Chris Tolley's "Copyrights and wrongs

"Le trahison ne termine jamais" - picture created by Chris Tolley, 15 July 2001 - explanation here

The events described on this page are true, but even so, it is only after much reflection that I have chosen to relate them. I have left out the names of the offender (here called 'X') and the Internet Service Provider used by the offender (here called 'ISP') to spare their shame - and also, because I don't particularly want to encourage anyone to visit X's web-site.

At the start of July 2001, finding myself with a little time on my hands, in my otherwise hectic schedule, I decided it was about time that I should update my web-site. I have been building the site since 1996, but five years on, parts were looking distinctly out-of-date, and some areas hadn't been significantly altered for two years. Late on the evening of 5 July 2001, I thought I would search the internet to see how easy it would be for people looking for the material I have on display to find my site. It pleased me when my site came up in the search engines, because that confirmed that people should be able to find the site if they are looking for the sort of information that it contains.

However, one of the matches I got from a search engine was a shock. I found my words, but they were not at my web-site. Someone had copied them, and was passing the work off as theirs. After the initial surprise, I looked into it more closely. A refined search disclosed dozens of pages that had been copied from my web-site, with text I had written and pictures I had created.

I also found many references to my website in other places, and on the whole, they were complimentary about my web-site, which is nice. It was also plain that, apart from this one person who had copied my work, mine was a unique website - nobody else had the same or even similar content.

The image to the right shows the extent of the problem. Even though I had my browser set so that the text was displayed in the smallest size, and even though my monitor was set at 1280 x 1024, The listing of the matches occupied four screens' worth of information! The picture alongside is a composite image of those four screens, as you can probably tell from the repeated scroll bar block.

Every one of these matches was of a page which was an edited version of a web page I had created.

And the way my original work had been edited was not even to add in any originality - it was just to delete the copyright statement and any other text that identified the page and the images on it as my work, and the source of (many of) those images as a book in my private collection.

It wasn't just the fact that I recognised my work on those pages. One of them, a page that linked to all the others, also contained the following admission:

As you can see, the text font used was MS Comic Sans, which was also used throughout the pages that had been copied for my website - the choice of typeface and the few words illustrated above appearing on one page were, as far as I could see, the sum total of what X had added to the 26 pages.

If you had asked me beforehand, how I would feel if I saw my work being used by someone else, then I expect I would have thought I was going to feel pleased. But the reality was different. I didn't feel pleased; I felt violated.

On this occasion, despite the old adage, imitation was not the sincerest form of flattery. On this occasion, it seemed to me that this particular form of imitation (if one could dignify this blatant plagiarism with such a description) was very little different from theft.

I didn't recognise X's name, but there was a possibility that at some stage between late 1996 (when I first started to put these particular pages on line) and the present, X might have contacted me to ask for permission to use my work.

I checked my email archive thoroughly.

No. Complete blank. Scores of people have asked me for permission to use my work in their websites, magazines, press articles, their own private collections and whatever, or to interview me for their TV shows because of my web-site, but X was most definitely not one of them. (Even if X had asked me for such permission, then X would have been told that I never give blanket permission for my work to be used like this at other people's web-sites - a handful of items at most, not page after page after page after page... I mean: this is my web-site I am building, isn't it!)

So, having checked these facts, I contacted ISP by telephone - this was 2am on 6 July. I spoke to someone on the 24-hour technical support line, and he said that I should send an email to ISP's "abuse" mailbox. This I did, and followed it up ten hours later with a phone call - by that stage, the customer service department was open. Just as well I did follow up by phone, because I was told I would have to resend the complaint to the customer service line marked for the specific attention of a certain person because there was a significant backlog in dealing with the correspondence received by the abuse department. So, of course, I forwarded the email, highlighted as I had been told to, and waited.

By 6pm, I had heard nothing, so I phoned ISP again. This time, I was put through to a different person, who said that ISP would not act unless they had a fax of the complaint. I replied that I do not possess a fax machine, and in any case had already spoken to two different departments and sent two separate emails. ISP's representative said I should go and use a fax bureau to send in the complaint. I began to get a bit annoyed at this point, and I told the person I was speaking to that it seemed to me that the only purpose for this was to cause delay. Not at all, he said: ISP had to have something with my signature on in order to begin investigating - it was their standard rule. I explained, reasonably patiently, that he was the third person I had spoken to, and both of the others had told me different things, besides which, I was complaining under ISP's published Acceptable Use Policy, which didn't mention any specific mode of communication. I was then told that ISP rarely received complaints. Since my signature was the issue, I asked if an old-fashioned letter would suffice. Apparently it would - the signature was all important, not the means of getting it to them: they could not investigate without a signature, and even if they did investigate, if they found no good reason to act, they would do nothing.

So, I drafted a letter to explain the problem, and included in it the text of the email communication, together with screen prints from my website and the unauthorised copy of it that was appearing on their server. (These are reproduced alongside, but with anything that could identify the offending web-site URL's blurred to prevent that.) This letter was sent by Recorded Delivery the next day, a Saturday. In it, I asserted my rights, requested the removal of my material from public display on their server, and also asked for written confirmation of the action taken, once they had decided what to do.

In the meantime, one of the emails was acted on. A person from the technical side of ISP emailed me to ask for more details. So I sent the extra information that had been requested, and also mentioned that the Recorded Delivery letter was on its way.

On Monday, I telephoned ISP again. The point was put to me that ISP would not take X's website off line without having some very good reason for doing so - because they didn't want any trouble from X for acting wrongly.

Later, a member of the legal staff of ISP contacted me and quizzed me extensively about what I was asserting that I had copyright in, and how it had been infringed. I answered all those questions patiently, and made it clear not only what I was claiming copyright in, but also what I was not claiming copyright in. We also discussed the matter of how (despite the admission made by X that the materials were copied from my web-site) I could prove that I was the originator of the material.

Shortly after that conversation, ISP contacted me to inform me they were taking X's web-site off line.

So, what was I actually getting upset about?

A piece of original work:
the Index Page at my site
Click here to see the real thing

a page I had discovered on the web

A piece of original work:
a page with a picture I made at my site
Click here to see the real thing

a page I had discovered on the web

I spoke to a solicitor (for US readers, a lawyer) about the abuse that had taken place. Here (in broad terms) is the advice I was given.

1. The solicitor confirmed to me that X has no right to use any of the images that I have created. The solicitor illustrated this principle by using the example of a photograph that I have taken: all other things being equal, anyone else is free to stand in the same place as me, and take their own picture of the same view that I can see; they can then use their photograph in whatever way they choose, even if it is indistinguishable from mine, but they have no rights whatsoever to use the photograph I made.

2. The Solicitor advised me that, if a similar or identical problem were to arise in the future, the fact that we have been round this loop once already would strengthen my position to take action not only against X, but more significantly against ISP, particularly as it is on record that I have asked ISP to be vigilant to prevent such a recurrence.

3. The solicitor advised me to be prepared to defend my rights in future. The appropriate course of action would be to issue an injunction to restrain ISP and X from publication.

4. The solicitor advised me that since my web-site is not operated for profit, I would have little prospect of securing any financial reparation relating to the violation of copyright. (Personally, I found this a bit disappointing, considering the amount of time, money and effort invested in it, but the law is the law.)

5. The solicitor believed, on the basis of the materials I have shared with him, that there is little or no doubt that I would win any argument over the authorship of this material, as far as I am claiming it to be protected by my copyright. Arising from such a victory, the cost of the legal proceedings (which the solicitor estimated might range from around £700 for preparing and issuing an injunction to £20,000 or more, depending on the way the action might proceed) would become recoverable as "consequential loss damages".

I created this web-site for my own enjoyment and to share the fruits of my historical researches with others...

Let's take stock at this point. I never imagined even in my most surreal dreams that I would find myself in a situation like this. I created this web-site for my own enjoyment and to share the fruits of my historical researches with others, not to get involved in legal disputes. I get enthusiastic about some things, and I like to share those enthusiasms with others. That's all. Nothing complex about it. No hidden agenda. Just showing people what I enjoy, and making it possible for them to enjoy it as well.

...not to get involved in legal disputes...

I had taken it for granted that people would respect my original work for what it was, and if they liked it as well, then there was a chance they might link to it. It honestly never crossed my mind that anyone would choose to take my work and display it without any permission or encouragement from me as if it had been their work. One thing this experience has definitely not been is enjoyable. I've been put to a lot of trouble by someone whom I'd never even heard of before July 2001. I haven't done anything wrong, but wrong has certainly been done to me. Unfortunately, it didn't stop here: worse was to come.

...and this experience has definitely not been enjoyable.

A day or so later, a representative of ISP telephoned me to advise me that X was being allowed to put his web-site back on line, but that the unauthorised copies of my original materials I had drawn to their attention would not be included any more.

That, since it was how things should have been in the first place, was satisfactory. I didn't feel triumphant, just relieved.

Later in the day I checked (well, you didn't think I wasn't curious, did you...) to see if the pages had gone. They had.

This extra material consisted of a few paragraphs, under a heading of "News Flash" to express X's views on the matter. Unfortunately, what had been posted was a direct personal attack on me and my state of mind. Besides being abusive, it was factually incorrect in several important respects. I immediately drafted an email to X to demand the removal of this personal attack, with a copy to the ISP's "abuse" mailbox, because I was drawing to their attention an infringement under a different part of their Acceptable Use Policy.

I waited for 9am the next day, and telephoned ISP. I asked to speak to the member of the legal staff whom I had previously spoken to. During that conversation, that person asked me to read out the text that was now appearing. Before I was two-thirds of the way through it, he stopped me. He had heard enough to realise that it was, as he said, "defamatory". It would have to be removed, and he would set in motion what was necessary. I then sent the email. There I left it. I had work to do elsewhere.

By the time I next looked at the website, the direct personal attack had been withdrawn, to be replaced by a rather more vague statement that is still offensive, and still factually incorrect in its (different) assertions, but frankly, I've spent enough time and money on this matter already to go chasing after that as well. What is written may seem pointed to me, but I am very reassured by the opinions of others who have seen it.

I really do hope that is the end of this matter, but in light of what has happened and the attitudes I have encountered, I shall have to keep my eye on things. Sadly.

Note: I am not a lawyer by profession. The legal advice summarised above was given specifically to me and applied specifically to this situation. That legal advice may or may not cover other related or similar situations. Caveat utor.

This page is a part of Chris Tolley's web-site. Latest update: Monday, July 16, 2001 19:36
Links on my pages can point to other web-sites. If you find that the administrators of those web-sites have made changes which mean you can't access them, please let me know, so I can update or remove the links. As far as I know, none of my links point to sites likely to contain offensive material - but if you discover otherwise, please let me know, as I would like to remove such links from my pages.
return to my home page.	Frequently asked Questions	send me an e-mail
©1996 to 2001: Christopher J. Tolley