Poor show, although you can probably take some consolation; a printed MMO magazine has no place in this day and age, and probably won't last long.

I'd boycott the thing if I'd had any intention of buying it in the first place.
 

Heh, I rember reading that when I got that first issue.

Of course, while it would have been polite for Aaron to have emailed you to let you know you were about to be read by people who, lets face it, had quite often already read the quote in context. But it's covered by fair use.

Is it because it is in print? I find it hard to believe that you'd be upset by someone quoting you on their blog, even if they similarly cited you but forgot to put a hyperlink in.

You should be pleased to be the Blog Of Record for the game ;)
 

Van Hemlock, to be fair to Massive, they have an online version as well, to which I subbed.
 

Yeah, I subscribed to the online version too. And Massive Magazine is a lot better than the competition from Beckett.

Is it because it is in print?

"In print" has nothing to do with it. It is a combination of not having been asked, that particular story having been painful, and somebody earning money by publishing my words. I'm pretty certain that people like Mr. Conkin are paid by the word. Non-commercial blogs can quote me, without asking, as long as they link back to me. Massive Magazine didn't even link to me, although the online version has links to lots of other websites.

You should be pleased to be the Blog Of Record for the game ;)

I certainly am honored. That is the first time that I appear in print under the name of Tobold, my internet persona. Hey, if they had asked me, I would even had written something for them. But finding my words in print without warning was kind of a shock. Somebody please tell me if they see my blog printed in book form. :)
 

that's a little shallow, indeed. A courtesy email ahead of time wouldn't be asking for much.
 

Can I be a big Tobold fan and a Conklin-hater and still disagree?

From a legal standing, his use is almost certainly covered as fair use and is typical of the sort of short-quoting-for-illustration that goes on a million times a day. Without it, the journalism profession would be crippled. Note that this applies regardless of whether the publication is free or for-pay.

From a moral standpoint, it definitely would have been better to ask for permission, but that's not a matter of 'intellectual property', just courtesy.

Also, you really, really don't have any standing to control where the journalist goes with the story, other than asking nicely.

I'm not trying to be an ass, but the reason that the blogosphere exists is that people have the right to quote and comment on the speech and writings of other people, and I'm sensitive to draconian attempts to use copyright law to shut that behavior down.
 

It may or may not be criminal, but it is highly improper, since 1) they didn't get permission, 2) they didn't properly attrubute the quote and 3) it was for profit. Permission either explicitly or implicitly is important even for the news; a blog is somewhere between a published paper and a book, rather than public speech. If they were operating in good faith, they should have listed at least the Blog's name, and idealiy written something like "Tobold, of Tobold's MMORPG blog (http://tobolds.blogspot.com/) has been blogging about-." Being for profit is STILL getting rappers sued when they sample a song heavily without permission.
 

I doubt Tobold would seek legal advice over this, he's not from the US :P

I think he is just calling him out for being a general twat, seems fair to me.
 

I totally agree on the "fair use". My point is that "fair use" is a legal term, and not actually very fair, nor nice. So as Johnny correctly remarked, instead of calling a lawyer, I just blog that Mr. Conklin isn't very nice. Worst thing that could possibly do to him is become the top link when somebody googles his name. :)
 

Fair use applies here. There is an argument that he should have e-mailed you, or asked you, or quoted you more specifically, but his quote was fair use -- whether he used it for profit is irrelevant.

This is distinguished from the trouble rappers get into for sampling. Rappers get into trouble for sampling because there is a separate copyright in the actually recording of the sounds of the song.

Very basically, there are three types of copyrights: Composition, performance, and recording. Composition applies to the written word (and would apply if, say, someone wanted to print a book with the words to a Beatle's album). Performance would apply to both music and, for instance, plays. Recording really only applies to music (although there are arguments for it applying to movies and recordings of performances).

Rappers get into trouble because they sample sound recordings to get their "breaks," often without permission.

However, if a rapper (or any other sound recording artist) instead hired musicians to reproduce that small portion of a song, it would not violate the recording copyright.

The reason this is significant is that there is no fair-use right for reproduction of sound-recordings. There may be fair-use rights in the making of a backup of a CD you own, but not in reproducing the sound clip in your own for-commercial music.

There are well-established principles of fair-use in the written word, however.

Really, I am just procrastinating for my upcoming law finals.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer -- if you have real copyright issues, seek a lawyer, specifically one specializing in copyright.
 

Tobold, I quote you and link back to you from time to time. My website (http://razorwire.warcry.com) does have ads. If you feel that I've taken liberties, please don't hesitate to let me know, and I'll start giving you a heads up if I want to use your stuff for a reference. :)
 

Regardless of whether it was legal for him to quote you like that, well said. And I'm betting posting an uncomplimentary blog entry about him has the potential to cause him more harm than any sort of legal proceedings would.
 

Actually there are two discussions going on here in parallel. One about legal aspects, and one about blogosphere etiquette. I don't need legal advice because I knew from the start that legally such use of my material is covered by "fair use".

Questions of etiquette are far more tricky, because there are lots of unwritten rules. But I think that the rule of "if you quote a blog, link to it" is pretty well established and agreed upon. That would have been the least I would have expected.

Whether he should have written me an e-mail and informed me, or asked for permission, before taking my material out of the blogosphere into a commercial print magazine is a question which is more open to debate.

In general, if you want to use material from this blog, please provide a link back to me. If you do anything beyond a simple blog entry, an e-mail would be welcome, and considered polite, but optional. I never complained about WoWInsider using me for their regular blog roll feature, because they always link to me.
 

I agree with Tobold that providing a link back to the quote is basic courtesy and respect. I know some magazines that give complimentary copy to the company/ person they quote. Maybe, it is an honest overlook by Mr. Aaron R. Conklin but Tobold voicing his concerns is a necessity.

-Wargik(Perenolde US)
 

I'm not entirely sure why you'd feel proper sourcing and quoting is "cavalier," "disturbing," or "unprofessional." Had the passage been copied, verbatim, with no sourcing, that would be a fair criticism.

It's unreasonable to expect print magazines--or any other media--to provide direct links back to online sources. It's not like you can link back to a magazine or TV show either.

While it might have been courteous to contact you about the quote, there's no requirement. By posting it on a public website, it's part of the public record. If you don't feel that post should ever appear in print, why is it on your website, available for public viewing? Millions of people can view that particular blog entry with no barrier to entry beyond an Internet connection and a web browser; a few thousand read it in print.
 

"By posting it on a public website, it's part of the public record".

But this does not transfer ownership to the public or any members therein.

Tobold did not say it should not appear in print, he said it was rude that he was not contacted prior to being quoted. It wasn't a frivolous quote, it was a very significant (to Tobold) post with widespread consequences - which is why the author included it in his article.

Funny, nobody would bat an eyelash if Conklin had his lawyers send a Cease and Desist to a website like Salon (which earns revenue from its content) asking that Conklin's quotes be removed from some article. Yet he gets paid specific dollars and cents for specific words written by someone else, and that's OK.

I'm not arguing that Tobold should get paid for those words, I'm arguing that Conklin owes him the proverbial reach-around.
 

IMO, it really reflects laziness and unprofessionalism on the part of the article's author. A 'real' publication would have contacted Tobald and given him the opportunity to comment, which has the potential of adding information to the aticle.

Instead, it sounds like Conklin wrote it after doing a little bit of one-way research, the way a college student would crank out a last minute term paper. It really reflects badly on the magazine when basic journalism principles are not followed, and it results in sub-standard work, regardless of etiquette.

Sammy
 

"Funny, nobody would bat an eyelash if Conklin had his lawyers send a Cease and Desist to a website like Salon (which earns revenue from its content) asking that Conklin's quotes be removed from some article."

Perhaps you're unclear of the use of quotes in journalism, but unless you're misquoted, you can't ask to have them removed. If you've said or written something, it's part of the public record. You don't get a take back.

There's no legal basis for contesting the reproduction of quoted material. There is, however, legal basis for plagiarism. In this specific case, a quote is not plagiarism.

"Yet he gets paid specific dollars and cents for specific words written by someone else, and that's OK."

If this is true, it's true of every single article using any quotes from anyone.

"I'm not arguing that Tobold should get paid for those words, I'm arguing that Conklin owes him the proverbial reach-around."

As I noted, it might be nice to do such a thing, but it's certainly not required. Beyond fact checking quotes for accuracy, you don't ask people permission. Most would decline.

For example, let's say a politician says something horribly inflammatory. The quote is on tape, but he could say, "No, no, don't quote me." According to people here, you'd remove that quote from an article.

"IMO, it really reflects laziness and unprofessionalism on the part of the article's author. A 'real' publication would have contacted Tobald and given him the opportunity to comment, which has the potential of adding information to the aticle."

If the article was about Tobold, that would be a legitimate criticism.

Anyway, I apologize for the anonymous comment above.

Steve, Massive Magazine

PS> I suppose I could note that Tobold's going public with this without waiting for my e-mail response is somewhat ironic, considering the criticism.
 

I suppose I could note that Tobold's going public with this without waiting for my e-mail response is somewhat ironic, considering the criticism.

Well, you were the wrong address to write to anyway, and I couldn't find the e-mail address of Mr. Conklin anywhere. I actually like Massive Magazine, and I wouldn't expect the editors to check details as whether their authors informed their sources. But feel free to write me an e-mail response anyway, haven't received one yet.

There's no legal basis for contesting the reproduction of quoted material. There is, however, legal basis for plagiarism. In this specific case, a quote is not plagiarism.

Fully agreed. This isn't about plagiarism, it is about netiquette. Your politician example isn't really catching that, a journalist quotes a politician because the politician is famous, and him saying something is news. But the guild drama article only quoted me because I told a very interesting story on guild drama, it is the *story* that is news here, not who said what.

In any case I hope you understand how the situation angered me. And I would argue that posting about it on my personal blog is a pretty adequate response. Just as the quote wasn't "plagiarism", my blog post isn't "libel" or anything else illegal. Informing people when using their stories, as you said, would be nice, but isn't required. Me keeping mum about it would have been nicer, but wasn't required either. Everybody works with the tools at his disposal.
 

It's unreasonable to expect print magazines--or any other media--to provide direct links back to online sources.

I'd settle for a link in the online version of the magazine, which already has plenty of links.
 

I love how the legal mumbo-jumbo keeps getting brought back up when it was never the issue.

The world is in a pretty bad state if most people think of that before basic manners.
 

This is freaky considering I pointed the bit in Massive about Tobold while in our local Barnes and Noble to my wife saying "I know that guy."

And in my experience... when you involve someone's blog writings don't be surprised when they talk about it on their blog. Tobold has turned down plenty of "fame" in the past and he is a stand up guy that sticks to his gut feeling instead of letting people push him around.

That is why I keep coming back for more of his blog and probably while I'll remain a reader.

And I find it funny how any college student worth a damn could properly cite a source, but a professional magazine can't be expected to do the same? Hell even the NYTimes can spare a few spaces for a URL in ().
 

Gad. You people do not know the correct definition of "public record".