h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi,

What is the H2G2 policy where a guide has been copied from the H2G2 site and published onto another website?

In following up research on a topic I have had published on H2G2 I found the said guide posted on another site word perfect. I realise I hold copyright but have given permission to the BBC to use so is this something the BBC H2G2 would normally want to take up or is this for me to do. happy to provide the reference but thought this should be done offline rather than here for the time being.

topher

Post the link. It will make it easier for the Italics to decide what to do next

Yes - please tell us where it is...

Whoami?

Natalie answered a query like this recently, I'll see if I can find it.

Thanks, Mina!

Here's the thread (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F47997?thread=219922 ). Natalie said: "Since an Edited Entry is the work of more than one person, then the permission of the BBC is required before that copy may be reproduced. Unedited articles *can* be reproduced without our permission." To clarify that as it's a little out of context, unedited Guide entries can be copied without the BBC's permission. If it has been copied without the author's permission, it's up to that Researcher to contact the site and ask them to either remove it, or credit them, whichever they think is best. Edited Guide Entries do need our permission however, because it's the work of more than one person. When we get more details we'll be able to see which type of entry we are dealing with, and what we can do.

A quick Google check of hir three Edited Entries didn't throw anything up, but I might have made a mistake, so you never know...

Hi,

This is the URL to the site where the guide on Beating the Bounds has been republished

http://www.the-cauldron.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=26&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Look forward to your views on this

Thanks for the contributions from all on this


topher

It appears to be a word-for-word copy of the unedited entry at

But the main difference between the unedited entry (A794900) and the Edited Entry (A805871) is the lack of links at the bottom of the entry in the edited version.

I'd like to see the h2g2 lawyers give those folks a call personally since there's so much of the work that's the same - who's to say they didn't copy the Edited Entry and add the links from the unedited version?

Go get 'em lawyers!!

Thanks for the link, I'll alert Natalie to this one too.

Jimi, you said:

'I'd like to see the h2g2 lawyers give those folks a call personally since there's so much of the work that's the same - who's to say they didn't copy the Edited Entry and add the links from the unedited version?'

Isn't it just as much a breach of copyright for a stranger to copy an unedited as an edited page? *The author* can use the unedited page wherever they like - they can't use the edited page without permission, since both the sub-ed and staff editors may have contributed. For anyone except the original author, it's a breach of copyright to copy *either* version.

Azara

Yes, but if it's unedited theft, I think I'd be right in saying that it's the author's job to sort it out, and not that of the BBC.

Whoami?

But simply by posting here, whether in unedited entries or in conversation threads, by the terms and conditions haven't we shared our copyright with the BBC? So presumably the BBC lawyers can pursue anyone who quotes *anything* off the site, whether it is edited, unedited or in converstations?

Azara

Well, that's the impression from http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/ . But 'Copyright on h2g2' in the <./>HouseRules</.> doesn't agree with this.

It says: "It's important to note that you still own the copyright to everything you contribute to h2g2. This means you are perfectly free to take what you have written and re-publish it somewhere else ... All you do in contributing to h2g2 is to grant us the right to publish."

I agree completely. I think that if somebody takes something from h2g2 - unedited, edited or conversation, that the bbc has an intrest in going after them with every in their stable!

But in posting #6, Mina said:
"unedited Guide entries can be copied without the BBC's permission. If it has been copied without the author's permission, it's up to that Researcher to contact the site and ask them to either remove it, or credit them, whichever they think is best.

Edited Guide Entries do need our permission however, because it's the work of more than one person."

Which came as something of a surprise to me since I was of the same school as you Azara - if you copy something from the site (regardless of its edited status) you need to get the bbc's permission.

I personally think it's a real slippery slope - since the difference between some of my edited entries and unedited entries is nothing more than the Subeditor's name...
Proving that the plagarist copied my 'unedited' version rather than the nearly identical 'edited' version is too fine a distinction for my tastes...

"unedited Guide entries can be copied without the BBC's permission. If it has been copied without the author's permission, it's up to that Researcher to contact the site and ask them to either remove it, or credit them, whichever they think is best."


Mina, could you confirm that that is exactly what the BBC lawyers have said? I was under the impression from previous discussions that unedited entries could be copied *by the author*, but that for anyone else the fact that there was a joint copyright with the BBC meant that anyone else would need permission to quote.

After all, it says
BBC © MMII
at the bottom of every h2g2 screen. Mina, are you saying that this doesn't mean anything????


Azara

Bearing in mind that I was repeating something that Natalie said in another thread, I'm going to pass this back to Natalie to answer these questions if that's okay with everyone.

Mina,

I seemed to have stirred up a hornets nest with my question. I'm not a lawyer but I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that copying a published piece from a BBC website is not a breach of copyright unless it says you can do this with permission before or after it has been finially editied. The only permission that is acknowledged is that the original author retains the copyright. There is also the issue of whether the person using the material gains some benefit financial reputation etc by assuming credit for the work. However, I guess the BBC lawyers will decide whether it is worth pursuing as a matter of principle. In most cases I guess the threat from the lawyers or perhaps in this case a suitable hex will be sufficient to make the abuser think twice.

Important Point to the H2G2 staff....My original suggestion was to take this discussion off line. Given the discussions which have gone before it would be a good idea to quarentine this thread somewhere out of the general glare so to avoid problems when the BBC tries to enfoce the copywright in this case or in the future.

Once again thanks for all the thoughtful exchanges... far in excess of that which the original guide submission received! I thionk I have an idea for a submission to the Guide coming on!


topher

That's fine, Mina. Just as long as Natalie's OK with it.

Hello all,

This copyright malarkey is indeed all very tricky, but I'll do my best to clarify!

As Mina said, Edited Entries are the work of more than one person, and so (non-exclusive!) copyright rests with the author, the editor and the BBC. Unedited entries are the work of the author alone, and therefore only the permission of the author is required, should a third party wish to use the article in any way.

In practice, however (as a courtesy), if we're alerted of this sort of copyright infringement, we normally contact the company concerned and ask them to take it down. So if you see your content being reproduced elsewhere without your permission, then do report it to us and we'll see what we can do.

Topher - I'll be contacting you in a mo .

Natalie