No News uses AFF for stories - or so it would seem...!

[mannej]

Then that's sleazy journalism. They didn't quote the source of the information, and made it seem like they interviewed you for that snippet.

I am surprised that Perth now actually posted my comment relating to the source of the frequent flyer comments.
I have attempted contact with the Journalist in question, and if she does not respond, I do have contacts who work for the Sunday Times.

Be interesting to see what the response is if any.

 

[drron]

I'm curious about this (recall you mentioning it before, but don't remember if you named the News Ltd article). Can you give some more details about this amazingly co-incidental travel report that mirrored your trip rather well?

I really cant now recall(CRAFT affects you that way) exactly which of my TRs it was though I do know it was re LOTFAP and yes I remember posting here about it at the time.
Quite frankly it didn't worry me-in fact secretly felt quite tickled that I could write so well.Although i write my TRs for my own benefit I do hope others get some useful info from them and certainly on that occasion meant it reached a wider audience.
My only negative thought is that they could have let me know-I would give permission for any of my TRs to be used-or at least acknowledge the source,whether myself or AFF.

 

[munitalP]

Any copyright or IP lawyers on AFF?


munitalP

 

[medhead]

Without getting lawyers involved I would suggest a story suggestion to media watch. They seem to like running plagiarism stories, which sounds like it applies to drron.

 

[harvyk]

Whilst very unethical to pass someone elses work off as your own, AFAIK you would need to prove an actual loss to you caused by the journalist stealing the TR.

Given that it's posted up on a public forum, of which (AFAIK) anthonysimilion has no financial interest in, it would be quite difficult to show an actual loss.

Even admin would have trouble, as whilst anthonysimilion has submitted the TR to AFF, there is nothing preventing anthonysimilion from submitting the work to another 3rd party as well. Admin would have to prove the anthonysimilion has given the full exclusive rights of the work to Admin for publication and that Admin now owns the exclusive rights for that piece of work. For that to stick Admin would have needed to have provided anthonysimilion with some form of payment for the forementioned work.

I don't believe admin takes ownership of all published articles (I was going to check the sign up agreement) as that could make admin legally liable for any information posted here.

Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer, this is based on my own experiences with internet publishing and the advice which my lawyers gave to me for my senario's.

 

[medhead]

Whilst very unethical to pass someone elses work off as your own, AFAIK you would need to prove an actual loss to you caused by the journalist stealing the TR.

Given that it's posted up on a public forum, of which (AFAIK) anthonysimilion has no financial interest in, it would be quite difficult to show an actual loss.

Even admin would have trouble, as whilst anthonysimilion has submitted the TR to AFF, there is nothing preventing anthonysimilion from submitting the work to another 3rd party as well. Admin would have to prove the anthonysimilion has given the full exclusive rights of the work to Admin for publication and that Admin now owns the exclusive rights for that piece of work. For that to stick Admin would have needed to have provided anthonysimilion with some form of payment for the forementioned work.

I don't believe admin takes ownership of all published articles (I was going to check the sign up agreement) as that could make admin legally liable for any information posted here.

Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer, this is based on my own experiences with internet publishing and the advice which my lawyers gave to me for my senario's.

But the issue is not about whether there is a financial loss or not. The copyright remains with the author. It may be assigned to AFF but the author retains their right as the creator of the work. The major problem is the reproduction of the authors work as if it was your work.

I'm just going through the process of getting a scientific paper published and my work will be printed in a journal and also be available online. The I give the publisher the (non-exclusive) rights to deal with all requests to use my work. But I remain the creator and I can use the work as I wish (more or less). NO one else can take my work and put their name on it. The lack of acknowledgement is the major problem.

 

[harvyk]

medhead, the difference is that you could reasonably expect a financial loss if someone was to pass your work off as their own.

 

[drron]

And in my case in some ways I was rather chuffed.Besides I want nothing to do with the supercilious Media watch.

 

[russ]

medhead, the difference is that you could reasonably expect a financial loss if someone was to pass your work off as their own.

harvyk, as medhead has said, a breach of copyright does not require a financial loss.

If you are concerned about lack of acknowledgement, see Moral rights (copyright law)

 

[medhead]

medhead, the difference is that you could reasonably expect a financial loss if someone was to pass your work off as their own.

Not really (but maybe a loss could be inferred) Scientific, or scholarly, work is mostly not for profit, it is in the case of my article. I don't get any money from people buying my article.

I also need to get permission from the copyright holder to reproduce a figure from a safety guide freely available to the public from the regulator. Acknowledgement alone is not enough. But there is no question of the regulator making a financial loss by me using their figure.

And in my case in some ways I was rather chuffed.Besides I want nothing to do with the supercilious Media watch.

Fair enough. But then I'm not sure there would be much to feel chuffed about since the vast majority who read your work think it was written by someone else. Warm inner glow - I get that. But someone has still stolen your work. Of course no reason to involve lawyers.

Re supercilious media watch
But then they almost always are correct and hold the moral high ground. They seem to be plenty of complaints here about low journalist standards.

 

[serfty]

...
Re supercilious media watch
But then they almost always are correct and hold the moral high ground. They seem to be plenty of complaints here about low journalist standards.

Not always,

google "abc media watch errors" and you may be surprised. (Skip the ABC.net.au references)

 

[medhead]

Not always,

google "abc media watch errors" and you may be surprised. (Skip the ABC.net.au references)

I did say almost always. I've work for government, I rarely use absolutes. In fact only the dark side deal in absolutes.

Great link. Thanks.

 

[serfty]

Here's some of interest:

Last week’s 20-year history of the ABC’s Media Watch missed the best barney of all | Australian Conservative

Legal action, and internal strife, over ABC Archbishop reports | Crikey

ABC News Watch: Media Watch on Monckton-what "free ride"?

 

[Smackbum]

Here's some of interest:

Last week’s 20-year history of the ABC’s Media Watch missed the best barney of all | Australian Conservative

Legal action, and internal strife, over ABC Archbishop reports | Crikey

ABC News Watch: Media Watch on Monckton-what "free ride"?

Serfty, if those three links sum up the "errors" of Media Watch over 21 years of broadcasting, then my opinion of them has been enhanced.

If everyone in Australia was forced to watch re-runs of Frontline and Media Watch we might actually be able to have intelligent debates about news and current affairs in this country. Instead we get shock jocks and 10-second grabs and the only balanced reporting is about the weather.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Maybe we should start a no.news thread.


Could include (but not limited to)

• General mistakes in their articles
• Misquotes etc...
• Photo mistakes (many times they have an article on a 747 and have a 777 in the picture)
• QF/DJ bashing related material

I'll start the first one;

A QANTAS plane flying from Sydney to Melbourne with 120 passengers on board was forced to turn back after suffering a tail strike on take-off on Monday.
The Boeing 767-300 was rotating for take-off around 5pm when it encountered a gust, lifting the nose more sharply than usual.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/qantas-plane-in-tail-strike-drama/story-e6frfq80-1225826192173

Article is relating to a Boeing 767-300. The picture of the plane taking off is not a 767, however, the tail of the plane in the right hand side, well, anyones guess. Boeing 767-300 only have 2 engines, the picture of the plane taking off has 4.

 

[anat0l]

Here's some of interest:

Last week’s 20-year history of the ABC’s Media Watch missed the best barney of all | Australian Conservative

Legal action, and internal strife, over ABC Archbishop reports | Crikey

ABC News Watch: Media Watch on Monckton-what "free ride"?

Frankly I'd rather be "brainwashed" by Media Watch than by our "popular" press. At least I'd be absorbing less "mistakes".