Camp Chase Gazette and the Watchdog

[CPL_Conner]

Re: Ripped Off

Kevin,

I'm really sorry to hear that this happened to you. I really enjoy reading your articles. It's really sad that someone would take somebody's hard work and label it as their own. Is there any course of action you are planning on taking?

[Hargis, G. 5 A-1]

Re: Ripped Off

If one is contemplating "Action" — the sort of thing involving lawyers or other dangerous things — then public statements posted on a forum readable by any and all is not good strategy.

Glen E. Hargis

(Sound advice, but perhaps a bit slow in coming.)

[CPL_Conner]

Re: Ripped Off

I didn't necessarily mean for "action" to mean legal pursuit. I was wondering if the "writter" of the article in CCG would issue an apology in the next issue, and give Keving the proper credit for it.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: Ripped Off

1. Yes, I'm pursuing the matter in cooperation with CWH.

2. Counsel has told us that it can be discussed online as long as we stick to the facts, which I believe has been done.

3. No, this does not deter me from submitting future articles to magazines. One group of misguided folks at one publication is not "the hobby".

[Doug Potter]

Re: Ripped Off

Hope thing's work out for you.
Doug

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: Ripped Off

Things appear to be moving along toward resolving the CCG plagarism issue. In the mean time, I thought that Patrick Ertel's "From the Publisher" essay on page 3 of the new (November/December 2006) issue of "Civil War Historian" was well-done. He tackled the issue head on for CWH's readers.

[billwatson]

Re: Ripped Off

It's very rare to see publishers willing to publicly condemn another publication. It's a mark of how far outside the boundaries of acceptable behavior this particular incident is.

But you neglected to mention Grumpy Dave's excellent article in this issue....

[ley74]

Re: Ripped Off

Kevin:

That was an unusual "From the Publisher". What a stand-up thing to say and do.

You are selfless in the sharing of your research. Patrick's letter is simply affirmation to those fortunate enough to have benefitted.

See you in Syracuse!

[paul9thky]

Re: Ripped Off

I read this article in the CCG and really liked it. Being a part time writer I could really see the frustration in having your work plagiarized and then creditied to someone else.

I my opinion it wouldn't all that bad if they had atleast given you credit for writting the article. But that's just me.

Sorry for the misfortune.

[Spinster]

Re: Ripped Off

.

I my opinion it wouldn't all that bad if they had atleast given you credit for writting the article. But that's just me.

.

MMMMmmmmm.......no. That's like saying its okay for someone to take your car our of your garage, without your permission and drive it down to Florida on vacation, but its okay if they tell folks its your car.

Intellectual property is still property.

[paul9thky]

Re: Ripped Off

well I was saying that as if it was my work. I wouldn't be as mad if they at least gave me credit for it. That's why I added. "But that's just me"

[ElizabethClark]

Re: Ripped Off

Really? If you spent a few years of time and money researching a topic, and sat down to put together a good article, and then found a good publication with an interested audience, and were compensated for your work... you really wouldn't mind if someone lifted your article, had it published elsewhere, and *that* person was compensated for *your* work?

Mr. Richardson, you're far more easy-going than 99% of the population. :)

Kevin, I hope things continue to work out properly in this situation.

[paul9thky]

Re: Ripped Off

Really? If you spent a few years of time and money researching a topic, and sat down to put together a good article, and then found a good publication with an interested audience, and were compensated for your work... you really wouldn't mind if someone lifted your article, had it published elsewhere, and *that* person was compensated for *your* work?

Mr. Richardson, you're far more easy-going than 99% of the population. :)

Kevin, I hope things continue to work out properly in this situation.

No Ma'am, that is not what I said.

I said if someone were to publish my work without my permission, I would not be AS mad if they were to at least gave me credit for my work as they did not in the said situation.

Just for the record I have had my work which I worked on for a long time published without my permission by someone who was making a profit off of it. But I was given credit for my work in the publication so I did not make a fuss over it, I just simply told them to not do it again.

But what has tanspired in the given situiation is VERY much so inexcusable.



Thank you. :)

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: Ripped Off

First off, thanks very much to all the well-wishers. :)

Second, about publishing work without permission.... Over the years I've seen an awful lot of my work published without my having been asked in quite a number of reenactor newsletters. My approach to that is typically to say to myself, "Well, I'm glad someone thought it good enough to present to their members." In the end, most reenactor writing is done so that other reenactors may learn from it... at least so I believe.

I've seen my work plagarized before too. In one example, a group putting on a reenactor training/instructional event took one of my articles and plagarized it pretty good, but gave me credit in numerous footnotes in their article. I thought that was sort of stepping near "the line" but again, their goal was the same as mine in writing it: to get info to reenactors, so I wrote that one off the same way--I decided I was flattered that they liked it so much.

Within the CR we've published a number of articles for reenactors, largely with the goal of getting research info to reenactors so that they may consider improving their portrayals. When asked for permissiong to reprint an article for a website or reenactor newsletter, I've never seen any CR member say no.

What CCG did is, I think, different, and not just because someone else's name was pasted on my work. CCG is, first, a professional publication that should know better, and they plagarized an article printed in their only competition's magazine just six months earlier; you'd think they'd KNOW what their compeition was printing. I almost find it difficult to believe that they did not. Secondly, CCG supposedly compensates at least some of its writers, and CCG has informed CWH and me that the article was submitted to them by one of their regular contributors and, hence, it's quite possible that person was compensated for stealing my work. That kind of annoys me. If it were simply to get info to other reenactors that's one thing, but when it's a professional magazine printing it when they should not have, and possibly paying someone else for my work, that's just wrong.

I also will confess that I'm not terribly fond of seeing my work with someone else's name on it. The topics I have written about are usually pretty general and, frankly, it's not terribly difficult for someone to write their own, independent article on the same subject using independent research.

We are a hobby that suvives in some part based on the exchange of research information and, like many, I typically don't have a problem if someone thinks my work is good enough to pass along to their friends, although I really do prefer to be asked first. But commerce is commerce, and CCG was, as I see it, both lax and supporting theft in this case.

To their credit, CCG has come to the table willing to work with CWH and me to resolve this matter, and hopefully it'll be wrapped up relatively soon.

[64OVI]

Re: Ripped Off

Thanks for keeping us updated Kevin. As someone who spent many years in the newspaper publishing realm, this is an important issue and people need to be made aware.

Regards

Kent Dorr