[MUD-Dev2] [BIZ] Unauthorised Publishing of My Work

[Sean Howard]

"Lachek Butalek" <lachek at gmail.com> wrote:
> First off, IANAL.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I have plenty of experience with having my
work ripped off.

> Your source package contains no license file or readme file containing
> the license.

This was a mistake, since it is possible that people may gain access to
the package without going to your webpage. It is very likely that this
package was selected specifically because the lack of such things made it
seem like public domain. They aren't technically right, but it seems like
a safer bet (most people on the internet are thrilled to have their work
ripped off - or would be if only it would happen to them *sigh*, you're so
lucky - this is a discussion on self esteem and attention, but the less
professional you look, the more likely someone is going to assume that you
are one of those retards rather than somebody who cares.

> Your web download page lists the "restriction"
> (attribution required if you intend on modifying the code) but in a
> very informal way.

The formality of the requirement doesn't matter.

> Since the source package could have been downloaded
> by someone with no intention of modifying the source, redistributed
> around the web for a while, and finally ended up in the hands of the
> author of "Build Your Own Games" who would have had no idea what (if
> any) restrictions you placed on the code, you cannot claim that the
> code was misused with malicious intent. Always, always, always
> including the license file in your source package, and make removing
> the license file from the source package a breach of the license.

Even without proper attribution, if you received material from a third
party source, you cannot assume that it is public domain - unless
explicitly stated as such. This is to prevent situations exactly like
this. Copyright law is sort of a default "you can't (or rather shouldn't)
do stuff with somebody else's work without permission" - the licenses and
stuff are just fancy ways of detailing that permission up front. Without
those licenses, one must contact the copyright holder personally to get
that permission. Permission is NEVER assumed.

> As I haven't read the book, I don't know if your
> name appears in the code listing or not, but even if it doesn't I
> think you'll have a very hard time proving to a judge that you are
> somehow owed recompense for the reprinting of your open sourced code
> without attribution, when your license is so vaguely stated.

All he'd have to do is show that he created the work in question and that
it was used without his permission, either implicitly or explicitly.
Technically, it would be the responsibility of the author and publisher to
make sure that they are in the right republishing the code - even without
attribution in the source package, I'm sure a quick google search will
reveal the author's email address where they could ask. Publishers like to
protect themselves real good, and I doubt they would purposely ignore a
potential issue in this matter (plagiarism is a huge black mark against
publishers). Instead, it is far, far more likely that the author just
stole the code and 'forgot' to mention he didn't create it.

My recommendation is to simply email the publishing company about it - not
the author. Don't be demanding or anything. Just say that you are upset
and frustrated. A copyright holder telling them they plagiarized his work
without permission should be red light enough.

At the very worst, they won't email you back and you can chalk it up to a
life lesson. What's more likely is that they will talk to the author and
end up blacklisting him, perhaps removing the code from a reprint or
something. You likely won't get any compensation for it, but honestly,
with amateur copyright protection, the best thing you can hope for is that
they don't do it again. And you would not believe how incredibly difficult
even that much is.

-- 
Sean Howard