Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but it sure seems like all the items in UKTV's list of
20 Great April Fools, which Jon Holmes
presented on air on April 1st over in Britain, were lifted almost verbatim from my list of the
Top 100 April Fools ever. Not to complain (actually to complain bitterly), but it took me a long time to create that list... a lot of tedious searching through decades of old newspaper archives to find all the April Fool's Day classics that had been, for the most part, forgotten. If UKTV did their own research and collected together what they thought were the Top 20 April Fools, that would be fine. But their research seems to have simply consisted of visiting here and cutting and pasting what they found, and then presenting this to their viewers as their own work. Can that actually be legal?
Comments
Can that actually be legal?
Nope. But you might have an expensive time doing anything much about it:(
You could contact Jon Holmes directly, though - .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Who knows, maybe you'll at least get an apology. (Mind you, I don't know the guy - for all I know he's a .)
For example, the first item on both lists: The Swiss Spaghetti Harvest:
UKTV: In 1957, the BBC show Panorama announced that, thanks to an exceptionally mild winter and the virtual extermination of the "spaghetti weevil", Swiss farmers were enjoying an abundant spaghetti crop.
MOH: In 1957 the respected BBC news show Panorama announced that thanks to a very mild winter and the virtual elimination of the dreaded spaghetti weevil, Swiss farmers were enjoying a bumper spaghetti crop.
UKTV: To prove it, they broadcast footage of Swiss peasants pulling strands of spaghetti down from trees.
MOH: It accompanied this announcement with footage of Swiss peasants pulling strands of spaghetti down from trees.
UKTV: Huge numbers of viewers were fooled, and many rang in wanting to know how they could grow their own spaghetti trees.
MOH: Huge numbers of viewers were taken in, and many called up wanting to know how they could grow their own spaghetti trees.
UKTV: The BBC diplomatically replied that they should "place a sprig of spaghetti in a tin of tomato sauce and hope for the best."
MOH: To this question, the BBC diplomatically replied that they should "place a sprig of spaghetti in a tin of tomato sauce and hope for the best."
I don't know what you can do about it, though. They do seem to have done some research of their own, though, as they have different pictures than you do sometimes.
Crikey that's naive. The MSM plagiarize blogs routinely - consider this instance, where AP blatantly ripped off a laboriously researched online article and shrugged off complaints with a dismissive "we do not credit blogs."
My guess is Alex might get an apology, maybe a correction on the website or something - but without legal action (and international copyright law is a minefield) there's not going to be much else. I hardly see a media frenzy in the offing.
OTOH, I guess they paid this Jon chap (who's a comedian, not a staff hack) a hefty fee for what amounts to a C&P job. They might not be too chuffed about that, I suppose...
Sounds like it's time to add your own hoax to the list. Sort of like the fake words they put in dictionaries to fight the same type of copyright issues, or GIJoes backwards thumb (Or was that a hoax too?).
Mo in NJ
You should do something like Snopes did to catch out cheats - they put in false legends.
ie
http://www.snopes.com/humor/mediagoofs/sixpence.asp
BM
I'd rather Alex do the work as he sees fit, and that he stays vigilant (and us for him), to make sure his original work is not plagiarized.
Sadly our Freeview box is too rubbish to actually pick up UKTV though, so I wouldn't get to see it.
"20 out of 100"
Specialy when they are not in the order they posted on your site. And they can be totally assholes by saying that they did research... on your page.
Don't go that route, Alex!
Sue the bastards.
If they had simply cut and pasted from my list but acknowledged me as the source, I wouldn't have cared that much. But the fact that they're claiming to have written it is too obnoxious to be left unchallenged.
"what's with 'plagerism', guys?"
Yeah, you're right. I'm guilty as charged. Gee, and I do editing for a living, too. Please don't put me in "The Box," S.N. I'll be good.
If you're feeling snarky, you can request, say, a dollar per item lifted, with the sole expressed purpose of taking a bunch of your friends to the local british pub on their dime. Or perhaps simply the price of a steak dinner at your favorite restraunt, as your 'pound of flesh'. Make sure to send them photos. The Brits also love a good laugh, even when they're the butt of it.
It's a problem we Brits have :(
Hmm, that's also a description of our local PBS station ... when it's not doing Lawrence Welk marathons during pledge drives.
I wish you the best of luck with that. I'm sure it's not so much about any money that's due to you but rather for feeling cheated after spending so much work on your site.
I really encourage you to seek all reasonable legal avenues for getting some compensation.
The presenters might not have heard of MOH. They would have to be web-literate to learn of MOH's existence since very few British bookshops stock the MOH book (I've only seen a single copy in one bookshop). Over here, High Street bookshops rarely if ever stock any imported books due to the high cost.
If the TV company used it in good faith, you'd be stuck with trying to sue the researcher who might not be an employee of the TV company and if he earns the usual pittance you'd up more out-of-pocket (as you'd have to sue through the UK legal system who could declare him not worth suing).
Suggest you write to the TV station, but you're unlikely to get anything more than an apology.