Copyright II

Ok here is another one.

These folks are making money plagerizing this site and branding themselves with the articles contents.** Right on the front page
Hardly changed just shorter and with no credit. Examine closly and you will see.

Check it out

Offending site

Bull and Bear

Original and pure

a classic

Good find.

I wonder whether there’s a potential revenue stream here?

Here is the kicker.

All original images/content ©2004 Bassline Enterprises
Found this on the bottom of the page.

I’ll bet their “out” is that they say “original”. Otherwise, the following might apply:

How’d you happen to come across this, Alaska? Just wondering.

This might not be a case of violation. It could be a case of a few facts and turns of phrase (rather obvious ones at that) coming up in two seperate sources independently. Facts in and of themselves are not copyrightable, so that’s out. The turns of phrase are a bit more suspect, but as I said they’re all pretty obvious and would make a weak case.

At worst, this might be a rather dull web geek paraphrasing a website that popped up in Google without para the phrasing quite enough. But that implies a connection which has not been proven.

Presumes, not implies.

Googling “Don’t sell the bearskin before you’ve caught the bear” pulls up four websites, including the San Diego Reader, in a column called “Straight From the Hip”.

As I said, facts aren’t copyrightable. The prevalence of that exact phrase doesn’t mean anything in regards to alleged copyright violations.

‘Straight From The Hip’ is a column in the San Diego Reader by Matthew Alice. That column doesn’t seem to rip off Cecil’s work in any way. (Matt’s column is longer and doesn’t include the ‘bullshit’ joke. It does include an analogy, however.)

I feel like a Devil’s Advocate here, but I honestly don’t think either of those cases really rise to the level of a reasonably actionable offense. The first is iffy, but the second is a clear-cut case of two different articles that happen to answer the same question with the same fact.

Actually, I was making the same point you were. It’s just an old saying. (Although Straight from the Hip with the San Diego Reader and Straight Dope with the Chicago Reader might raise an eyebrow.)

Sure, there’s a billion-to-one chance that they came out with some identical sentences, and others which are abridged versions of the column, and with no original material in between. And they also coincidentally matched some slightly questionable punctuation, to boot :wink:

I’ve told Ed about these before and I will do so again.

Please be aware there’s Cecil-only-knows-what going on behind the scenes and sometimes the legal wheels grind slowly.

We greatly appreciate you alerting us to these violations. Imitation is the most sincere form of thievery.

your humble TubaDiva

GorillaMan: As I said, the first one was iffy. But the odds aren’t exactly billion-to-one and the evidence as a whole is extremely thin.