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006

Amazon Affiliate

Required to announce that, as an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Mostly book links. Full disclosure.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok