Yet, there are some who are always willing to acknowledge the research of others, including mine.
One is Vincent Meylan. I very much doubt if he has lost any followers for acknowledging the work of others.
Saad of The Royal Watcher site always provides links to his sources and if, he makes a mistake, is always willing to rectify matters if he includes material inadvertently.
Everyone, including me, makes mistakes from time to time. I don't think The Royal Watcher has lost any followers in the process of acknowledging the work of others. On the contrary, I suspect that his intellectual probity gains him respect.
The Queen's Jewel Vault site always acknowledges the work of others, and that site is one of the most popular on the net. Again because I think people trust the site owner.
Not all are so willing to rectify mistakes. One site owner will immediately take down items rather than admit they have taken, often word for word, the work of others. Then, a couple of months down the track the deleted material will re-appear on that site.
Another maintains they can use the related information and images because they have created a new image. As if a copyrightable image gives them licence to infringe on intellectual property rights.
Some refuse to answer correspondence, make up excuses, or state their followers gave them the information. Even a first year university student would come up with more plausible explanations.
Then these people sell their "expertise" to the media!!
I never claim copyright over any images I use. I would be a complete fool to do that, as I do not own the copyright.
I claim something quite different for the research I publish.
Some might be surprised to realise that much of what they claim copyright for is not covered by copyright laws! I find their ignorance amazing.
« Back to index | View thread »