I did see your note, but when I started reading the bios, I was like, "Holy poop, this text looks strikingly familiar." I'm an old Newsy myself, so I had to bust your balls. And I definitely agree with koby. I'm not sure how the powers behind SMR were going to format the article and give credit to the original source, but if I were your editor, I'd definitely stop the presses and send this piece back to the newsroom for a rewrite. I don't think footnotes or whatever are enough to tiptoe around this plagiarism minefield.
My intent with this article was not to "write stories" about players. It was to talk about pre-war cards ....which I did in Part I. Unfortunately it was split into two parts without me knowing it so now Part I has what I wrote on my own and Part II has the bio information which I did not. This bio information from the web is great information for potential collectors which is simply fun to read facts so they know who the players on these cards are. I saw no harm in leaving it as is with the proper credit given .....just like with your picture contributions. In my mind, what became Part II of the article was obviously something I would have to have read/learn elsewhere. Part II is not analysis one could deduct by one's self. It's fact/legend. Even though I stated it came from somewhere else you seem to be hell bent on making it look like I didn't.
Why is that?
Maybe I'm missing your point? Are you saying that giving the proper credit isn't good enough?
There is a fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness"
<< <i>Are you saying that giving the proper credit isn't good enough? >>
I think footnotes are OK if the general idea and information was obtained from that source.
However, when text is for the most part lifted from another source, usually the text should either be in quotations or the paragraphs should be indented followed by credit to the original source.
I have to admit that this is only what I was tought about plagerism when I wrote for a university paper. You probably have much more experience than myself, so I will leave this to you and the SMR publishers. Best of luck to you.
I take back what I said above about the quotations and the indentations.
If the SMR is going to use that text, it may consider writing first to the hockey HOF website for permission before the presses roll. Again this is just the opinion of an overly-cautious non-writer. Best of luck to you.
<< <i>Maybe I'm missing your point? Are you saying that giving the proper credit isn't good enough? >>
Tom, I also just e-mailed you, but that is indeed pretty much what I'm saying - at least in this case. Footnotes or some other form of credit likely would be fine if you're just quoting a sentence or two, but here we're talking about www.legendsofhockey.net's exact player bios essentially forming the basis of the article, or at least Part II of it. Like koby said, I'd get the "expressed written consent" (I love that phrase) of the site if these are going to run as-is. And I'd also make it abundantly clear that the bio's in your article were reprinted with permission from that site - assuming you're able to secure it.
I'm an old Newsy myself, so I had to bust your balls
I think we are being very unfair to Tom here.
Here's a guy who took the time to spread the word about his collecting passion to others and all he gets is grief. Wake up guys, the SMR is not the NY Times! [although that publication has had some people make up some bogus stories]. In fact, it's not even the Hoboken Press [with apologies to New Jerseyites]. Changing a word or two from an original source is not the right way either. That was the lazy way to do it on your College term paper.
Tom's notation of his use of other sources is very acceptable in a journal of the SMR's standing. I think Tom deserves an apology here.
It doesn't matter that the SMR is not the NYT. Just because the SMR is an ad vehicle/PSA infomercial and not a publication of record doesn't absolve it of the ethical and legal responsibilities involved in the use of large blocks of copyrighted material from a source that did not authorize its use.
I look at the situation this way: If I were the webmaster or resident scribe or the whatever of www.legendsofhockey.net and I saw my exact player bios printed in a magazine that had not sought my permission and did not give me full credit for penning the pieces, I'd be freaking livid and would look into taking legal action against the publisher.
<< <i>I look at the situation this way: If I were the webmaster or resident scribe or the whatever of www.legendsofhockey.net and I saw my exact player bios printed in a magazine that had not sought my permission and did not give me full credit for penning the pieces, I'd be freaking livid and would look into taking legal action against the publisher. >>
I agree with you yawie. But as I said ....I did give them credit so please stop saying I didn't. Not in the CU post, but in the article.
But I did not get their permission first and that I am wrong about. That is my fault and the request for permission is now in with them.
Thanks to all for the comments and journalism education.
There is a fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness"
Does anyone know whether the author of this article and Collectors Universe finally received written permission to copy word for word the text from legendsofhockey.net ?
Comments
<< <i>You might want to change up the text a little if it was copied verbatim. >>
I'd rather footnote the bio stuff from Part II as you'll see I did when it comes out.
I did see your note, but when I started reading the bios, I was like, "Holy poop, this text looks strikingly familiar." I'm an old Newsy myself, so I had to bust your balls. And I definitely agree with koby. I'm not sure how the powers behind SMR were going to format the article and give credit to the original source, but if I were your editor, I'd definitely stop the presses and send this piece back to the newsroom for a rewrite. I don't think footnotes or whatever are enough to tiptoe around this plagiarism minefield.
My intent with this article was not to "write stories" about players. It was to talk about pre-war cards ....which I did in Part I. Unfortunately it was split into two parts without me knowing it so now Part I has what I wrote on my own and Part II has the bio information which I did not. This bio information from the web is great information for potential collectors which is simply fun to read facts so they know who the players on these cards are. I saw no harm in leaving it as is with the proper credit given .....just like with your picture contributions. In my mind, what became Part II of the article was obviously something I would have to have read/learn elsewhere. Part II is not analysis one could deduct by one's self. It's fact/legend. Even though I stated it came from somewhere else you seem to be hell bent on making it look like I didn't.
Why is that?
Maybe I'm missing your point? Are you saying that giving the proper credit isn't good enough?
<< <i>Are you saying that giving the proper credit isn't good enough? >>
I think footnotes are OK if the general idea and information was obtained from that source.
However, when text is for the most part lifted from another source, usually the text should either be in quotations or the paragraphs should be indented followed by credit to the original source.
I have to admit that this is only what I was tought about plagerism when I wrote for a university paper. You probably have much more experience than myself, so I will leave this to you and the SMR publishers. Best of luck to you.
If the SMR is going to use that text, it may consider writing first to the hockey HOF website for permission before the presses roll. Again this is just the opinion of an overly-cautious non-writer. Best of luck to you.
<< <i>Maybe I'm missing your point? Are you saying that giving the proper credit isn't good enough? >>
Tom, I also just e-mailed you, but that is indeed pretty much what I'm saying - at least in this case. Footnotes or some other form of credit likely would be fine if you're just quoting a sentence or two, but here we're talking about www.legendsofhockey.net's exact player bios essentially forming the basis of the article, or at least Part II of it. Like koby said, I'd get the "expressed written consent" (I love that phrase) of the site if these are going to run as-is. And I'd also make it abundantly clear that the bio's in your article were reprinted with permission from that site - assuming you're able to secure it.
CYA, man, CYA.
I think we are being very unfair to Tom here.
Here's a guy who took the time to spread the word about his collecting passion to others and all he gets is grief. Wake up guys, the SMR is not the NY Times! [although that publication has had some people make up some bogus stories]. In fact, it's not even the Hoboken Press [with apologies to New Jerseyites]. Changing a word or two from an original source is not the right way either. That was the lazy way to do it on your College term paper.
Tom's notation of his use of other sources is very acceptable in a journal of the SMR's standing. I think Tom deserves an apology here.
Always looking for 1957 Topps BB in PSA 9!
I look at the situation this way: If I were the webmaster or resident scribe or the whatever of www.legendsofhockey.net and I saw my exact player bios printed in a magazine that had not sought my permission and did not give me full credit for penning the pieces, I'd be freaking livid and would look into taking legal action against the publisher.
<< <i>
Tom's notation of his use of other sources is very acceptable in a a journal of the SMR's standing >>
You're probably right Mantlefan. We're taking this thing way too seriously. I'm sure everything will turn out fine for Tom and Collectors Universe.
<< <i>I look at the situation this way: If I were the webmaster or resident scribe or the whatever of www.legendsofhockey.net and I saw my exact player bios printed in a magazine that had not sought my permission and did not give me full credit for penning the pieces, I'd be freaking livid and would look into taking legal action against the publisher. >>
I agree with you yawie. But as I said ....I did give them credit so please stop saying I didn't. Not in the CU post, but in the article.
But I did not get their permission first and that I am wrong about. That is my fault and the request for permission is now in with them.
Thanks to all for the comments and journalism education.
<< <i>That is my fault... >>
Fuggit, dude. Blame your editor. He's the law-school-grad-cum-professional-journalist.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Heh..........
Those Red Sox fans broke the #1 commandment.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods, or
thy neighbors world series ring.
Yankee fans are demanding true repentence.
I need to finish off a few sets and am looking for PSA 5 or better:
'33 Ice Kings- (have many extras to trade)
#1 Dit Clapper
#6 Haynes
#7 Martin
#11 Worters
#15 Dillon
#56 Dutkowski
#59 Aurie
#66 Cook
#67 Roach
#72 Howe
'36 OPC series D - (have extras to trade)
#97 Broda (vg or better)
#105 Colville
#118 Shore
#119 Buzz Boll
#121 Morenz
#122 Horner
#127 Blinko