Ethics of copyrighting

[Greg Hiller]

I recently came accross a thread on a board about the SPS red-mites/bugs. I browsed through the thread and happened upon a photo that I thought looked familiar. The more I looked at it, the more it seemed familiar. Here it is (I spray painted out the name that was listed to protect the guilty):

Then I went back and looked at the old article I wrote on the bugs and came across this photo:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/june2003/feature.htm

After thinking about it some more...I remembered distinctly taking the photo on a microscope at my old place of employment.

I PMed the person who's name appeared on the copyright, asking them what was up, figuring it was just an oversight. FWIW, the person is a somewhat pominent author of reef-keeping literature, and is considered by many to be an expert in the hobby. The person's response was....I don't see any of my photos in the thread (even though I pointed them DIRECTLY to the photo). They did not respond to any PM's after that point. Impossible to email them directly since their email address was blocked on the site. This was 3 weeks ago. I figured...well, maybe they don't come on site that often, but 3 weeks is a long time, particularly in my opinion for an issue like this.

I also PMed the person who posted the photo in the thread, asking them if they might have added the watermark. They said no, they posted the photo exactly as they received it from the author. When I mentioned the similarity of the photos they said...."hmmm....that's a little questionable....whould you like me to remove the photo and replace it with yours" (this person was actually a moderator on the forum). I replied...no...let's see how the 'author' responds to my PMs. Three weeks went by and no word from the author. I was just about to press 'send' on a post questioning publically on the thread where the photos came from when I thought about it a second time, and instead sent the proposed text of the thread to the moderator to see what he thought about it. His response was...."well, it's going to stir up a lot of trouble..." He also removed the photos with the questionable watermark, and replaced it with my original photo. He also said he called the 'author' and was sure the 'author' would email me soon regarding it. I have since received no emails or PM's from this 'author'.

I decided perhaps he was right about the 'stirring up of trouble', and stopped myself from posting in the thread.....

Now, I really don't care where people post my stuff, photos, articles, etc., etc. I don't even care in general if they acknowledge me for the contributions, it's all public domain I figure, and I'm just glad to see that useful information is disseminated. BUT, to claim your work is my work, I think is mighty questionable.

What do you think?

 

[jmkeary]

Greg you are right.

 

[Moe_K]

I say go get 'em.
If you're sure the photos are yours, there's no way somebody should be able to take credit for your work - especially in a semi-schollarly journal.

Note that plagarism is grounds for expulsion from academia.

 

[Piscevore]

I agree, it is shady. I would suggest going so far as to shame the person publicly for being a worm, no matter how prominent or otherwise popular they might be, epecially because they had ample opportunity to apologize or make amends.
It is just a shame they didn't link directly to your web page. It would have been fun to post naughty images where those photos used to be

 

[~Flighty~]

I would be very anoyed if someone tried to copywrite my work under their name.

 

[Greg Hiller]

Moe,

>If you're sure the photos are yours<

No question they are mine. I'm sure I have the original high resolution photos around somewhere.

Ryan, that would have been funny. Maybe I should have asked the moderator to change the link to somewhere where I had control!!

 

[MikeG]

That is just poor ethics in my opinion. If I were to do the same thing at work I would at the very least be terminated and be lucky if there were no lawsuits brought forward. We should always give credit where credit is due, and give the appropriate recognition to the person responsible for the research. Unfortunately this type of thing happens all to often in this day and age.

 

[redpaulhus]

are they a consultant for Aquacon by any chance ?

 

[Armando]

wow that's awful!

 

[Moe_K]

Heheh Armando: good one.

 

[Scarfish]

that's bad. I think it's a very serious subject that shouldn't be taken lightly.

If it were me, I probably would get as worked up as you did...if not more.

 

[Scarfish]

I thought you were gonna say that in the 3 weeks since you first pm'd him, he copyrighted it for himself. not sure if that were a posibility...but would suck if he did that.

 

[MelodyDurham]

That guy is a creep for doing that. But I think you're the bigger man for not causing controversy. He probably has provided some valuable research (if it was actually his) to the hobby, and for that, it might not be worth discrediting him. It could reflect badly on you, even though you are the victim here.

He should have apologized and perhaps lied and at least said it was a mix up, but I don't think there's anything wrong with you holding back. It's a very professional and mature thing to do.

BTW, I'm still very new, but I'm very glad I'm part of this club with such wonderful and vaulable resources. I truly admire you folks that go out and take time to research and educate those of us that are curious.

Thanks!
Melody~

 

[denvig]

Armando put "Photo by Greg Hiller" over the avatar

That?s just not right Greg. Maybe you should do a post saying "For more information see.........." and add a link to your article. And if possible revise the article with photo credits.

 

[One Eye]

Funny, I just looked over at the sps forum on RC. Remember the quicky QT tank that I posted a couple weeks ago? Someone else just posted it over there. No pic though.

Greg, give us a link so we can see it.

 

[thenine]

pretty sleezy. I could understand if he maybe used the picture and forgot to credit you, or just didn't think it was necessary since the picture is older, but to put your own name on someone else's work and claim it as your own is just sleezy. It raises the question of what else is this person passing off as their own, not to mention why would they put a copyright on it in the first place....

 

[Mike A]

At the very least, the person who posted those images and claimed them as their own needs to step forward and post a retraction/correction.

An "author" would surely be aware of the implications of taking credit for other peoples' work !

 

[dedfish]

I would say no big deal if the author responded to your PM's or tried to contact you after you brought this to their attention to correct the situation. But since this "author" is avoiding you...I say take him down a notch or two and bring it to the attention of the public. If this author is so unethical as to copy someones photo and then when confronted about the situation use avoidance as a solution then I'm not sure if I want to trust some of the other things he has written. The public deserves to know.

 

[Armando]

Armando put "Photo by Greg Hiller" over the avatar

Who is Greg Hiller?

 

[clamm]

Greg, you are right 100%. Now if they published it anywhere and made money from it or used it to promote their material you are entilted to compensation.