Online retail using CellarTracker notes?

[Markus_S]

Uncool, and we see why people hate lawyers so much. Notes should not be taken from websites without attribution and/or payment. It’s equivalent to plagiarism in the academic world and copyright infringement in the business one.

[Michael_Martin]

@GregT

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.

This issue is near and dear to my heart. My wife is a professional photographer and has had photos lifted from here website for use on other sites. The “lifters” thought they could attribute the photo to her and no harm, no foul occured. She took them to small claims court and the judge sided with her and made the other party pay fair market value for the use of the photos.

[Wes_Barton]

@Michael Martin

This issue is near and dear to my heart. My wife is a professional photographer and has had photos lifted from here website for use on other sites. The “lifters” thought they could attribute the photo to her and no harm, no foul occured. She took them to small claims court and the judge sided with her and made the other party pay fair market value for the use of the photos.

Yep. It’s intellectual property. As shown in the above case, it’s easy for a professional to demonstrate the actual value of the actual work they sell. With CT, users put up notes with an understanding. While many of us would be happy to have our notes used, at least in some cases, by wineries and retailers in exchange for credit, that can’t be taken for granted. They must ask for permission.

Anyway, I think it would be funny to send a bill. Iirc, there was a forum discussion with the email exchanges put up of someone doing something like this many years ago.

[Brian_Tuite]

@Wes Barton

Anyway, I think it would be funny to send a bill. Iirc, there was a forum discussion with the email exchanges put up of someone doing something like this many years ago.

What do you think, a case of the wine in question? Sounds fair to me.

[T_Fletcher1]

Most folks who blog and provide published online write-ups often receive a complimentary bottle from the winery/producer. Is that intended to be FMV? Do these bloggers and writers agree to the use of their tasting comments, expressed or implied?

[S_Stevenson]

@Wes Barton

@S. Stevenson

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…

Looks I was right judging by the responses flowing my comment.

[Wes_Barton]

@S. Stevenson

@Wes Barton

@S. Stevenson

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…

Looks I was right judging by the responses flowing my comment.

How so? A question was asked and answered. You seem to be judging that by your lack of interest in the topic. Do you feel the same about shoplifting? This same sort of attitude about intellectual property has crippled the music industry. How about that?

[Ken_V]

@J a y H a c k

@Eric LeVine

@J a y H a c k

I post on CT under my own name, so this comment has nothing to do with me directly, and I am not an intellectual property lawyer so I do not know the legal answer, but I wonder whether notes on CT that are published under the names Doubled1969 or GriffeyFan04 or Bestdamncab (randomly selected from TNs for 2013 Aubert Eastside) are entitled to be protected. Maybe an IP lawyer can chime in. Just another case for my long term crusade in favor of publishing notes under a name I recognize.

You should stick to your area of law…

Regardless of the pseudonym used, the tasting note author is still the copyright holder. And our terms make it very clear that it is illegal to harvest data from our site: “you may not, in whole or in part: (a) copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, rewrite, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any material contained on this Service”

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.

By that logic, if I look at a book in a book store or library, copy down the text, and publish it under my own name, I have not violated the law?

[Wes_Barton]

@Ken V

@J a y H a c k

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.

By that logic, if I look at a book in a book store or library, copy down the text, and publish it under my own name, I have not violated the law?

What the terms state is that the authors haven’t ceded their rights to their material. The authors agree to the terms when they choose the “public” option for their notes. So, it’s an affirmation. That a CT user appropriating someone else’s notes for their own gain is a violation of terms they agreed to is secondary. It’s a civil tort either way.

[Brandon_R]

@J a y H a c k

@Tim Heaton

"because the law school you went to recruited from the back of a match book, and thus does not qualify you. "

dick

Sorry. I did not cast the first stone, but when someone else throws a pebble, they can expect a cinder block response.

You’re so tough, Jay.

[S_Stevenson]

How so? A question was asked and answered. You seem to be judging that by your lack of interest in the topic. Do you feel the same about shoplifting? This same sort of attitude about intellectual property has crippled the music industry. How about that?

The entertainment industry is doing just fine, thank you, despite Chicken Little claims to the contrary.

[J_a_y_H_a_c_k]

Sorry guys, but those of you who have no training in the subject should stop posting lethal opinions about it because someone might believe you. Kinda like Trump tweeting. Most of you are failing to distinguish properly between Eric’s contract analysis, which is wrong, and my original question, which was simply whether a person who posts under a fake name is entitled to copyright protection. I did not know the answer and made that rather clear. The issues are completely different. My subsequent research indicates that something published under a pseudonym is entitled to copyright protection even if the copyright is not registered. The principal difference is how long the copyright lasts, but either way, we will all be dead before the copyright expires.

[Wes_Barton]

@S. Stevenson

How so? A question was asked and answered. You seem to be judging that by your lack of interest in the topic. Do you feel the same about shoplifting? This same sort of attitude about intellectual property has crippled the music industry. How about that?

The entertainment industry is doing just fine, thank you, despite Chicken Little claims to the contrary.

I said music industry, not entertainment industry. Sounds like you are intentionally deluding yourself with that diversion, and also have no idea what you’re talking about. Revenue to musicians as a whole is a fraction of what it used to be. The number of career musicians is a fraction of what it used to be. That stems from piracy.

[Eric_LeVine]

@J a y H a c k

Most of you are failing to distinguish properly between Eric’s contract analysis, which is wrong

Pretty damned harsh.

[Ron_Slye]

@Eric LeVine

@J a y H a c k

Most of you are failing to distinguish properly between Eric’s contract analysis, which is wrong

Pretty damned harsh.

Yeah – I don’t think Eric claimed that it was a purely or even primarily contract issue. Stating terms could provide a contractual claim, but they also can be providing an explanation of the law that applies through other means – which I think might be the case here. There are I am sure better analogies, but a sign in a store that says you break it you lose it does not create an obligation to pay for a broken item just because of its posting – rather, it is articulating a legal principle that already applies. Eric’s terms, as I think others have noted, may also explain that he does not own the copyright, but he is informing users that others do and thus they cannot blah blah blah.