Oh, no, it can't be so! Rush Limbaugh would never lift a blogger's work and not attribute it!
This charge MUST made by some Democrat or engineered by Hillary when she's taking a break from torpedoing John Kerry's campaign.
But wait: the The Moderate Voice found this item on one of his favorite conservative blogs, Whizbang, which runs the headline:"Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Thief"
Oh yeah? For YOUR information, Rush is NOT FAT any more. (He has a private chef so he slimmed down. So there.)
But Whizbang contains this interesting item that certainly seems to suggest (The Moderate Voice used to hang out with diplomats when he was overseas and you can tell it rubbed off) that some heavy unattributed lifting of ideas and/or graphics without attribution may have occured. Just compare this from Jessica's Well with this from The Man's website.
Writes Whizbang's Kevin Aylward:
- Using words or graphics from another site without attribution and/or link back to the original is wrong. In the case of copyright material, permission is generally required for use (except in the case of fair use). If you have a small readership at your web site; no one will likely notice if you are not crediting your sources properly. The more readers you have the greater the scrutiny there will be on your sourcing.
At Wizbang we mind our P's and Q's, as best we can. There is a DCMA Compliance Notice on every page with a process to report copyright violations. I expect to be credited (actually I demand to be credited) when my words, ideas, stories or images are used elsewhere so it would be supremely hypocritical of me to not credit the sources I use in editing Wizbang.
Which brings me to the case of professional media personality Rush Limbaugh. It seems that Rush, 800 lb. media gorilla that he is, has decided it is OK to steal Jessica's Well (Natalie Drest) work. Take a look at Rush's version - noting that the graphic from Jessica's Well was two different pieces of the magazine combined into a new original graphic. Whether you are a Limbaugh fan or not you would be hard pressed to defend his uncredited theft of Natalie's material.
It's time to lay the smack down on Rush for his unethical actions. Act Now!
He has a link for readers to email Rush in protest and a phone number to protest to Rush's show. (Well, then, this MUST prove that Whizbang is funded by Hillary or run by RHINOs.)
Interestingly enough, it's not a copyright violation not to cite your sources in the U.S.
In other parts of the world, it is a violation (like in france, where the idea came from). It's called the Moral Law or Moral Code (le droit moral, as the french term is IIRC).
U.S. copyright has very weak protection for giving credit where credit is due.
Not that I'm saying this is *right*, mind you. And if you do not cite your sources in academia, for instance, there are stiff academic penalties, but it's not a copyright violation unless they lifted a word-for-word transcription or used copyrighted images.
You will note that I didn't call him out for copyright violations though, just unethical behavior.
As to the "fat" detail I was just parodying the Al Franken book title.
I think it could be coincidence that Rush's people found this around the same time that Jessica did.
I also think that if the idea was lifted from her site it was because someone on Rush's staff "found" it and recommended that it be used--and Rush himself never knew about it.
Attila,
Thats probably the truth of the matter... I doubt much that Rush spends a lot of time in the blogosphere...but I'll bet dollars to donuts his staffers are hereabouts.
Tempest in a teapot; there's nothing here, people...move along.
I seen a lot of fat junkies.
I love the fact that he used the article because, frankly, it needs as much exposure as it can get. It is important that it get out there.
I just want the blogosphere to get the credit for its uncovering.
How do I know that they did not arrive at that Life Magazine article independent of me? They (Rush's website) used the graphic that I built for my original post on this article.
Mark Noonan is right. It is no big deal. I just wanted to see it originally credited to a blogger.
still, it is kinda pathetic/sad...