More on TechnologyTell: Gadget News | Apple News
TeleRead contributor Piotr Kowalczyk says: !!! I have a ghost publisher at Amazon, please help
February 22, 2010 | 11:21 am
|
By Paul Biba
I got the following email from contributor Piotr Kowalczyk. I don’t have any contacts at Amazon and Piotr is located in Poland so this makes things more difficult for him.
Can any of our readers help him out? Email begins:
Dear Paul,
I’m asking you for help. Somebody has published my book at Amazon. I don’t know who they are. They did it without my permission. Maybe you’ve already heard of cases like that and know how to deal with them. Any hint would help, especially whom to contact at Amazon to remove the book.
Here is a full story.
I’ve self-published my two books Password Incorrect and Failure Confirmed through Kindle Digital Text Platform in mid-January, a couple of days after Amazon opened a system to authors from outside USA.
Last Friday I’ve noticed that there is another edition of Password Incorrect, published on Feb 15 – by somebody else. The link to this book is here (I hope it’ll be removed soon). It uses a cover of a free edition, which I’ve published at many places including Feedbooks, Manybooks, Kobo and Wattpad.
I’ve downloaded a free sample – enough to check who originated this edition. A publisher calls himself Sugar Land Press (link to a site is here). I’ve never heard of them before. They have never contacted me referring to this book or anything else. After checking their site and other links they provided in an intro of a book, it looks like thy live on Google ads and affiliate programs, including Amazon Associates. This book, available for free everywhere else, costs $11 ($14,95 outside USA), is terribly formatted and full of other mistakes. I analysed the content and I’m almost sure it was downloaded either from Wattpad or Manybooks.For me it’s not only the money I won’t earn, but also the fact, that anybody who will buy it, can feel cheated. And this is actually my major concern. When you’re an indie writer from Poland, looking for readers globally and slowly getting recognition to your tech-absurd niche fiction, every new, satisfied reader is like a gold.
I’ve never heard of this kind of robbery before. It’s possible, that such a “business activity” results from a fact, that many authors from around the world self-publish their books for free, f.e. at Wattpad. Guys like Sugar Land Press want to benefit as long an author is either not aware or not eager to publish at Amazon himself. In my case it went even further.
Things will get even worse, when more and more foreign authors will start to self-publish worldwide. Chasing a ghost publisher in US, by an author from Poland or France would be a very difficult thing, especially that the publisher’s site, like in my case, is powered by a WP Robot. I’ve sent an e-mail to them, but I doubt it’ll change anything.
Best regards,
Piotr
|
Related Posts:
Previous
SUBSCRIBE TO RSS
Comments:
This can happen anywhere in any country when authors use file sharing sites like Scribd and Wattpad to publish their work for free. Readers who frequent those sites assume that because the title is free it was posted using a Creative Commons license, which grants the end user license to post and re-distribute the work without permission from the author. Creative Commons Licenses are also used to allow the creation of derivitive works as well. It’s the gamble an author takes using these file share sites. You have to read the fine print about licensing before you post your work. I know of other authors who have similar issues because they opted to use a creative commons license or the site they used is a creative commons publishing site. The end user assumes they are free to do what they will with the content.
Amazon will correct that for you providing you can prove that you are the rights owner and did not grant a creative commons license to the work. The only contact information I could find is to send them an email at: title-submission@amazon.com. Reference your Kindle project number and title and then explain your situation. Provide any back up copyright information you may have to prove that the work is not in the creative commons.
All the best.
The Sugar Land Press website gives little detail away about who or where they are. I’d guess, and its just a hunch that they are called after the place they are from, Sugar Land, Texas.
The website’s subtitle is ‘The Kindle Blog’, giving the casual visitor the impression they have some official connection with Amazon Kindle itself.
Piotr should start by contacting Amazon Support and see where they point him.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=518316
Thanks, Mick, I’ll use an Amazon Support contact.
BTW, the “publisher” has started the site two, maybe three weeks ago. I wonder how many authors they’ve already managed to rob this way.
Here’s a link that gives the Amazon information about reporting copyright infringement.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=help_search_1-3?ie=UTF8&nodeId=200439310&qid=1266863966&sr=1-3
If this link doesn’t work, go to Amazon, find the “help” link at the bottom of the page, click on it, then do a search for “copyright infringement.” The link you’ll need will be about three down under Kindle and Blackberry.
@Cheryl Does that mean, that if the book is available for free on CC licence in one place, it can be sold at another?
One more thing. In their edition there is a copyright notice, saying:
Copyright 2010 All right reserved. No part of this publication may be edited… (and so on)
This is not a CC licence any longer, right?
And this is insane » from a “Material Connection Disclosure” at the beginning of a book:
“You should assume that the author and publisher have an affiliate relationship and/or another material connection to the providers of goods and services mentioned in this report and may be compensated when you purchase from a provider.”
Piotr, I depends on the creative commons license that was used when the material was published on the file share site. Authors should be sure that the same licenses are being used consistently no matter the publication location. Unless the license specifically was an: Attribution/Non Commercial (By-NC) then the end user can turn around and sell it — legally. However, they have to attribute you as the author, and while they can sell it, they cannot claim themselves as the copyright holder, as the nature of a CC license is that it is non-exclusive and non revocable.
From CreativeCommons.org
Work licensed under a Creative Commons License is protected by applicable copyright law. This allows Creative Commons licenses to be applied to all work protected by copyright law, including: books, plays, movies, music, articles, photographs, blogs, and websites.
Basically, once you CC it, you cannot take it back.
However, the license may not modify the rights allowed by fair use or fair dealing or exert restrictions which violate copyright exceptions. Furthermore, Creative Commons Licenses are non-exclusive and non-revocable. Any work or copies of the work obtained under a Creative Commons license may continue to be used under that license.
In the case of works protected by multiple Creative Common Licenses, the user may choose either.
–
This is why I strongly advise authors against a CC license if they plan to sell the work commercially at a later time. Actually, you can use a standard copyright license and still give your work away for free. It eliminates this problem entirely. But watch those file share sites, some of them are CC license only and once you are in, you cannot revoke it.
So no, their copyright of the work is invalid.
@Cheryl thanks for the explanation. I’m not very much into legal issues, but somehow I felt that there is sth wrong, when you take CC and redistribute it as (C).
You are so welcome. I see a lot of authors struggle with this, especially when they don’t know they site they use to publish is a CC site.
Walt Gordon Jones explains everything nicely on his site in simple terms, and he has some suggestions for attacking the issue you have at present. You are still the legal copyright owner. CC doesn’t replace that. Good luck. Drop me a line and let me know what happened.
http://waltgordonjones.com/104/some-rights-reserved-a-creative-commons-survival-guide
Maybe it’s time to re-evaluate the usefulness of CC licensing? If CC doesn’t replace original copyright, then it is at best a formalised plea for basic human goodwill, at worst, a meaningless jumble of pseudo lawyer-speak and has no relevance at all.
One last note: I remember researching Feedbooks for a blog post last year, if my memory serves me, and decided not to list my work with them because of a oddly worded clause in their terms iof service, which states: 4. Intellectual Property Rights
FeedBooks being registered in France, the content of the Website is subject to the French legislation on copyrights and other intellectual property rights. However, the electronic books offered for reading are free from copyrights as, in accordance with the legislation of France, the said books fall in the public domain.
–
The wording here gives the impression that all the electronic books listed on their site are in the public domain. So it also may not be a matter of a CC license, it could be that an end user misunderstood the terms of service. Either way, I would check it and pursue all avenues. Make sure your Copyright is set properly on every site you have your book listed.
@PJ Lyon
I’m OK with CC – as long as it’s your fans who embrace, mix and share your work. I’m OK if they don’t use it properly. There is still lot of work to educate people of how to use the licensed work.
But this case is different. This time we’ve got somebody, who is on purpose changing the license from CC to (C) – to be perceived as a serious publisher. So they take CC work (that’s OK) and change rules (tha’s not OK).
What really bothers me is this attitude “how to cheat everybody”. If anyone says “hey, you’re not allowed to do this”, they’ll respond “but this is CC and we didn’t know”. They want to cheat also with this:
“You should assume that the author and publisher have an affiliate relationship and/or another material connection to the providers of goods and services mentioned in this report and may be compensated when you purchase from a provider.”
Oh, those guys make their own rules, based on an assumption, that and author MAY want to link to their book as an affiliate (otherwise this doesn’t make any sense). So they feel fully justified to do what they do: they create a possibility for an author to sell his book. He should be grateful for it! Insane.
@Cheryl @Marilynn @Mick thanks a lot for the tips and links. I’ll come back and write a comment about how this case is resolved.
And here is a post with all the links and pictures » http://bit.ly/ceiHcr
Agreed Piotr and P.J. Lyons,
In this case, it seems not like a misunderstanding of CC license law but deliberate theft of another’s intellectual property rights. The fact that they blatantly made claim to the copyright by using the term “all rights reserved” which when it comes to a CC license, the author does lose the “all rights” clause, but the end user does not gain them.
One might think that this person is stupid beyond belief, but the intentional subterfuge leads me to believe that they know what they are doing: theft.
I think the Creative Commons has its palce in the world, I just think authors need to be careful with CC licensing and make sure they choose the right license. Some sites like Scribd default to a flat out CC (attribution only) license. It’s a tricky multi-screen process, and eager writers might not notice what they have done until too late. Not to mention most readers are just as uneducated about CC licensing, and the ones that are know exactly what they can get away with.
I know of another author this week who has two Kindle versions of her title out there: one is the original and the other is a reader who downloaded the free copy from Scribd and decided to sell it on Amazon. the author admitted that with the license she chose, there is nothing she can do about it beyond leaving a review stating that it is not the authorized version. She did gain readership from the free-share content, but the violation she feels and the lost of revenue on her own work is quite frustrating to deal with. I am sure that book is the last thing she will release with a CC license.
An update: I’ve received an e-mail from Amazon with a list of things I have to write to prove my rights were infringed. Scary.
It’ll take some time to prepare and send it. I just think what is more effective: trying to remove this book from Amazon or just ignoring it and save energy to bring readers to the books I’ve published.
I think you should go through the steps to have it removed. We as authors have to send a message that intellectual property theft and copyright theft is wrong. If nothing happens to this person and the book stays up, it sends the wrong message and makes authors look like we don’t care if our work is stolen. If your work was under a CC license (attribution/non-commercial) then they have violated the license according to the law. If they have tried to highjack the copyright, that is also a violation.
Just my opinion though. And I would definately leave a review on that unauthorized copy stating that you are the actual author and copyright owner and that despite what the matter page states, the product for sale was not authorized by you. I would also point them in the direction of the real copy.
Cheryl, thanks for the your remark. I will send the documents to Amazon guys. You’re right – if there is no reaction from authors’ side, CC-to-(C) “publishers” will emerge in high quatities.
And I think I’ll use my creativity not only to leave a comment on their edition, but also something else.
I originally released KEPT under Creative Commons, but I was CLEAR that it was a NON COMMERCIAL license and that no one could PROFIT off it. However, because people are pathologically stupid I will never use CC again. It’s just too much crap. I’ve now had to have Amazon remove two unauthorized copies of KEPT from Amazon. And I wonder if I would have had that issue if someone hadn’t either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood the creative commons license I attached.
You were the author I was speaking of Zoe. I saw your blog post about what you were going through with your CC license, but I didn’t want to speak on your behalf.
I think it’s a bit of both, people deliberately stealing and people who just don’t really understand that CC does not mean public domain.
Yeah Cheryl, well when I first heard about CC and read about it, my instinct was “only the really really smart people are going to get this the average person will think it means public domain.”
I was trying to come up with a way to make it easy for people to distribute something I made free in PDF to others without feeling like they were “pirating” because the whole purpose of KEPT was to start building audience, the money part comes next.
In future I won’t do something like that again. I think CC could cause more harm ultimately than good over the long term. I think there are many ways to manipulate it and abuse it, which I won’t mention here lest I give people with no moral compass ideas to screw me over with.
Oh and also, if you were talking specifically about me and the unauthorized version of my work on Kindle, I actually DID have legal recourse to get the work removed and had it done both times it’s happened to me. It’s because I was specific about NON COMMERCIAL CC. Amazon was legally obligated to remove the copyright infringed work and did so. However, had I not had CC on it to begin with, I doubt this would have happened to me twice.
I should have listened to my gut instincts about CC to begin with.
Zoe, I think people with no moral compass don’t care about whether it’s CC or (C). What they do care about is consequences.
If you’re an indie, the most harm you can do is to remove their book AND (maybe) cancel their DTP account. Next minute they open another one.
BUT
If the same book is free to download and published with CC non commercial by Random House, the chances for pirate publishing are much smaller. A big publisher may want to give a public example. No SugarLandPress-like would want to be sued.