Send them a bill. 
Maybe you could have a certain self-appointed PR person send them a “seize and assist” letter. ![[berserker.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/8600bbd4810d342b8fbd4ffb62b4f0026275fd37.gif "berserker"){kind=small}
That’s true, I’d be happy to look the other way if they sent me a case of said wine!
That’s nothing, I’ve seen CT notes plagiarized and presented as the tasting notes of wine store employees!
What a silly thread. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill…
What a silly post. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill…
Asking the community if this practice is common doesn’t seem like an overreaction. Writing this stuff is a job for me, it was the first I’ve seen it done and I found it curious so thought I’d ask the community that would most likely be able to chime in.
My Cellartracker notes where used to sell/describe wine on Berserker Day. I bet the seller didn’t think it was a Berserker forum member tasting note.
I asked permission from Eric for BD for them to reference CT tasting notes.
If you’d like yours excluded, completely understand, let me know and I’ll insure.
Of course, I said I didn’t know the answer, and solicited one from someone who did. I think you should stick to programming computers because the law school you went to recruited from the back of a match book, and thus does not qualify you. You can state the terms all you want. A third party that does not sign up for your service but views it for free on the public Internet HAS NOT, by merely looking at your publicly available site, agreed to the terms you unilaterally stated. That is not an IP law analysis, which as I clearly stated I know nothing about, but it is Contracts 101.
Not a tough issue to research, come to think of it. As to registered copyrights, which these notes presumably are not, the following from the US Copyright Office:
An author of a copyrighted work can use a pseudonym or pen name. A work is pseudonymous
if the author is identified on copies or phonorecords of the work by a fictitious name. Nicknames
and other diminutive forms of legal names are not considered fictitious. Copyright
does not protect pseudonyms or other names.
If you write under a pseudonym but want to be identified by your legal name in the
Copyright Office’s records, give your legal name and your pseudonym on your application for
copyright registration. Check “pseudonymous” on the application if the author is identified on
copies of the work only under a fictitious name and if the work is not made for hire. Give the
pseudonym where indicated.
If you write under a pseudonym and do not want to have your identity revealed in the
Copyright Office’s records, give your pseudonym and identify it as such on your application.
You can leave blank the space for the name of the author. If an author’s name is given, it
will become part of the Office’s online public records, which are accessible by Internet. The
information cannot later be removed from the public records. You must identify your
citizenship or domicile.
In no case should you omit the name of the copyright claimant. You can use a pseudonym
for the claimant name. But be aware that if a copyright is held under a fictitious name, business
dealings involving the copyrighted property may raise questions about its ownership. Consult
an attorney for legal advice on this matter.
Works distributed under a pseudonym enjoy a term of copyright protection that is the
earlier of 95 years from publication of the work or 120 years from its creation. However, if the
author’s identity is revealed in the registration records of the Copyright Office, including in
any other registrations made before that term has expired, the term then becomes the author’s
life plus 70 years.
"because the law school you went to recruited from the back of a match book, and thus does not qualify you. "
dick
Hmm. Interesting turn of events. I thought Eric said the author holds the copyright or did I read that wrong?
As you noted. Not relevant to this discussion.
So just to try to add some light to this smoke, copyright attaches when something is written that meets the requirements of copyright – unique expression, etc. It does not matter what name is used, nor whether there is some other contractual issue.
So how can CT give away my rights? Shouldn’t they be paying me $35/year? 
![[stirthepothal.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f40faec63ca1018898a40805efbf9f0066a3d205.gif "[stirthepothal.gif]"){kind=small}
Sorry, I should have been more clear here. You can of course contract to give away your copyright. What I meant above is that there may also be other contractual issues that provide additional protections – so Eric’s language concerning the use of material posted on CT. Apologies for the confusion.
![[highfive.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/d/db21b9263a9105e51f6f8b11e61dd4de095611f9.gif "highfive"){kind=small}
CT is not the copyright holder, but posting notes on CT grants us unlimited license to the notes. Since it will get Jay upset, I will not quote our terms, but it is in there very clearly.
I generally always prefer that people LINK to the CT so that notes can be seen in context. Cherry-picking reviews never really helps anyone.
Sorry. I did not cast the first stone, but when someone else throws a pebble, they can expect a cinder block response.
All funny stuff!
Anyway, I think that the work is actually protected, but there are other issues. First is that a widely-used site like CT can probably be considered a public forum. One could argue that it’s not the same as a street corner and that it’s a closed community, but I think that would be hard to argue and wouldn’t really accomplish much anyway. The main issue seems to be whether or not the work has been “published” or put in some tangible form, which it has. That said, what would the injury be and how would you go about proving and collecting?
Just for argument’s sake assuming that there is in fact a right to your notes, what would someone be willing to spend to validate that right? First you’d send a letter and that would probably take care of the issue. But who monitors every retailer in the country or the world? And then if the retailer didn’t take down the note, or modify it in some way, who would file a claim and to what end? It’s not like there’d be much money in it for anyone, even if a court were to accept the case, which is unlikely.
Purely for intellectual curiosity, I’m wondering how the law will evolve in this regard. If you stand up and speak on a street corner, or in some place that Justice Kennedy would have considered a public forum, I think you can be quoted verbatim. Your words wouldn’t have been “published”. Before the internet, if you put words on paper, things were clearer. But today, people “write” by posting. I think increasingly people will be using voice to text, which literally writes something but actually would be more like speaking on a street corner. I’m wondering how the law is going to evolve to cover that. While logic would be to treat posts like speech, the trend is to increase copyright and IP coverage of things.
No idea, just curious.
As to whether someone quotes a tasting note of mine, I can’t think of many I’ve ever posted anywhere, nor would I particularly care.