From: "Steele, Lyle" Lyle_Steele@businessweek.com
To:
Cc: "Steele, Lyle" Lyle_Steele@businessweek.com
Subject: reuse of BusinessWeek content by Cognitivevent
Date: Aug 16, 2007 9:08 AM
Attachments: Steele, Lyle.vcfOur content has been scanned and posted on your site at this URL and other related URLs.
Our records don’t indicate any permission for this.
Can you let us know how you obtained permission to reuse our copyrighted content?
Thanks.
Lyle Steele
http://www.cognitivevent.com/images/port_fit_idea_article.jpg
(enclosed vCard info)
Steele, Lyle
BW-NEW PROD DEV GRP-REPR
MGR-CUSTOM PUBLISHING & S
TEL:212-512-3286
ADR:1221 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS;NEW YORK;NY;10020-1095;UNITED STATES
EMAIL:Lyle_Steele@businessweek.com
REV:20070201T131935Z
END:VCARD
I always get a jolt of fear when I see something like this (WASP guilt runs deep) and worry about what trouble I have caused. And then I get punchy - and notice the guy's name. Hrm, very macho in a bad 1970s sitcom way. A guy with a name like that should go far in Corporate America. But then again, it's almost too perfect. Could it be made up for these messages?
My response:
From:
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 7:11 PM
To: Steele, Lyle Lyle_Steele@businessweek.com
Subject: Re: reuse of BusinessWeek content by CognitiveventHrm, that took a while - those jpgs are part of my personal portfolio and have been up for a while.
I believe this is fair use.
* If you read the article you will find that I am the subject of this interview from 1992.
* This scan is buried deep within my site - it takes 4 clicks to reach it.
* The scan is converted to a lossy JPG - deliberately low resolution - intended to show that indeed I was the subject of the article, but not intended as something people would actually read.
* There are scans of articles from two other publications that covered the design that also interviewed me. Again, the reason for the scans is to show the level of press coverage of the design itself, it is not about BusinessWeek.
* When I created these images, the content was not available anywhere else - it is from a 1992 issue.
* I have now checked my host logs, and they show only 107 views for the parent page for that content over the past year (out of 17,000+ page views, less than 0.1% of traffic on my site). While I am mildly disappointed that more visitors do not find my portfolio to be gripping content, I'll get over it. Note that most of those hits are probably from search engine spiders, my own views while periodically checking my content, and your search efforts. For comparison, my HTML resume had 1007 page views over the past year, but my page on the Suzuki DR650 motorcycle got over 7000 views.
* I have no control over other users making copies of my files. No one does, it is part of the architecture of the web, and of the agents (browsers) used to access that content.
* There is a long tradition in the design community of portfolios of work as part of the resume process - I am sure you will find many other cases of similar use as your company searches the web.As an industrial designer I value the attention that BusinessWeek has brought to the design community with their coverage.
I'm just guessing here since your email was short on details, but it looks like you have some sort of search engine ferreting out images with your content and sending form letters - perhaps if you could share more information about your needs I can help. For example, though this is fair use I will be happy to point my links to your site if you have added this coverage to your online archives.
Thanks, I look forward to your reply.
/pRC
Randolph Carter, IDSA
http://cognitivevent.com
I guess one good thing about this experience is I finally logged into my site tracking data and took a look at some user behaviors - interesting.
OK, I tried to be polite, I tried to explain that I was the *in* the article, I complimented them on the coverage. I explained how few people could have actually had seen the scan. I cited the well-established tradition of design portfolios. I responded the same day.
I did not take them to task for the non-existant coverage for past winners of their own design awards. Maybe, just maybe, they will see that this is a reasonable use?
But you know what is coming next...
From: "Steele, Lyle" Lyle_Steele@businessweek.com
Sent: Aug 17, 2007 8:10 AM
To:
Subject: RE: reuse of BusinessWeek content by CognitiveventSince they are available on the open web we would appreciate it if you would remove them now. This type of use is not covered by fair use, which is a clause for educational scholarship.
If they are part of your personal collection and you want to keep them on you hard drive or behind a fire wall then that’s certainly no problem.
Thanks.
Lyle
(enclosed vCard info)
Steele, Lyle
BW-NEW PROD DEV GRP-REPR
MGR-CUSTOM PUBLISHING & S
TEL:212-512-3286
ADR:1221 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS;NEW YORK;NY;10020-1095;UNITED STATES
EMAIL:Lyle_Steele@businessweek.com
REV:20070201T131935Z
END:VCARD
Well, I guess we are on a first name basis now. So, if I were an educator I could post the article? And if I go down to NC State and teach a seminar on design...
From:
Sent: Aug 17, 2007 10:34 AM
To: "Steele,Lyle" Lyle_Steele@businessweek.com
Subject: RE: reuse of BusinessWeek content by CognitiveventI am not sure you are correct in your interpretation of fair use, but I will comply as soon as I can get access to my edit environment - I will be travelling until Monday morning.
I would very much appreciate a link into your site for this content, I would much prefer to send visitors to the original creator to view this article.
As an industrial designer and software author, I have strong feelings about the importance of protecting ideas and work. As a winner of an IDEA award, I have to say I am very disappointed with the online availablity of coverage from previous years. It is sad that your protection of content extends to rarely visited compressed images of content that is no longer available from BusinessWeek.
I hope that you will pass on my feelings to management and lawyers at BusinessWeek that have control over these policies.
Respectfully
/pRC
I mourn for BusinessWeek if this is typical of their business thinking. For one thing, they missed a giant opportunity to actually make some money. If they have no intention of actually posting old content online (and I have to wonder whether old, unposted content loses value when unseen in the new economy) they could have offered a license arrangement for use in a private project... Heck, play up to my vanity - I still have about 10 copies of the that issue sitting in the attic (Oh come on, we all hoard press clippings). I will be willing to pay a reasonable amount to be able to post this content for my portfolio. Just... work with me.
And, I feel a little dirty, because I knuckled under so quickly. I didn't even force them to cite the legal authority for this request, or prior legal decisions supporting their claim. After following the endless parade of lawsuits in the recording industry, I fell into line and removed the content.
Actually, I sympathize with Lyle. Despite his title (MGR-CUSTOM PUBLISHING & S...?) he almost certainly has very little latitude on these cases. His hands are bound by the McGraw-Hill intellectual property attorneys, who are busy counting the millions of dollars in potential lost content they are protecting. In fact, most people would probably hate his job. Sending out emails and telling users to back off of content that will never see the light of day cannot be a satifying existence. So for you out there with an award who have tried to post historical coverage, be prepared - the bots are coming and you have only two choices - you can lawyer-up or you can take it down.
Lyle, when you read this - it's not about you. 1) It's about a litigious culture that cannot support an army of attorneys if the rest of us are not kept in the dark. 2) It's about a world where corporations have more rights than individuals. 3) It's about corporations that want infinite ownership of work, even when that work will never see the light of day or benefit anyone - and they offer no value in return for those rights. I believe that eventually the pendulum will swing back towards the rights of individuals, and copyrights will revert to reasonable timeframes... at worst the lifetime of the original author, not the life of the corporate charter.
And, well, I wasn't really happy with the quotes they used in the article anyway. I feel better already.