The Blogger's Code, A Reminder

A few of us sexy bloggers have had our work stolen of late, republished by others, who are claiming our work as their own.

I could be nice about this, but why bother? The deal is, we bust our asses to try and create unique content as often as we’re able. I try to post, for instance, almost daily, and it takes a good deal of time to do, when I’m doing it well. I’m proud of what I create, and make no mistake about it — I own this content. If you reprint entire pieces without giving us credit, then you’re doing a very, very shitty thing. Smarten the hell up. Common sense my ass. It’s rare sense, apparently.

If you like what you read, there is a code you should follow. You print excerpts, not entire content. You link to both the site and then to the post, separately. That’s just the way it goes. I’m always grateful to be quoted/excerpted. That’s flattering. Thank you. Imitation, when it comes to intellectual theft, is not the sincerest form of flattery, whatever the cliches may have you believing. It’s simply theft. Plain, old, unimaginative theft.

Please, respect what we all do, and play by the code. We do.

And if you should ever recognize my work elsewhere, please inform me. I’ll always be grateful.

5 thoughts on “The Blogger's Code, A Reminder

  1. The Dark Precursor

    Linking to the site, separately, is not necessary under international copyright law (nor American law; I admit I don’t know Canadian law on copyright, but in the end internatonal law applies best to the net), nor a necessary part of citation in any of the major styles (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.). Correct citation requires only the specific link and date (optional, since the specific link in a blog would be a permanent link; otherwise it would be a link to the site).
    On the other hand, I do see the benefit of a link to the permanent link as well as the site, as that makes CLEAR that it is a citation of someone else’s work.
    Citing the entire content of one entry, i.e. one permanent link, is allowed under copyright law as long as the above form of citation is followed. (Court cases to follow, hopefully. This is a hazy area right now.) Multiple citation of an entire entry, i.e. posting the content of an entire entry in multiple places, gets thornier (I believe there is an actual number, around ten, or so, of allowed instances).
    Plagarism is indeed ramapant, it is theft, and is illegal–and the law needs to be stated clearly (and, if I had the choice, burned into the flesh of plagarists). It robs writers of their work, effort, and due.

    Note the Creative Commons License, people! “Some rights reserved” is not just some fun phrase we post on our blogs.

    Hi Steff, it’s the guy who knew way too much about the American court system and obscenity.

  2. The Dark Precursor

    By the way, I don’t mean to be a serial “corrector.” I’m not. I just find myself constantly explaining copyright law and citations to my students. A bit frustrating that they don’t seem to teach it in school anymore. All apologies.

  3. scribe called steff

    Hey, I’m all about the freedom to comment. Fire away.

    But there’s a difference between a LAW and a CODE.

    I’m talking about what we’d LIKE to see people do, the double citation.

    Nonetheless, your letter-of-the-law definition above is great. đŸ™‚

  4. The Dark Precursor

    You’re right. I realized that as I was posting to my blog just after writing the above. I did the double citation, like I usually do, without even connecting what I had written. Then I thought about it…
    It’s a good code.

  5. Dark Daughta

    Here, here! I’m experiencing a unique twist on what you’ve described here. Come by and look at my post when you can.

Comments are closed.