The
loneliness off the long distance whistleblower.
Ah,
the power of modern Social Media. I recently joined a local “poetry” group. The
organiser of the group published a piece of some-one else’s work on the site,
without the author’s byline. (And, I suspect, without the author’s knowledge or
permission.) A few days later, she admitted that it was not her work, and named
the author, but did not take down the publication. Her claimed ratification for
the publishing was her admiration for the author’s work.
I, being an author myself, decided to notify
the original author of the work of the event. “Shame!” I hear you cry. I phrased
it as a question. ie; ‘Did you know that a piece of your work has been published
without your byline on media XYZ, and did you give permission for this?’ . I note that the work has now been taken down,
but also that I have been summarily removed as a group member. No notice, no
reason given. No opportunity to ask why, as I have been summarily stripped of any access rights, and can’t even send
an e-mail to the organiser to ask. I wonder why? I was not the person who
infringed some-one else’s copyright, and the original author surely has the
right to demand recognition for intellectual property rights!? The fact that no
financial advantage was gained (I believe) is not a valid reason to infringe
copyright! Nor is alleged admiration for the author. And to then not even have
the courtesy to give the author’s byline can only lead to speculation about
motivation.
But
this is where the inherent evil of modern media comes in. I am denied the right
of any further communication. Good, bad, or indifferent. I have obviously
offended the organiser’s self-imposed right to ‘borrow’ some-one else’s work
without recognition. There is no comeback, the organiser controls the group’s
communications!
My argument is as follows though: If
permission had been obtained, my
‘blowing the whistle’ would have been ignored by the author, and nothing more
would have come of it. So, it follows that obviously no permission was
obtained. If person B does not report the knowledge of a crime by person A,
then that, by law, is aiding and abetting. Does person A then have the right to
punish person B for reporting the crime? And, the right to bar person B from
justifying such?
Surely,
anyone who writes in the public domain knows about copyright? How could anyone organising a poetry group not know of
this? How would they feel if some-one else published their work, without acknowledging them as the owner of the
intellectual property? Or is it a case of ‘one rule for me, but a different one
for you’? Always remember that in today’s shrinking world, it doesn’t matter if
the copyright owner lives on the other side of the globe, the copyright is international.
What, if anything, have I done wrong?
There
you have it. My little gripe for justice. Any comments?
And I'm still looking for more work, if anybody wants some proofreading done!
