March 2, 2008 11:18 AM
The Washington Post breaking copyright law?
Apparently the Washington Post printed something of mine without a contract, payment or permission today - you can read it here.
As I never sent this to and never received any prior communication from them, this is a complete surprise. I do not donate my work to newspapers and have a documented history not only of being paid but of turning down requests to publish for free.
In fact, I was working on submitting this article - minus the local references - to a national newspaper I've written for (and been paid by) before. Since they only publish "first print rights" they will not publish it now.
My blog clearly states that my writing here is copyrighted. While I don't mind links to my blog, I maintain the right to control its publication in print. I have not seen the article myself - I do not subscribe to the Post but was alerted by emails I began receiving early this morning.
I wonder if the Post mentioned my credentials - published author, teacher, parent educator, mother of 12? I am accustomed to having control over my bylines as well as my writing.
Hoping to hear from the Post how they intend to handle this. . . .
Or an attorney?
Comments
Wow, Barbara. I just got done reading the article.
I can't believe they did that. At least they credited YOU. Update when you hear back from them.
Posted by: gretchen from lifenut | March 2, 2008 11:54 AM
Having read the article, several different issues come to mind. Based on the statement after both blogs, the "issue" is really about who should decide what is acceptable literature in the public school library and what the procedure for dealing with literature "issues" should be. This is a reasonable question. The solution is something that needs to be decided by the parents, the school board, etc. Granted this specific book caused the question to be raised, but the issue is not really the book in the grand scheme of things, but the procedure for literature approval. The Washington Post seems as interested in creating controversy by making it about the book rather than the procedure... That's not good journalism. I wouldn't want my blog associated with that kind of behavior, whether they asked my permission or not.
Posted by: Sandra L. Williams | March 2, 2008 1:17 PM
Wow. It's not cool when bloggers don't bother to learn about and understand copyright before "borrowing" someone else's work, but you'd expect the Post to know better! What could they be thinking??
Posted by: Michelle Potter | March 2, 2008 1:36 PM
Do they think writers will be so overcome with gratitude at being published in "the Post" that they don't have to request permission? Goodness gracious.
Please let us know how they respond.
Posted by: Shannon Miller | March 2, 2008 3:23 PM
Wow. They just copied it!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022904159.html?nav=hcmodule
Did you email them?
Your sites came up ahead of theirs in a Google search.
Posted by: Carol | March 2, 2008 3:51 PM
That's crazy. I said I wanted to see it in the WA post but I mean you should submit it! I wonder if someone submitted it for you? If so, that's still wacked. Even when I just write a short cheesy letter to the editor the Seattle Times emails me to make sure I know it's going to be printed. They owe you an apology... and oh yeah, some $$$ too!
Posted by: Christina | March 2, 2008 5:33 PM
I would contact a lawyer and let the legal staff handle the situation. There should be an honest accounting in the paper of their error, a revised article with any corrections/additions you would like, and an apology for their mistake. Then there should be payment for this article. As it stands they have stolen your intellectual property and your paycheck--when is that ever acceptable professional behavior? It would be generous if the legal fees were also paid, but that could be nit picking. If the situation had been reversed would the Post be silent or generous? Being gracious and polite does not mean being a doormat.
Posted by: Stephanie | March 3, 2008 11:52 AM
Please let us know how it turns out.
Posted by: Pam | March 3, 2008 3:03 PM
They messed with the wrong person! ;)
Posted by: Kim | March 3, 2008 10:50 PM
I can't believe that! I wonder how they'd take it if someone just starting copying their work and handing it out for free. Would the WaPo editor go to the dentist and not pay, or
I think you should insist on a retraction, published apology, payment at the Washington Post's regular rate (times three - triple damages)and payment matching the amount you lost out on publishing it in the other paper.
Hope you get a lawyer, and as a fledgling writer I can't wait to find out what happens to them!
Posted by: Milehimama | March 4, 2008 10:30 AM
Barbara, accept nothing less than a regular column! If they like your material that much, then let them have more of it -- just with a commitment and a paycheck! :-)
Posted by: Monica | March 4, 2008 4:46 PM
I am so glad that you did not respond to the Washington Post initially by calling a lawyer. While I agree that they have broken your copyright and stolen your ability to sell this particular article, I am confident that God has something awesome He is going to do because of this. Perhaps this could lead to more regular "paid!" writing for the Post.
What I know for sure is what Joseph knew in Egypt:
What they meant for evil, God means for good!
And more often than not, Heaven's justice is the best you can find. Will pray that God reveals the good in this quickly!
Posted by: Ceci | March 4, 2008 11:22 PM
