Lawyers of LetsRun, anyone want to sue Skyhorse and Andrew Hutchinson for statutory damages?

This is one of the funniest things ever

Kudos to Gault for so meticulously documenting this.

And cheers to anyone willing to take on Skyhorse. A former employee once told me that the publisher, Tony Lyons, has said, "If you're not being sued, you're doing something wrong."

Maybe someone should sue you for all your rip offs. Don't deny it. I've seen Gault copy stuff word-for-word.

You'd lose a bundle.

laughter wrote:

This is one of the funniest things ever

who registers their online writings?

1) Is that $150,000 per copyright violation or total?

Per violation. Of course, the argument will be over the number of violations. Lots of this is subject to judge's discretion. By the way, almost no one goes for actual damages in copyright cases. Everyone just goes for statutory damages--way easier on the plaintiffs. Also a successful plaintiff can get their attorney fees paid for by defendant. Attorney fees (and, more specifically, the desire to avoid paying them out to the other side) are often a main driver of most copyright settlements.

2) And do most magazine pieces have an actual copyright or is it just books?

Almost any written word gets afforded copyright protection. Technically, you could claim copyright protection in the online post you just wrote. No need to file for anything (although filing helps) or put a (c) next to it (although that too helps your case). Copyright laws work to automatically protect almost every written (and musical, artistic, etc.) work, subject to some notable exceptions.

Lawyers can correct me here, but in answer to one of Rojo's questions:

For a magazine piece, the copyright would likely belong to the magazine, as a given article is likely done on a work-for-hire basis. So, theoretically, Sports Illustrated could go after Skyhorse for copyright infringement for the Merrell Noden plagiarism. They have basically zero incentive to do so in this case. And Running Times no longer exists. Who's going to do the suing there?

For books, the copyright is often in the author's name. (But not necessarily--if you write a book under a work-for-hire arrangement, the copyright belongs to the publisher.) So Chris Lear probably has the copyright for Running With the Buffaloes. If the revised version of the XC book still plagiarized RWTB, Lear could sue. But would he find it worth it? How many people even knew about the XC book until today?

So did he take a bunch of info from all these sources, including letsrun, and compile it into a book, and not properly cite his sources? Flagrantly plagiarize? Listen in on conference calls?

Not sure what he did from these posts.

Vaguely recall hearing about this book sometime last year. But take it that this is not a big seller.

Bad Wigins wrote:

laughter wrote:

This is one of the funniest things ever

who registers their online writings?

The only reason to register is to sue. It's a formality. Thirty five dollar give you the right to holler. Your copyright is automatic when you produce.

smd wrote:

Lawyers can correct me here, but in answer to one of Rojo's questions:

For a magazine piece, the copyright would likely belong to the magazine, as a given article is likely done on a work-for-hire basis. So, theoretically, Sports Illustrated could go after Skyhorse for copyright infringement for the Merrell Noden plagiarism. They have basically zero incentive to do so in this case. And Running Times no longer exists. Who's going to do the suing there?

For books, the copyright is often in the author's name. (But not necessarily--if you write a book under a work-for-hire arrangement, the copyright belongs to the publisher.) So Chris Lear probably has the copyright for Running With the Buffaloes. If the revised version of the XC book still plagiarized RWTB, Lear could sue. But would he find it worth it? How many people even knew about the XC book until today?

Scott Douglas, aka smd, has repeated, in print , my account of Henry Rono, bartender Steve Dinatale, and the "Dee hill" story as if the story is folklore, and fit for public consumption, without attribution. Should I go apoplectic over it? Nah. Cockroaches gotta eat too.

Hard to imagine that terrible journalism and plagiarism has even infected the world of XC running/writing. It's all around us, in every subject matter, every day. Just goes to show that when even the publishers turn a blind eye to this type of thing, pretty much anything you read or hear could be a complete fabrication or at least a story completely stolen from another source without consent. Just sad, journalism is dead.

It has 4.3 out of 5 Stars on amazon. first step is to give it bad ratings

So, for the first time ever, a cool, accurate, and interesting coffee table book that might appeal and legitimize our most beloved sport to the masses is published by some JV Pub House and all LensRun wants to do is get litigious and call plagiarism? Honestly who the hell cares? I think it would be fantastic to be able to buy a coffee table book highlighting the best sport in the entire world and proudly showcase it on my coffee table. Guys does it really matter that much to all of a sudden lawyer up as the sport we all love needs more of this.

I don't get this. Who is suing who and why? Nobody was killed or something like that from what I could tell. I switched off literally a quarter of the way through rojo's message.

DumboBK wrote:

So, for the first time ever, a cool, accurate, and interesting coffee table book that might appeal and legitimize our most beloved sport to the masses is published by some JV Pub House and all LensRun wants to do is get litigious and call plagiarism? Honestly who the hell cares? I think it would be fantastic to be able to buy a coffee table book highlighting the best sport in the entire world and proudly showcase it on my coffee table. Guys does it really matter that much to all of a sudden lawyer up as the sport we all love needs more of this.

People who write for a living care. People who support people who write for a living care.

on the other hand , I do have ad block on, so what do I know.

Pass. Find a real IP lawyer with experience in litigating plagiarism cases. They won't be cheap, especially if you have to sue in NY. But it is worth the investment because if you do not have solid grounds, federal judges can slap you down hard. i worked at a firm that filed a copyright suit against a big Hollywood reality show creator. The judge thought the claim was total BS and ordered both the plaintiff and the law firm to pay the defendants' attorney's fees in the amount of $250k. But if you hire a good IP lawyer and the other side is reasonable, you will probably be able to get the case resolved with a demand letter.

Ummmm I don’t know who Andrew is there guy; I was just trying to point out that a coffee table book highlighting an anthology of XC would be really cool and settle down all of you Journos about plag and infringe because let’s be honest XC is such a cottage industry sport anyway and more publicity is great for our cause.

DumboBK wrote:

So, for the first time ever, a cool, accurate, and interesting coffee table book that might appeal and legitimize our most beloved sport to the masses is published by some JV Pub House and all LensRun wants to do is get litigious and call plagiarism? Honestly who the hell cares? I think it would be fantastic to be able to buy a coffee table book highlighting the best sport in the entire world and proudly showcase it on my coffee table. Guys does it really matter that much to all of a sudden lawyer up as the sport we all love needs more of this.

I haven't heard of the book before today. Just bought it. If the content is good, but a plagiarized compilation, I'd have no problem sending any author of original a buck or two.

I agree with you ? Malmo. The more publicity for our sport the better. A well thought out coffee table book on XC seems awesome to me; modestly pirated or not.

This board is full of images hyperlinked from elsewhere, presumably without the person posting asking for, or getting permission.

This comes up in courts now and again. There was a time this was illegal, or in question.

I say this as someone who has run a fairly popular blog in the past, and I used images and graphics I had created, or I DID, in fact, get permission and attribute for images that were not mine.

Just saying.