Borrowing or Theft? Where's the line? In copyright law, there's a concept known as "Fair Use". The US Copyright Act (which can be found online at www.copyright.gov) states "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." There are also other mitigating factors that are examined on a case by case basis.
So, using material for "reasonable purposes" is not against the law. What I'm doing here, criticizing and satirizing other copyrighted materials found on the Internet, is not a violation of copyright law. It falls under Fair Use.
Those of us that put ourselves out there as "experts" on the subject matter have an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, we benefit immensely from the free exchange of ideas. Most everything I know on exercise science has come from talking shop with people like me -- guys and gals that enjoy the topic and like to hash it out. Not unlike any other hobby, really.
Free exchange of ideas is a good thing. But you knew there was a point to this rant, so here it is. There's people out there, other like-minded experts, that have problems crediting their source materials.
Don't get me wrong -- this isn't always intentional. In the fitness industry, it can be hard, sometimes impossible, to credit the source of any given statement. A lot of it is research based, or can be easily attributed to the coach that said it, but some of it is just basic lore that stretches back to God knows when.
The statement "standing on the shoulders of giants" couldn't be more true in this field. At best I'm a journalist, taking the work that the real pioneers have done and putting it together.
No, that's not what I'm bitching about either. What I'm talking about is the guys that have bought into their own celebrity. Guys that have let the ego and the e-fame rule them.
I'm not gonna name names, not publicly, although I really should. But, in many ways that'd be too easy. I'd be giving free publicity. I'm not gonna do that. Not yet, anyway.
I will, however, give two case studies. Consider these hypotheticals. You know, "hypotheticals".
Case Study #1 - An online "fitness consultant" that works with physique-type competitors. Highly secretive, creating a mass appeal for his programs. In reality, most of them are taken directly from www.t-nation.com, but there's no ethical problem in charging clients for this "service".
This guy seems to change his mind on a regular basis. One minute he knows what's up, then gets debated to a stand-still....and the new ideas end up in his programs the next month. They even end up in his articles. It's pretty obvious the material isn't his, as he applies it very poorly and with no real thought put in. This wouldn't be so bad, except there's no credit given, let alone any residuals paid for the use of those ideas. No, that'd mean he'd have to deflate his head and not get all the attention. Not gonna happen. This is the kind of quality we're dealing with.
Case Study #2 - Well-known fitness celebrity. Similar to the guy above, but much more widely known. Writes a recent book, copying verbatim from the subject matter of another coach. Book is an instant hit; material taken from the other coach is uncredited. It's presented with a different name, but the concept and use of this particular material, a protocol you might say, is identical.
You can make up your own mind on the ethics and whatever morality you feel is involved here.
Yes, there's an element of open source that goes on in Internet posting. Blatant theft, however, is absolutely ridiculous. Apparently these individuals have no problem with this kind of "borrowing", but I certainly do.
Personally, I see no problem in using the material of others. But if you're going to blatantly rip it off, then use it to make profits, well....
Karma, she's a bad bus driver.
I'll let this one marinate for awhile. But there's a very good chance I'll be naming names, because this crap really does sicken me.
|
