Posters of original research, analyses, insights etc retain all rights to their work.
Such research etc cannot be used in any format without the written consent of the author.
Reclaiming my research (1) The Greville Pearl earrings
Posted by Beth on April 22, 2021, 7:47 am
Unless I see some major changes in various sites, I plan to do a series of posts to reclaim my work.
If bloggers do not acknowledge my research, I will start to name sites which infringe on my intellectual property rights.
Since I posted that Princess Margaret's pearl earrings came from Mrs Greville in April 2017 on the Royal Jewels of the World Message Board, every "expert" seems to think they have the right to present that information as their own. They cannot.
Being able to do a Google search does not constitute research or allow the key board shortcut researcher to claim the outcome of another's work.
Re: Reclaiming my research (1) The Greville Pearl earrings
That is so awful Beth! You do so much hard work and research and your work deserves to be recognized. I know I have been guilty of this myself, and I have really appreciated you informing me of my error, and giving me a chance to rectify it, so I do think you should reclaim your intellectual property rights on those that refuse to acknowledge your work even after it being pointed out.
I know I have seen your research on many places without proper credit for your photos and research. Not only does not acknowledging you reflect on the site or account, but subsequent people who use that are not aware that you were the source of the information and it perpetuates a vicious system in which your hard work is ignored.
An example is your picture of Mrs Greville wearing the pearl earrings, which I came across on Pinterest in 2019, over a year after I had written my article on the earrings, and was not aware that you were the source of until seeing your post today (possibly because the original post on RJWMB is no longer active).
This is one of the reasons I am so hesitant to publicly share my own research until I publish an article on it, and even then I find recognized ‘experts’ taking the information and images and passing them off as their own, not replying to messages and even deleting comments that call them out. However, at the same time many people and accounts do acknowledge and rectify their mistakes when it is pointed out, saying they were not even aware of their error until it was brought to their attention.
Normally, but not always, the people who appropriate the work of others are well aware of what they are doing. They are the ones who refuse to rectify matters if the matter is brought to their attention.
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.
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.
Apart from intellectual property rights: Anyone who modifies a copyrighted image might be surprised to learn that not only the modification won’t establish a copyright of the altered image, but in contrary, if not explicitly stated otherwise, any alteration of a copyrighted image is per se a violation of copyright.
Re: Reclaiming my research (1) The Greville Pearl earrings
It's not a fair world at all Beth. When I did my first and second degrees; 'research was a major part of both, but we were taught that if we wanted to include any literature to our work, we would legally have to site the source and author of it. Sadly with all the laws on infringement of intellectual property and rights, they have not majorly dented the regular practice of persons claiming others work and or eroding one's intellectual property rights. And it's very pervasive on the internet where persons can hide behind aliases and a machine. I'm not sure you may want to expense yourself in tracking down and or making legal challenges in this media space as it will be difficult and time consuming to prove your side. We/I know that you do genuine and factual work along with the other mentioned posters. I can make no real suggestions as how you can avoid and work around this ongoing matter but you do have options if you so wish to officially address it. I want to wish you all the best in that regard.
Kindly,
Dave.
Previous Message
Unless I see some major changes in various sites, I plan to do a series of posts to reclaim my work.
If bloggers do not acknowledge my research, I will start to name sites which infringe on my intellectual property rights.
Since I posted that Princess Margaret's pearl earrings came from Mrs Greville in April 2017 on the Royal Jewels of the World Message Board , every "expert" seems to think they have the right to present that information as their own. They cannot.
Being able to do a Google search does not constitute research or allow the key board shortcut researcher to claim the outcome of another's work.
If bloggers do not acknowledge my research, I will start to name sites which infringe on my intellectual property rights.
I think this is exactly what you should do. An index of blogs infringing intellectual property rights might prove an effective instrument to stop this practice. It might also put a stop to admiring mentions of questionable blogs and websites in discussions here and elsewhere.
Re: Naming sites
Posted by Beth on April 22, 2021, 6:37 pm, in reply to "Naming sites"
Hopefully, if I list sufficient items I am concerned about, that will not be necessary.
But like lists of scams, it might be the way to clean up what has become a major problem.
Or, at least, it will make the print and TV media cautious about who they pay for "new, exciting" information.
on April 22, 2021, 7:47 am
Previous Message