Things have been fairly quiet in Gosselin land since the family got back from Australia. There was a skating party and a liquor store run, and a rather mundane E! True Hollywood Story about Kate, but for the most part, the kids have been living their normal lives and being left alone.
Kate's excuse (cop-out) for continuing the filming has often been because, according to Kate, the family can never "go back." But with everything all quiet on the Wernersville front, we ask Kate, didn't you indeed "go back" this month? And was it really all that difficult to give those poor kids a normal, private life?
263 sediments (sic) from readers:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 263 of 263 Newer› Newest»upon pulling up the douche bag list, her Heinous was actually #4 (she can't even get #1 on a derogatory list). See, katie irene, you REALLY ARE 'NOT' 1!!!
I’ve been one of those distressed by the scathing comments regarding WG's book. However, I was troubled when Moose Mania pointed out WG's statement about owning the comments on her blog. So I went to WG’s blog to check it out.
WG writes: "Comments left on my blog are then part of my blog and use of them belongs to me. I credited my commenters for their contributions in the Acknowledgments section of my book, although not each by name the way I did my interviewees and other contributors."
Even if this is not copyright infringement (and I think it IS infringement), it still seems unethical.
I had the same thoughts as "I'm Curious Too". The two issues are (1) citing without permission and (2) citing without attribution. A note in the Acknowledgements is what you do when you receive general help, leads, or advice. When specific sentences and paragraphs belong to someone else, that person should be credited in the text or in a footnote or endnote. And I'm speaking as one who has worked hard in her own books not to infringe on copyright. Using quoted passages without proper attribution is not fair use "in my book" (pardon the pun).
Like Moose Mania, I can also not find a statement of general use on the blog. Putting one there now is too late.
I myself comment infrequently (and using another name). I wouldn't expect any of my comments to be there. But if I were in the group whose comments were there and unattributed, I might be bugged. Heather’s insightful comments do come to mind.
Protect the Gosselin 8 said...
It's too bad that the money isn't placed in a trust that cannot be touched until the kids turn of age.
Of course that would have been the smart thing to do. I would think most parents of child actors, or kids who gt inheritances do things like that. We are talking about greedy, selfish Kate here. What if she needs that money for oh, I don't know, a bill? She doesn't want to use her money, does she? NO no, that dips into her fun money for tanning & such. Selfish. Unbelievably selfish. I cannot believe that someone can't stop her from stealing those childrens monies. They will have NOTHING it seems, when they are old enough to ask "Mom, where is all our money from when we were working our asses off FOR YOU?"
Do we have evidence that Kate is using the kids money to pay bills? I've always wondered if that's fact or rumor.
Who pays the bills then, the tooth fairy?
With the exception of a brief stint of DWTS which was almost a whole year ago, and maybe one or two hosting gigs on ET, Kate doesn't work. She puts her kids to work. She has no job unless she is exploiting the kids. The sheeple will say TLC pays the bills, which there is no proof of. Even if they did, they can't think critically about that and realize that if the kids weren't being exploited in return, TLC would not be paying any bills. Same difference. Unless TLC is a charity now, but I'm not seeing them on the 501(c)(3) list!
Troubled By This, that is playing with fire. Simply saying it's mine now may not be good enough in the court of law. The question is if anyone will actually try to take this to court.
If you leave your purse on the counter I could pick it up and say it's mine now, but that doesn't mean it's not stealing.
Administrator said...
Troubled By This, that is playing with fire. Simply saying it's mine now may not be good enough in the court of law. The question is if anyone will actually try to take this to court.
If you leave your purse on the counter I could pick it up and say it's mine now, but that doesn't mean it's not stealing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, I definitely agree. I think it's unethical and probably illegal to do what WG has done. That's my point. I *always* work to avoid infringing on copyrights in my books. I wouldn't want to take any chances, and I also think it's the right thing to do. I'm very disappointed in WG, sorry to say. I had respected her and enjoyed her blog.
There's useful copyright information on this topic at the sitepoint website.
http://articles.sitepoint.com/article/interview-copyright-internet
Sorry, by "kids money" I meant the measly 15%. In other words, have we determined that the measly 15% is ALSO being spent by Kate?
Here is an interesting article by Web Pro News about ownership of blog comments.
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/06/16/who-owns-blog-comments.
I don't agree or understand the second part. You don't need to "register" your blog to sue for copyright. Register with who? The big bad government? You don't even need to put a little c next to anything. A common misconception is that you have to march yourself down to some copyright office to copyright things. Not so. Just by virtue of posting here you have a copyright. It's automatic. My blog is automatically copyrighted (the posts) and your posts are automatically copyrighted--no worries.
_________________________
I said to COLLECT MONETARY DAMAGES it needs to be registered with the big bad Governmental Office known as the US Copyright Office. And quite frankly, anyone with copyrightable content SHOULD protect themselves. To infringe is a Federal office and:
Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?
Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration” and Circular 38b, Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
Quite frankly I am surprised you don't know this.
Infringement, I thought you meant that you had to register to have copyright protection. Yes you are right, you need to register to claim damages. You don't need to register any work though to claim copyright protection.
I disagree that all blog owners should register. It costs money, and since 99% of them will never have a problem, it's probably a waste of time and money when they are already protected. It's just another way for the government to scare you into taking your money. You don't need to register to file cease and desist letters, DMCA take down notices and a host of other remedies that often solve the problem immediately without ever stepping foot in a courtroom. Plus, you can register anywhere up to five years after you publish, so if you ever do encounter a problem as long as it's still within five years you can register before actually filing suit. Usually you know WAY in advance that something is moving toward a lawsuit so there is plenty of time. And heaven help us if this family is still around 5 years after these blogs started. I always vowed if I was ever doing anything less than breaking even with this blog I would quit--it is not worth spending one cent of money on this family, hell if I'm going to write a check to the US Copyright office.
Another problem with registering blogs? They change daily. If you have a blog big enough to register, they recommend you re-register every THREE MONTHS. More time, more money, a huge hassle when you are already protected and already have several remedies up your sleeve. So few copyright suits ever actually go to court before they are resolved.
If you had some big blog like cnn.com or something, registration makes sense. For a Gosselin blog, not so much. Is it wrong to steal someone's comment? Yes. Is it worth even an ounce of your time trying to sue them? I really don't think so.
Blogging is still very new and the decisions bloggers make today are going to set the tone for blogging in the future. I think it is to everyone's mutual benefit, including bloggers and commenters, to respect each individual's copyright to what they say. If everyone knew that anything they ever said on a blog could someday end up in a book, a book they never see a dime from, people are never going to want to post blogs at all. And since most blogs rely heavily on the comments this is not to the benefit of bloggers. You have to think about these things before doing whatever you're going to do in that moment. I think tis just applies in general, to all bloggers no matter what you're blogging about. We're still feeling all this out.
More blog comment copyright info:
"We talked to a law professor, Santa Clara's Tyler T. Ochoa, who noted that the Scobleizer, though the owner of his comments, likely needed some sort of written contract with the blogger in question before his demands held any merit. That same law professor interpreted and applied the law this way:
"[I]f a blogger wanted to publish a best-of collection of comments…the blogger would likely need permission from the commenter.
In essence, according to Ochoa, the commenter forfeits rights to the comment only to the extent of allowing them to be published on a blog post. "
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/07/08/blog-comment-ownership-question-resurrected
What about bloggers and administrator's of blogs that go to other blogs and copy/paste comments people make to poke, incite, make fun of and discredit people?
I think if we are gonna have that copyright discussion we should surely address this issue because it is done constantly in the Gosselin world.
Who pays the bills then, the tooth fairy?
=======
heehee. Slightly off track here, but back in the beginning of this farce when Kate and Jon brought in a lawyer to draw up their will, which I thought was another one of the most ludicrous thing to film, Kate stated she wasn't worried so much about the college thing as she was by the thought of not being around to control the money. That was obviously when they were starting to see the dollars roll in from shilling their kids. She said she didn't want the money "handed to them when they had no sense in their heads.... I'm in the grave and I'm still controlling".
A Brit. said...
Here is an interesting article by Web Pro News about ownership of blog comments.
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/06/16/who-owns-blog-comments.
----------
Fixed your link. Proper link to the direct article is:
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/06/16/who-owns-blog-comments
Thanks for this article although it is from 2008. Things could have changed since then, but I agree that blog comments should have at least mutual ownership allowing the commenter to own his or her comment for copyright purposes.
William Hook left a comment in regards to that article which stated that for his blog, the commenter owns the rights to their comment but it can be published in any type of work as long as it was properly cited.
For a small blog such as this one, I thinking acting in good faith and building your credibility and respect with your readers by remaining open and honest about your intentions and actions is sufficient.
Admin, it also depends on what you plan on doing with the content of your blog. If you think in the future, you plan on using the information you shared with us here in another type of work, then I would consider looking into copyright protection. In addition, if you feel that you should be credited with any information taken from this site, then that's another reason to register.
Personally, it comes down to practicing good ethics. Isn't that what we start teaching kids in elementary school all the way throughout college? I can no longer count the number of times it has been reiterated on how to properly cite sources you use in formal writing to avoid plagiarism. It just isn't right to use someone's original thought or idea without properly crediting them.
By acting in good faith and doing what's ethical (beyond what's legal or illegal), this whole discussion would have been avoided in regards to Werny Gal's book. It doesn't take too much time and effort to properly cite sources that are used in a book.
Troubled By This, thanks for your input.
I'm glad Admin has stated that she believes comments posted on her blog are owned by the commenters themselves.
This stimulating discussion has been enlightening as I was never aware what is or isn't protected on the internet under copyright law. It's something that I will definitely take into consideration before posting in any blog or forum in the future.
Can we move on from the copyright issues & blogs? If someone cant come up with enough original material on thier own and has to use other peoples comments than the material will probably be pretty boring and stale at some point.
Anonymous said...
What about bloggers and administrator's of blogs that go to other blogs and copy/paste comments people make to poke, incite, make fun of and discredit people?
______________________
Admin did address this issue by saying that since the bloggers here own their own comment, when a comment is copied and pasted on another blog, they are infringing on the rights of the blogger.
In regards to the new Gosselin book, does anyone know if the writer contacted an attorney BEFORE she wrote the book, just to err on the side of caution? I would think before anyone put anything into writing, all the legal t's had to be crossed, and all of the i's dotted. Closing the gate after the horse has escaped makes no sense. Tell me she checked this out with a copyright attorney before putting anything on paper! I can't imagine anyone who would undertake a project such as this without obtaining legal advice.
What's the final verdict here? Do we own our own comments and therefore taking them to another blog or using them in a published work is plagiarism? Must these comments be appropriately cited, or permission obtained? Or, are comments the property of the blog owner to be used freely at his/her discretion without permission/proper citation?
Admin, you don't plan to write a book, do you? ;-)
It's important to send The Talk a message and DO NOT watch her on the show. They're using her for ratings to boost their failing show. Don't watch and don't record. The clips will be available on line.
Administrator said...
If everyone knew that anything they ever said on a blog could someday end up in a book, a book they never see a dime from, people are never going to want to post blogs at all. And since most blogs rely heavily on the comments this is not to the benefit of bloggers. You have to think about these things before doing whatever you're going to do in that moment.
Unfortunately, because this has now come to our attention, some commenters might reconsider whether or not they should share their personal story and/or experience that would help others understand what is possibly going on in the Gosselin family.
I enjoy reading the personal stories from those who dealt with child/spousal abuse, NPD, etc. because it gave me another perspective to consider. It brings the Gosselin situation closer to home.
Anonymous said...
What about bloggers and administrator's of blogs that go to other blogs and copy/paste comments people make to poke, incite, make fun of and discredit people?
I think if we are gonna have that copyright discussion we should surely address this issue because it is done constantly in the Gosselin world.
Although some of this discussion focuses on what happened in regards to Werny Gal's book, it is also addressing the same issue.
Because blogging is relatively new and no finite laws have been put in place, it starts with good ethics. Whether you are publishing a book, an article, or a blog, if you choose to use information from the internet, you need to properly credit the original source and provide a proper link. Don't try to hide behind vague laws that have not properly determined whether or not something is copyright protected or not.
Is it okay to take comments directly from other sites to use for your enjoyment in a malicious manner? No, that goes against using good ethics.
Unfortunately, because all this copyright stuff isn't completely sorted out (as been discussed on this thread), if that other site were to also include the commenter's name and a direct link to the original site, then it might not be considered copyright infringement (unless the original site specifically states that all content including comments were registered under copyright protection). That is my understanding from some of the links posted above.
At this point, as a commenter myself, I have to think in the most negative way - that I willingly relinquish ownership of what I am about to post on any blog or forum. If I don't want other people to use my comment, then I should probably refrain from posting.
I'm glad this discussion has brought more awareness of internet copyright protection. Will it stop those from doing unethical things with other people's comments? No. However, I hope this has educated fellow Gosselin readers about their rights as far as commenting.
Simply put: Comment at your own risk.
AuntieAnn said... "heehee. Slightly off track here, but back in the beginning of this farce when Kate and Jon brought in a lawyer to draw up their will, which I thought was another one of the most ludicrous thing to film, Kate stated she wasn't worried so much about the college thing as she was by the thought of not being around to control the money. That was obviously when they were starting to see the dollars roll in from shilling their kids. She said she didn't want the money "handed to them when they had no sense in their heads.... I'm in the grave and I'm still controlling".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This discussion came up last week but it never gets old. It is just downright shameful. When it was established that the children WERE working (not playing in front of the cameras like the Kart insists) by the PA DOL and accounts were to be set up for them, the amount that was to be put aside for them was 15% That's 15% to be split among eight of them, if I read correctly. To add insult to injury, it was also stated that Jon and Kate could use that money for educational, medical and other expenses related to child-rearing if nessesary. As soon as that hit the blogosphere we knew there would be no money for those kids when they became of age. Kate will surely find an excuse to tap every dime of it. That is HER money and if she thought differently she would have opened accounts for them in the first place. In some interview before the DOL investigation, she had claimed they did have accounts. The hearing proved otherwise. Kate must have been lying (insert shock and disbelief here)
The show where she wanted the kids to be 35 before they got any money from their wills, the claim that the kids are all going to get jobs and pay for their own cars as teens, deceptively charging Aunt Jodi for half a side of beef TLC HAD PAID FOR ENTIRELY, shows she has a twisted and messed up belief system about money. While she felt she was entitled to have her bills paid for her and all of the needs required of raising twins and sextuplets given and donated to her, she doesn't seem to think anyone else is entitled to the same. She and Jon resold all the expensive baby equipment they received brand new and for free. Jon was the one who had promised they would re-donate everything they had been given and pay it forward. Apparently he did not consult with the head bitch in charge before making that statement. While Kate has spent the last seven years trying to do as little work as possible either inside or outside of her home, she sure is consumed with how hard others work and that no one gets the same free ride she did.
just me said... It's important to send The Talk a message and DO NOT watch her on the show. They're using her for ratings to boost their failing show. Don't watch and don't record. The clips will be available on line.
=============
Actually THE TALK is NOT a failing show - it was just renewed for a second season
'The Talk,' Featuring Sara Gilbert, Renewed for Second Season
Article dated 1/26/2011
http://www.shewired.com/Article.cfm?ID=26544
So maybe Kate needs to appear on THE TALK to stay in the public eye more than the show needs Kate for the ratings, eh?
JMO
"Admin did address this issue by saying that since the bloggers here own their own comment, when a comment is copied and pasted on another blog, they are infringing on the rights of the blogger."
....................
This is NOT true. Please see "Fair Use". The commentor "owns" the comment, as in if it is a threat, libel etc, they "own" the content, the person commenting is libel, NOT the blog owner.
This info is from the Electronic Frontier Foundation
http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/IP
This site is ran by lawyers, versed in internet issues, copyright laws, as well as may other professionals. This site is dedicated to secure and keep freedom of speech on the internet.
This is not the only site on internet issues, they all say basically the same thing. Many issues regarding the internet have not been established/case tested, as many issues are new to the legal field.
Admin said: Is it wrong to steal someone's comment? Yes. Is it worth even an ounce of your time trying to sue them? I really don't think so.
------------------
Individually, probably not. I would imagine, though, if boggers got really ticked off enough if their comments were used in a publication without their consent or proper citations, and they joined forces, a class-action lawsuit could be initiated. Depending upon the outcome of the case, it could establish a protocol, a warning for others who use a blogger's comments indiscriminately.
I think that the owners/administrators of blogs that copy and paste comments from other sites for the purpose of dissecting and ridiculing them should be darn careful about what they are doing. They just might anger the wrong person!
Copyright Issues, I think when that person said the "rights of the blogger" the meant the commentor. Not the blog owner. I think we are in agreement, the commentor owns their comment and the commentor should go after other blogs for swiping their comments under copyright.
It wouldn't be libel, libel is when someone says something untrue about you. It would be a copyright violation when they swipe your comment, and is not ok.
You left one thing out, swiping comments just to poke fun is pathetic, not just unethical and a violation of copyright!
I don't allow it here for all three reasons and never have.
I gave libel as only an example of what might be in a comment. Not sure what you are referencing.
Again, copying a quote from another blog, is NOT copyright infringement, unless it is a published works and the copyright CLEARLY has that stipulation. Transfering others' (anonymous bloggers) comments posted on another blog, is covered under "Fair Use". This is not copyright infringement at all. Unless you are posting the cure for cancer or something equally important, there is no infringement whatsover. A blog owner MAY copy the comment, FAIR USE. The rules and laws for publish copyrighted works is NOT the same as some anoymous blog on the web. Not the same at all.
Copyright Issues, I completely disagree that copying comments would always be covered under the Fair Use Doctrine. That is interpreting it FAR too broadly than the courts intended. Fair Use covers LIMITED copying and pasting for the purposes of debate and criticism. These comments are used for the purposes of to poke fun at--hardly the same thing. And limited means just that, limited. The actual sentence or sentences should be copied, not the entire comment. If it can be linked to, that should be done instead. My understanding is entire comments and even posts are routinely copied and poked fun at. This is not done once or twice, but on a daily and hourly basis. Trying to get this in under Fair Use would probably get you laughed out of court. Fair Use was intended to support free speech, not feed a flock of prairie chickens who get off on poking fun at others all day long.
In constrast, if I did a post about why I love President Obama, one being because he loves an ice cold beer on a hot day, and they pulled that sentence from it, posted it, and debated on whether that is a good reason to like Obama and whether alcohol use is appropriate in the White House, that would probably fall under Fair Use. But taking the whole comment, not so much.
In constrast, my use of SHORT video clips, under 1:00 long, showing exploitive moments from the show for the purpose of critical debate, does fall squarely under Fair Use, because it is clearly for free speech purposes regarding a debate about exploitation. If I had posted the whole episode or even more than a few minutes, it would not be covered and I could be in serious trouble.
The courts need to provide some clarity, and it may be a matter of waiting for the right case to get a decision on.
This is NOT true. Please see "Fair Use". The commentor "owns" the comment, as in if it is a threat, libel etc, they "own" the content, the person commenting is libel, NOT the blog owner.
*******************
Blogger=commenter; Blog owner=blog owner! My comment is true.
"The commentor "owns" the comment, as in if it is a threat, libel etc, they "own" the content, the person commenting is libel, NOT the blog owner."
************************
I think you mean, "the person commenting is LIABLE," don't you? As in responsible by law. A person cannot be "libel." It's a libellous statement, or a statement of libel.
"It wouldn't be libel, libel is when someone says something untrue about you."
------------------
Ii believe that slander is the SPOKEN untrue word; libel is the WRITTEN untrue word. Either way, Admin is correct. Libel doesn't apply in this discussion of copyright infringement because there is no defamation of the blogger, only the lack of consent or proper citation of the source.
Moose, I didn't mean literally says. Libel is print, slander is oral, that's pretty much the first thing they teach you in your first journalism class.
Let's not be this picky folks, this is a good discussion.
If bloggers posted comments on the WG blog and the comments were used with or without permission and are now published in her book, does she now own their comments? What if bloggers don't want to be associated with a Gosselin book and their comments are now published in her book? Would a blogger need permission from WG or would the blogger be plagiarizing her book if a blogger wanted to publish these same comments posted on her blog in their own book?
Copyright said:
A blog owner MAY copy the comment, FAIR USE. The rules and laws for publish copyrighted works is NOT the same as some anoymous blog on the web. Not the same at all.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I'd be very hesitant to do that. It may not be copyright infringement, but it IS plagiarism, and as such, there are serious penalities. Try telling a professor that because there is no copyright, it is fair game. It's not going to work. You'll go up before the honors committee. The same holds true on the internet. If you copy the words of someone else and post them elsewhere, without acknowledging the original writer (getting consent or giving credit to that person), if that person is alerted to the fact and can prove that he/she is the original writer, there are penalties that could be imposed.
If in doubt, don't do it!
I'm sorry, I just don't get this. At all. So, someone taking comments off her own blog is OK? I'm confused. I don't read the legal stuff much, but this is intriguing. (c)
Oh, & Happy 12th Anniversary to me & my husband today! 12 amazing years! I love our little family...(c)
since I'm not sure 'what' the topic is the way the discussions have been going, I'm going to just throw this in here. If The Talk is going to benefit by having 'THE Viewer Magnet' on the show, WHY aren't they promoting the heck out of that fact? OR is it that 'someone' is forcing them to have her on and out of embarrassment they are not advertising that upfront? Knowing how MANY people feel about her, maybe they are afraid of the viewer 'drop' in numbers they would incur IF she were being promoted about her appearance. And speaking of appearances, WHERE was she at ALL of the galas going on recently? Where was she as 'correspondent' at those events? Did THEY forget already how much her stellar interviewing skills could have added to the occasions?
kinda makes ya go hmmm...
If I comment on a blog using the name "Happy Feet" and the blog owner puts my comment into a book and publishes the book, and I see my comment and didn't want it published in a book, what recourse do I have? How would I prove I am the commenter called "Happy Feet?"
Barbra said...
since I'm not sure 'what' the topic is the way the discussions have been going, I'm going to just throw this in here. If The Talk is going to benefit by having 'THE Viewer Magnet' on the show, WHY aren't they promoting the heck out of that fact? OR is it that 'someone' is forcing them to have her on and out of embarrassment they are not advertising that upfront? Knowing how MANY people feel about her, maybe they are afraid of the viewer 'drop' in numbers they would incur IF she were being promoted about her appearance. And speaking of appearances, WHERE was she at ALL of the galas going on recently? Where was she as 'correspondent' at those events? Did THEY forget already how much her stellar interviewing skills could have added to the occasions?
kinda makes ya go hmmm...
************************************************
It's pretty curious, huh Barbra? I guess it's a case of what to do with yesterday's news. She's not even interesting enough to promote.
She's of no importance to anyone- except of course, to her sheeple and haters.
Looks like she's running out of channels to peddle her bullsh*t on.
==============================================
Happy 12th Wedding Anniversary, Hippie Chick :o)
If I comment on a blog using the name "Happy Feet" and the blog owner puts my comment into a book and publishes the book, and I see my comment and didn't want it published in a book, what recourse do I have? How would I prove I am the commenter called "Happy Feet?"
&&&&&&&&&&
Wouldn't the blog owner have a record of the IP address? The commenter would have it also, and if served with a subpoena, the owner would have to provide that post, along with the IP.
MickeyMcKean said...
just me said... It's important to send The Talk a message and DO NOT watch her on the show. They're using her for ratings to boost their failing show. Don't watch and don't record. The clips will be available on line.
=============
Actually THE TALK is NOT a failing show - it was just renewed for a second season
'The Talk,' Featuring Sara Gilbert, Renewed for Second Season
Article dated 1/26/2011
******************************
The Talk has far lower ratings than the soap it replaced. Of course it will be renewed, Julie Chen is married to Les Moonves the CEO of CBS.
Don't watch!
I thought the topic was Can Kate and Jon go back to the simple life, not who owns what on the blogosphere and all that other nonsense. Please, if you dislike WG, don't come to her site. Please...get back to the issue: the G8.
BasementDweller said...
I thought the topic was Can Kate and Jon go back to the simple life, not who owns what on the blogosphere and all that other nonsense. Please, if you dislike WG, don't come to her site. Please...get back to the issue: the G8.
*****
You are not the blog's moderator. If the Administrator does not want WG discussed, she has the option to not post the comments. Other posters should not try to dictate which topics can and cannot be discussed. It's easy to skip over those posts that don't interest you.
I thought the topic was Can Kate and Jon go back to the simple life, not who owns what on the blogosphere and all that other nonsense. Please, if you dislike WG, don't come to her site
&&&&&&&&&&&&
If you are posting here, then who owns what is NOT nonsense. Perhaps YOU aren't interested in whether your comments can be taken and used on another site or in a book without your consent, but for others, it may be revelant, particularly to those whose comments have been taken and pasted elsewhere (and there have been quite a few!)...
BasementDweller said...
"I thought the topic was Can Kate and Jon go back to the simple life, not who owns what on the blogosphere and all that other nonsense. Please, if you dislike WG, don't come to her site. Please...get back to the issue: the G8"
====================
The discussion hasn't been exclusively about WG. That site is small potatoes. Knowing ownership of blogger's comments should be the concern of anyone who has ever posted comments. You could take your own advice. If you don't like it, don't come to this site!
I don't agree or understand the second part. You don't need to "register" your blog to sue for copyright. Register with who? The big bad government? You don't even need to put a little c next to anything. A common misconception is that you have to march yourself down to some copyright office to copyright things. Not so. Just by virtue of posting here you have a copyright. It's automatic. My blog is automatically copyrighted (the posts) and your posts are automatically copyrighted--no worries.
_________________________
I said to COLLECT MONETARY DAMAGES it needs to be registered with the big bad Governmental Office known as the US Copyright Office. And quite frankly, anyone with copyrightable content SHOULD protect themselves. To infringe is a Federal office and:
Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?
Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration” and Circular 38b, Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
Quite frankly I am surprised you don't know this.
You'd be surprised how many people are willing to participate or cooperate with whatever your project is if you just ask.
I'd rather not give details but I've been involved with an ongoing project for a few years now that is heavily reliant on others, and I would say more than 90% of people I ask to participate are thrilled to do so. With that many people willing to help out, you can just tell the other 10% who would rather not share that's ok thanks anyway.
This completely eliminates any fear of copyright or lawsuits when you get people's permission. It's nice to just live without that fear.
Looking at the pictures of the top 10 douche bags for 2010 and still just can't get over that scarecrow hair of hers, that horrible outfit she has on. And it reminds me how she claimed she wanted to dress carefully so her kids would not be embarassed or see her in an 'unseemly' manner. Yet, the minute the warm weather comes around she is mostly naked around them in her bikinis every chance she gets or she has on a top cut down to there with her fake books hanging out. If her lips are moving, she's lying.
If I read you correctly, would that be a violation of copyright material because she never asked for the original poster's consent to use their material? What if you at least cite the original source? Is it then okay to use that material without having to ask the original source first? (Isn't that what teachers/professors always told us to do? To cite our sources to avoid plagiarism?)
****
I'm wondering the same thing. She states that she did not give credit for comments to specific bloggers, but instead "acknowledged" everyone whose comments she used in the back of the book. So it seems that she neither sought permission nor gave proper attribution. I don't see how she can claim that posters' comments are her intellectual property.
I frequent a professional discussion board on the internet. A member, who participates even though in a different career, often lifts entire
postings and puts them on his site for discussion (and usually derision). When asked to stop, he always asserts that whatever is on the internet blogs is not copyrighted and can be freely used anywhere.
Administrator said...Does WG have a terms of service or terms of use somewhere where she explicitly says that once you post a comment there it becomes her copyrighted material? Copyright law on the internet is not completely settled, however absent a terms of service, everything I have researched suggests that comments posted to blog articles are copyrighted to their respective posters, not to the blog owner. This would be consistent with copyright law, which gives broad protection to the creators of content, regardless of WHERE they create that content. Copyright law is not my speciality but I did take a few intellectual property classes in law school.
Think of it this way. Say I wrote a story. And then I went over to your bulletin board at your house and tacked it there. Do you own copyright to my story now just because I tacked it to your board? Obviously not. The same principles apply when you come over to my "home" which is my blog, and post your "story" which is your comment. It's still yours.
I want your comments here to be YOUR comments. You all hold the copyright. I only hold the copyright to the posts and my own comments. And yes another blog is violating copyright by swiping comments here. You're welcome to send them a cease and disest if they did it to you. However that kind of thing is just what they want, a reaction. Better to ignore it I think.
I think a "terms of use" where you say once you comment it becomes the blogger's copyright is the only way to get around this--and that's fair because if you don't like losing your copyright then you don't have to post. I'm not sure if Youtube still does this but at a lot of video hosting sites you lose copyrights to videos you upload there. If you don't like it you don't upload your video. But they can't just take all the rights to it without warning you.
----------
Reading comments from various Gosselin blogs regarding Werny Gal's book, it appears that she MIGHT have used other blogger's comments in her book without their knowledge or consent.
If I read you correctly, would that be a violation of copyright material because she never asked for the original poster's consent to use their material? What if you at least cite the original source? Is it then okay to use that material without having to ask the original source first? (Isn't that what teachers/professors always told us to do? To cite our sources to avoid plagiarism?)
Therefore, if her book makes any profits and someone has concrete evidence to prove parts in her book came originally from their source, without their consent, is that original source entitled to any of those profits from the book? Is it possible for them to sue or seek legal action against her?
I've always wondered why some posters ask others if they could use their comments/materials for their own purposes. It never occurred to me, until now, that they are trying not to plagiarize material.
The children don't receive 15% of the gross. Here is the actual wording.
15% of WHAT IS DUE THE CHILDREN must be put in trust and may be used for health, education, and welfare.
No one has ever said how much "is due the children" and what happens to the other 85%.
I don't think you can really compare TLC and the Gosselins to a company and its employees. First of all the kids weren't even paid for the first four years. After that they only get 15% Most companies actually pay their worker bees. I get all of my paycheck, thank God, not just 15%. Second, we're not talking about adults working on an assembly line and then going home at the end of the day to their family. The whole show was the family and is about sucking the lifeblood out of eight childhoods. I can't think of any LEGAL business that does such a thing. And finally, if you quit your job at Proctor and Gamble they just hire someone else. But these are workers that cannot be replaced. When Jon left it almost killed the show, since a lot of the appeal was the dynamic of Jon and Kate. You cannot just cast new kids if the kids refuse to work. This is more comparable to say a baseball player who is the best pitcher in the league. You can't easily replace him, thus he is worth a lot more than just your average outfielder. The family cannot be replaced, thus they are worth more. When you have a highly valued worker, you're supposed to compensate them accordingly. Anyway fFor stealing a child's childhood I would think it would be worth a bit more than 15% for those kids.
Even Jon's attorneys said that the money TLC made off the family, in the 100's of millions, was grossly disproportionate to what the family actually pocketed, specifically, the kids. If I'm not mistaken in the beginning they were only making a few grand an episode, which was outrageously low compared to the profit the show was making. But since they were stupid and inexperienced they didn't know they should be demanding more.
A lot of companies are starting to impose real limits on the imbalance between execs and employees. Such as executives are not permitted to make more than three or four times the salary of its lowest paid employee, things like that. All these inflated bonuses and salaries are part of the reason we had such a bubble burst.
Gosselin8ComeFirst said...
... My point was that The Talk would probably not support ANY child exploitation, including Kate exploiting her kids on film.
**********
The Talk is FURTHERING child exploitation by featuring the kids who are on T&T as well as Kate Gosselin if she talks about the show that her kids are on. With the hosts of The Talk not saying anything in protest of the T&T show and by the producers booking the guests on the show in the first place they're giving the exploiters free advertising and an implied blessing to continue. The reason these guests are booked on these shows in the first place is to promote their shows for the network. I'm confident Kate will do the same thing.
Who Cares-
Kate Gosselin is allowing the filming of her babies and has been all along the way. And relies on them for her income. That is sad. Shouldn't Kate have had enough time to find her own means to support them, so these young kids's privacy is not sold to the highest bidder?
We are definitely not on the same page. I do not think the G8 kids should continued to be filmed.
So don't twist what I am saying, Kate needs to support her kids independently of the show. The kids need their privacy as youngsters (after 150 episodes aired), and for Kate to say there is no going back is insane. Get a job Kate. Support your kids off camera, as I would say to the T & T fame whores.
My point was that The Talk would probably not support ANY child exploitation, including Kate exploiting her kids on film.
Administrator said...
Not that I would ever defend Kate, but TLC probably made a hundred times over as much money off this family than Kate, Jon and the kids ever actually pocketed for themselves. I would be bitter.
*****
Why would you be bitter? Corporations profit from their employees all the time. That's the real world. For every actor making millions of dollars, there's a production company and network making many, many millions more. That's the nature of the business.
Should we start taking bets on when Kate will file her own lawsuit against TLC? I give it 60 days. As soon as she realizes she's been cut loose she'll find a way to sue them, for something, anything.
Not that I would ever defend Kate, but TLC probably made a hundred times over as much money off this family than Kate, Jon and the kids ever actually pocketed for themselves. I would be bitter.
Leah, Sara and Holly were all child/teenage actors so they might be the better ones to interview Kate.
Wayward, you are SOOO right. I LOVED your prediction of that witch, Khatezilla Gro$$elin'$ appearance on "The Talk". Unfortunately, it will probably all come to pass. Khate'$ a Fake. Khate'$ a Fake. Khate'$ a Fake.
AuntieAnn said... I'm not going to watch it though. Kate will walk on to the set with her 8" heels, wave a weak little wave to the audience, bare her clenched veneers with that frozen grin on her face and give her usual limp handshake to the hosts. I can't put myself through watching that again. I agree with whomever it was who said they'd rather have their molars removed with a tire iron.
==============================================
Ugggggh... the vision alone is disturbing. But what will be even more disturbing is how this group of usually outspoken women will treat Kate like gold and shower her with compliments on how she raises eight kids as a single mom and looks so wonderful. It will be all prearranged, unadulterated crap. Sharon Osbourne will be warned within an inch of her life not to dare call Kate out. And don't forget, when she goes on one of these things there's always some record she wants to set straight. More lies and spin she wants to try to feed America to save face for the latest shitty thing that she's done or that has happened as a result of her forcing her children to earn a living for her.
I predict she will first address her ungracious and bratty behavior on the Sarah Palin show and blame it all on editing. She will claim that she was brought on the show to jazz it up and create buzz because the filming to that point had been boring. She may or may not claim the producers told her to "stir the pot." Then she will claim she & Sarah text and email all the time and they are good buddies.
Next, she will bring up the Australia trip and talk about how wonderfully wonderful the trip was, she'll claim the kids just loved it and did just wonderful and didn't want to go home. She'll then use this trip as an example as to why she and the kids have to be on TV and she'll throw some educational hogwash in there. With the word "education" being mentioned, one of the ladies will then ask the pre-arranged question about the two kids Kate "withdrew" from school and Kate will give a pre-arranged answer about how wonderfully wonderful they are doing and it was the best thing for them and they are ummm just thriving wonderfully and are great. Finally, there will be a pre-arranged question about Jon, Kate will give a pre-arranged answer that will first remind America about his behavior almost TWO YEARS AGO and then slam and diminish his parenting abilities, but in a more subtle way since there's been so much back and forth between he and her about confidentiality.
Even if I was home I wouldn't watch, but I can't wait to find out here on Tuesday if Kate hits any of my predictions on the nail.
Auntie Ann said, Here's one for Kate by the late great RO..."It's Over"
*******************
AuntieAnn -- you're right! I never thought about that one:
Setting suns, before they fall,
Echo to you, 'That's all, that's all,'
But you'll see lonely sunsets, after all,
It's over, it's over, it's over.
It could easily be called "Kate's Swan Song!"
Old Roy really knew how to write them.
Administrator said...Unless she's going to announce her engagement to Steve?
----------
Shhhhh...don't ruin the surprise for Kate on Valentine's Day! LOL
Ah Moose! I should know better...lol. I love that song. Here's one for Kate by the late great RO..."It's Over".
I'm not going to watch it though. Kate will walk on to the set with her 8" heels, wave a weak little wave to the audience, bare her clenched veneers with that frozen grin on her face and give her usual limp handshake to the hosts. I can't put myself through watching that again. I agree with whomever it was who said they'd rather have their molars removed with a tire iron.
You should all be happy she's on a show without the kids
-----------------------
This is such a trite and obtuse statement.
When people criticize K8 and say that she should get a job, it means a job that is in no way, shape or form connected to the kids or her "brand" :
- no advising on how to be organized
- no advising on how to be a hands-on mom
- no advising on how raise a family as a single parent
- no advising on how to be an organic cook and baker
- no advising on how to be green
- no advising on how to dance or work hard
- no advising on avoiding the paps
- no advising on how to clip coupons and save money for college funds
etc, etc.
Thus far, these are the types of "jobs" K8 has had and they have all been bogus. Is this really that difficult to understand ?
New comments are not allowed.