Credit Where Credit Is Due

[Mac128]

I have noted a disturbing trend in the vintage Mac community of "borrowing" images, software, PDFs, information and resources from other Mac sites for use on our own.

Clearly it is a practice I frown upon, personally. Many of the contributors to this hobby in which we all indulge spend a great deal of time, money and resources to offer up the complete results of their findings and experience. If for courtesy alone, these "scholars" should be acknowledged for their contributions to the community from which we all benefit. It is the foremost basic tenet of academia that all sources that contributed to your work be credited. Violating this supreme rule is right up there with gambling in baseball.

I recently stumbled across this on the LisaEm site: http://lisa.sunder.net/index.html#links

Ray Arachelian has done some amazing work on his site and in compiling his Lisa link list. You'll note he alleges that JAG's House ripped it off word for word and copyrighted it himself. Since Ray's site is a thoroughly researched and dedicated Lisa site and JAG's is mainly about 68K, SEs & System 6 Macs ... well you decide.

Folks, this is just plain wrong. And I'm not just talking about duplicating links, either.

The other reason it's wrong is that it denies people who follow in your footsteps the resources to delve further into the real research that was actually done rather than a summary that you may condense it to by borrowing elements for your site. And this is how mis-information begins to circumnavigate the globe: bits and pieces borrowed from the original sources without properly crediting them, drawing or implying unsubstantiated conclusions from the parts without the whole. And what if the original source was wrong?

And for those of you who think this is harmless, some of these sites also generate revenue for their owners through ads and "hits". Removing their content for your own sites without credit is just plain criminal. The best of all possible worlds would be to seek permission from any content borrowed from another site, but at a bare minimum proper credit is due.

In particular you may wonder about images. If you've seen the same thing on multiple sites, then it sort of lives in the public domain. But when it comes to old advertising, manuals and inserts, unique procedures and hacks, custom photos made by the site owners, or anything you did not come by yourself, do us all a favor and credit your fellow "Mac-scholars" who originally took the time and effort to research and post the material for our mutual appreciation.

There are so many sites about vintage Apple computers out there you'd think they were still an active division of Apple. Now Im the last person to suggest more sites shouldn't be added. I think each of us has a voice and contribution to make in our appreciation of these old machines. But I also think none of us are re-inventing the wheel, nor should we try. We don't live in a vacuum and the results of our new efforts would not be possible without hose who came before us. Therefore, our sites should be enhancing that work work, not attempting to replace it. For example, why would I attempt to document the software release dates of pre-system 6 software on my site when Eric Rasmussen has done such an excellent documented site about it: http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/earlymacs/

The same goes for external floppy drives. I intend to outline the differences on my site at some point for a specific purpose but you can bet I will point everyone to my source, Phil Beesley's outstanding, thoroughly researched http://www.vintagemacworld.com/drives.html

So for those of you who have "borrowed" material living on your websites (and you know who you are) please take a moment to credit the original sources and if you don't know where you got it ... say so, at least it lets us know there may be more information out there. And we won't think less of you for not discovering the information yourself, it's really enough that you discovered a source to share with the rest of us.

 

[tomlee59]

It is unfortunate that so many take such a light attitude toward this. As you said, sometimes there are errors in the original work, and it would be nice if the author could be informed about it. Tracing back to the originator is often very difficult. And of course, there's the issue of simple courtesy, to say nothing of honesty.

I guess a lot of folks didn't quite understand the sarcastic intent of Tom Lehrer's lyrics, "Plagiarize; let no one else's work evade your eyes."

 

[Kallikak]

I don't entirely agree. I have spent plenty of time being frustrated because of the shutting down of websites that once freely distributed material. When we are talking about "old manuals and inserts" etc, I don't see that any particular secondary source site has much claim on them at all, and I think it far better that the data/information be spread around. If I reference a work in a paper, I reference the actual author, not the library where I found it. Of course the situation is different when we are talking about original material (e.g. "unique procedures and hacks, custom photos" + any actual commentary text or analysis).

In the past I have also frequently mailed site owners indicating errors - and I cannot recall a single instance of a response. So I no longer bother.

 

[tomlee59]

If one is proposing to use someone else's original work, it's a simple act of courtesy (if nothing else) to ask for permission before using it, even if it doesn't seem to be copyrighted. At minimum, one ought to acknowledge the source. The case cited re: Jag is an example where hurt feelings likely could have been avoided if Jag had spent the 30 seconds or so to simply send off a quick email first, or if he'd simply stated "this information came from ...". These are such simple steps that it is hard to see an argument against doing them.

In some -- perhaps many -- cases you might not get a response to a request, or the material in question actually belongs to a third party, so a bit more work is needed in those situations. But I strongly feel that one is obligated to make an effort. Again, at minimum, simply stating where you got the material can go a long way to preventing misunderstandings and hurt feelings. Seems like a good investment.

 

[Mac128]

I have spent plenty of time being frustrated because of the shutting down of websites that once freely distributed material. When we are talking about "old manuals and inserts" etc, I don't see that any particular secondary source site has much claim on them at all, and I think it far better that the data/information be spread around. If I reference a work in a paper, I reference the actual author, not the library where I found it ...In the past I have also frequently mailed site owners indicating errors - and I cannot recall a single instance of a response. So I no longer bother.

So many good points.

I too have been frustrated by abandoned websites and 404 links. If we are taking about the same thing, my strategy is this: if I find a site of truly interesting material that I fear may be disappear for any reason, I personally archive it with the intent of posting the content on my site if it is ever shut down. Obviously that in itself continues to credit the original author. Sometimes when I find a dead link I will try using http://www.archive.org to locate the site and download it from there to preserve it for posterity in the event the web archive ever goes down. Further, I never said not to copy or post materials on other sites. Indeed, such manuals and inserts are in some sense public material. However, my point here is more than referencing articles found in a library, much less the library itself, for an academic paper (though sometimes the location of the documents is germane to the authenticity of the source). This is more akin to posting artifacts from King Tut's tomb without crediting Howard Carter for the discovery. A bit extreme I know, but we in this forum are like Mac archeologists, each discovering a bit of Apple's past, some of which come at great expense to collector's who obtain things which none of us would otherwise have seen to formulate our own opinions over. At a bare minimum, we each deserve some recognition for re-discovering these items and making them available to the rest of the community. This of course varies from individual to individual. But when in doubt, short of seeking actual permission to utilize materials on our own sites, a simple acknowledgment of where we discovered them just seems common courtesy and the right thing to do. It has nothing to do with a claim, but a collegial nod to our fellow archeologists and respect for the work they have done in finding some of these very rare items. Indeed, the one item from another site you may have only found of interest to include on your site, may be part of a collection of items that one of your visitors would find deeply fascinating.

As for trying to correct erroneous sites, Eric Rasmussen and I were just ruminating on this very point when he expressed his frustration over trying to correct errors in Wikipedia, only to have someone less knowledgeable come along 6 months later and screw it up. When it comes to private sites, however, perhaps the best way to correct the errors is on our own sites that then link to the errors we are correcting. Google will eventually sort it all out. After-all, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

 

[Dan 7.1]

i'm not entirely sure what the big deal is. why do people feel they need to copyright things such as information on the Lisa? the whole point of this community is to preserve the history of Apple Computer, not copyright it as our own.

the only thing i would be completely against copying is the software which he has created and made freely available. for things such as that i would agree that linking to his site would be better than linking directly to the software so that users know where it actually came from.

i also think that it is ethically sound to say "i found this information here", but i don't think it really needs to involve such frustration. in the end its all Apple's anyway.

 

[Mac128]

You're all going to be very tired of me when this is over, but I feel very strongly about this issue.

Dan 7.1, you are absolutely right ... JAG's House has no business "copyrighting" a list of links (now granted I think that is a general disclaimer protecting his legitimate claims that may appear on his site). And it is all Apple's anyway as you say. BUT, we must look at websites as "Publications". A well researched website that hosts images, documents and links is absolutely no different than an author who publishes a book about Apple, a book to which the author holds the copyright. The only real difference here is that none of the websites have contacted Apple for permission to re-print their copyrights and most are not generating royalties from book sales. Most of them rely on the legal precedence of copyright law that allows quotation of educational purposes, more akin to academic papers than published books. However, in the case of a published book, if an author used an Apple document, would you re-print it without crediting the source in which you found it since Apple's is the only permission you need? Well this is a gray area since it is a copyrighted Apple document and you could have easily found it independently and certainly you do not need the previous author's permission to use it in your book (just Apple's). But it is an ethical question, because had you not read the previous author's book, you would have never known about the document to allow you to include it in your book or draw new conclusions about your subject. At a bare minimum you should at least credit the source book in yours as an excellent collection of material, whether you disclose where you obtained the specific document or not. When it comes to links, once again, nothing to copyright, but the collection of them, not to mention maintaining them takes some effort. To simply take the results of someone else's efforts as a whole and repost on your site with no credit whatsoever presents another ethical dilemma. What JAG's House should have done was list a few links that he felt were important then provide a link to Ray's "excellent list of additional Lisa links". You will note that Ray's Lisa Emulator page is not even mentioned. How is it possible JAG's House got every Lisa link out there, but missed the most important one!?

The big deal is, every author is deserving of recognition if they want it, for whatever reason. When material is taken from an original source site and posted elsewhere without credit, regardless of copyrights (since little of anything posted on these sites is copyrightable by the authors anyway as you point out), the original author's work may be omitted by search engines, or at least reduced in ranking, in favor of the new site which has usurped the information. This in of itself is not so bad, until you realize the original work may be overlooked without link-backs.

In the end all I can do is suggest a course of action. If another site helped you in anyway, credit it – especially if you have taken anything from it to use on your own and particularly if it is something of which you previously were not aware. This is a question each of us must ask ourselves as we interact in the community, but I think there is a simple check list here:

Did the original author spend a great deal of time researching any information you are borrowing or is it just quoting the usual sources?

Did the original author post something unique you've never seen before, or is it the same stuff seen on every other site?

Is the material an originally created copyrightable image, document, software, or otherwise, or is it all reproductions of the same stuff you've seen elsewhere?

In the former example of each case above the author deserves some credit for the material you are drawing upon. In the latter examples, well you should ask yourself what new information your efforts are really imparting that is so deserving of sharing which other sites are not already covering. We all think we can do something better, that's why there are dozens of books written about the early days of Apple. But I would suggest there are enough really well done vintage Apple websites that none of us should be recreating them. Rather, we should be offering new information or understanding with links back to those original sources. Nothing irritates me more than Googling an Apple topic and finding a dozen sites that all repeat the same information without offering anything new. All I'm saying, is that most of those sites probably drew on one of the others to do their research but credited nothing. So if there was incorrect information, it is now repeated in so many knock-off sites that it looks correct.