nd feature those same recipes in their menu (although it would be good to acknowledge where the recipes came from). But if a fan decided that she loved the recipes so much that she wanted to write her own cookbook featuring those same recipes, or maybe ones nearly the same, that would cross the line. Even small changes in the ingredients or minor adjustments in the instructions would not be enough to establish the borrowed recipes as being new and unique creations. Publishing a book based cloned recipes would, in effect, force the original author to compete against her own work in the marketplace.

“But wait,” an infringer might protest, “the ingredients used are common ones that anyone can use.” That is true. But it is the way they were combined that makes the outcome unique. Copyrights exist to protect innovators in our society. Without such protection, there would be little incentive to come up with new ideas, knowing that t

Remember when you were a kid and someone called you a ‘copy cat’? Those are fighting words! Nobody likes to be accused to stealing someone else’s work.

For adults, being a copy cat can be far worse than any school yard insult. Recent incidents of well publicized plagiarism illustrate that being caught using someone else’s words goes far beyond name calling. It can be a serious and actionable offense.

There is a great deal of misconception surrounding the use of copyrights. Electronic media and new innovations in digitizing information make it so easy to ‘borrow’ other people’s work, and sometimes the internet can seem like the lawless wild west of yesteryear. Anyone can download a photo or other image or copy and paste someone else’s words, and that very accessibility may make it seem that anything online is there free for the taking.

Similarly, scanners make it a cinch to reproduce pages from a book. A few weeks ago, I was alerted by a fan to the fact that someone on Ebay was attempting to sell a poorly reproduced copy of one of my books. Obviously the seller did not think they were doing anything wrong. I am no lawyer, but as an author with nine books to my name, I have had plenty of experience with copyright infringement. Almost always, the people involved did not fully comprehend that what they were doing was not acceptable behavior.

“Can’t I use someone else’s design as long as I change a certain percent of it?” is one question I have heard. Sometimes the percentage cited is a mere 10%, sometimes it is 30%. My response is that unless you change enough so that the creator doesn’t recognize it as being a variation of their work, it doesn’t matter what percentage you change. I guarantee that if you took Mickey Mouse and changed his name to Nicky, resized his ears and changed him from black to gray, if you tried to do anything commercial with your mouse, you would still be very likely to get a call from the legal department at Disney asking you to cease and desist. Wait, you may be thinking. does that mean that no one else can use mice in their art? Not at all. There are many ways to render mice, both realistically and as stylized images. But you must strive to create your own image and not take a shortcut by borrowing from someone else’s vision.

Another issue seems to stem from the belief that if you have published a book of instructions, the very act of publication means that you have forfeited the rights to your material. I write instructional books on transforming rocks into all kinds of artwork. I include stepped out instructions and photos that help people create their own versions of my designs. I encourage people to copy my designs until they have enough confidence to come up with their own original work, and I have no problem with readers painting and selling rocks that are created with the help of my instructions. I can’t count the number of times I have viewed someone’s web pages and seen variations of my designs proudly displayed as being ‘original’. Yes, the rock used was unique, and there are usually differences in the quality of the work or the details. But I recognize pieces created with the help of my work as easily as a mother can pick out her children on a crowded playground. I never object to fans who want to call their rock art ‘original’, though, because there is no harm in their claim.

However, just because I allow my designs to be copied, it does not mean that it is ok to copy my books as well! I liken it to a skilled and inventive cook who comes up with some unusual and wonderful recipes that prove so popular that she writes a cookbook featuring them. Readers are encouraged to replicate the recipes to serve to family and friends. They could even open a restaurant and feature those same recipes in their menu (although it would be good to acknowledge where the recipes came from). But if a fan decided that she loved the recipes so much that she wanted to write her own cookbook featuring those same recipes, or maybe ones nearly the same, that would cross the line. Even small changes in the ingredients or minor adjustments in the instructions would not be enough to establish the borrowed recipes as being new and unique creations. Publishing a book based cloned recipes would, in effect, force the original author to compete against her own work in the marketplace.

“But wait,” an infringer might protest, “the ingredients used are common ones that anyone can use.” That is true. But it is the way they were combined that makes the outcome unique. Copyrights exist to protect innovators in our society. Without such protection, there would be little incentive to come up with new ideas, knowing that th

I was alerted by a fan to the fact that someone on Ebay was attempting to sell a poorly reproduced copy of one of my books. Obviously the seller did not think they were doing anything wrong. I am no lawyer, but as an author with nine books to my name, I have had plenty of experience with copyright infringement. Almost always, the people involved did not fully comprehend that what they were doing was not acceptable behavior.

“Can’t I use someone else’s design as long as I change a certain percent of it?” is one question I have heard. Sometimes the percentage cited is a mere 10%, sometimes it is 30%. My response is that unless you change enough so that the creator doesn’t recognize it as being a variation of their work, it doesn’t matter what percentage you change. I guarantee that if you took Mickey Mouse and changed his name to Nicky, resized his ears and changed him from black to gray, if you tried to do anything commercial with your mouse, you would still be very likely to get a call from the legal department at Disney asking you to cease and desist. Wait, you may be thinking. does that mean that no one else can use mice in their art? Not at all. There are many ways to render mice, both realistically and as stylized images. But you must strive to create your own image and not take a shortcut by borrowing from someone else’s vision.

Another issue seems to stem from the belief that if you have published a book of instructions, the very act of publication means that you have forfeited the rights to your material. I write instructional books on transforming rocks into all kinds of artwork. I include stepped out instructions and photos that help people create their own versions of my designs. I encourage people to copy my designs until they have enough confidence to come up with their own original work, and I have no problem with readers painting and selling rocks that are created with the help of my instructions. I can’t count the number of times I have viewed someone’s web pages and seen variations of my designs proudly displayed as being ‘original’. Yes, the rock used was unique, and there are usually differences in the quality of the work or the details. But I recognize pieces created with the help of my work as easily as a mother can pick out her children on a crowded playground. I never object to fans who want to call their rock art ‘original’, though, because there is no harm in their claim.

However, just because I allow my designs to be copied, it does not mean that it is ok to copy my books as well! I liken it to a skilled and inventive cook who comes up with some unusual and wonderful recipes that prove so popular that she writes a cookbook featuring them. Readers are encouraged to replicate the recipes to serve to family and friends. They could even open a restaurant and feature those same recipes in their menu (although it would be good to acknowledge where the recipes came from). But if a fan decided that she loved the recipes so much that she wanted to write her own cookbook featuring those same recipes, or maybe ones nearly the same, that would cross the line. Even small changes in the ingredients or minor adjustments in the instructions would not be enough to establish the borrowed recipes as being new and unique creations. Publishing a book based cloned recipes would, in effect, force the original author to compete against her own work in the marketplace.

“But wait,” an infringer might protest, “the ingredients used are common ones that anyone can use.” That is true. But it is the way they were combined that makes the outcome unique. Copyrights exist to protect innovators in our society. Without such protection, there would be little incentive to come up with new ideas, knowing that t

your mouse, you would still be very likely to get a call from the legal department at Disney asking you to cease and desist. Wait, you may be thinking. does that mean that no one else can use mice in their art? Not at all. There are many ways to render mice, both realistically and as stylized images. But you must strive to create your own image and not take a shortcut by borrowing from someone else’s vision.

Another issue seems to stem from the belief that if you have published a book of instructions, the very act of publication means that you have forfeited the rights to your material. I write instructional books on transforming rocks into all kinds of artwork. I include stepped out instructions and photos that help people create their own versions of my designs. I encourage people to copy my designs until they have enough confidence to come up with their own original work, and I have no problem with readers painting and selling rocks that are created with the help of my instructions. I can’t count the number of times I have viewed someone’s web pages and seen variations of my designs proudly displayed as being ‘original’. Yes, the rock used was unique, and there are usually differences in the quality of the work or the details. But I recognize pieces created with the help of my work as easily as a mother can pick out her children on a crowded playground. I never object to fans who want to call their rock art ‘original’, though, because there is no harm in their claim.

However, just because I allow my designs to be copied, it does not mean that it is ok to copy my books as well! I liken it to a skilled and inventive cook who comes up with some unusual and wonderful recipes that prove so popular that she writes a cookbook featuring them. Readers are encouraged to replicate the recipes to serve to family and friends. They could even open a restaurant and feature those same recipes in their menu (although it would be good to acknowledge where the recipes came from). But if a fan decided that she loved the recipes so much that she wanted to write her own cookbook featuring those same recipes, or maybe ones nearly the same, that would cross the line. Even small changes in the ingredients or minor adjustments in the instructions would not be enough to establish the borrowed recipes as being new and unique creations. Publishing a book based cloned recipes would, in effect, force the original author to compete against her own work in the marketplace.

“But wait,” an infringer might protest, “the ingredients used are common ones that anyone can use.” That is true. But it is the way they were combined that makes the outcome unique. Copyrights exist to protect innovators in our society. Without such protection, there would be little incentive to come up with new ideas, knowing that t

ng rocks that are created with the help of my instructions. I can’t count the number of times I have viewed someone’s web pages and seen variations of my designs proudly displayed as being ‘original’. Yes, the rock used was unique, and there are usually differences in the quality of the work or the details. But I recognize pieces created with the help of my work as easily as a mother can pick out her children on a crowded playground. I never object to fans who want to call their rock art ‘original’, though, because there is no harm in their claim.

However, just because I allow my designs to be copied, it does not mean that it is ok to copy my books as well! I liken it to a skilled and inventive cook who comes up with some unusual and wonderful recipes that prove so popular that she writes a cookbook featuring them. Readers are encouraged to replicate the recipes to serve to family and friends. They could even open a restaurant and feature those same recipes in their menu (although it would be good to acknowledge where the recipes came from). But if a fan decided that she loved the recipes so much that she wanted to write her own cookbook featuring those same recipes, or maybe ones nearly the same, that would cross the line. Even small changes in the ingredients or minor adjustments in the instructions would not be enough to establish the borrowed recipes as being new and unique creations. Publishing a book based cloned recipes would, in effect, force the original author to compete against her own work in the marketplace.

“But wait,” an infringer might protest, “the ingredients used are common ones that anyone can use.” That is true. But it is the way they were combined that makes the outcome unique. Copyrights exist to protect innovators in our society. Without such protection, there would be little incentive to come up with new ideas, knowing that t

nd feature those same recipes in their menu (although it would be good to acknowledge where the recipes came from). But if a fan decided that she loved the recipes so much that she wanted to write her own cookbook featuring those same recipes, or maybe ones nearly the same, that would cross the line. Even small changes in the ingredients or minor adjustments in the instructions would not be enough to establish the borrowed recipes as being new and unique creations. Publishing a book based cloned recipes would, in effect, force the original author to compete against her own work in the marketplace.

“But wait,” an infringer might protest, “the ingredients used are common ones that anyone can use.” That is true. But it is the way they were combined that makes the outcome unique. Copyrights exist to protect innovators in our society. Without such protection, there would be little incentive to come up with new ideas, knowing that they could be snatched away the moment they became public.

This was an experience I had a while back. Two women who had learned to paint on rocks using instructions from my books, and who had previously written fan mail thanking me for introducing them to the art form, were offered the chance to write their own book on rock painting by a large and well-known publisher. The first I learned of their book was seeing the cover image posted on Amazon about 6 months before the scheduled publication date. I was immediately alarmed because the images on the cover bore a striking resemblance to projects from my books. My unease grew as I read more about the content of the book. Fully three quarters of the projects were ones I had previously published.

A few years before, one of the putative authors had posted stepped out photos she had taken based on the instructions from my books, offering them as ‘free lessons’ on her website. At the time, I contacted her to gently explain that even through she had taken her own photos, the fact that she was using my designs and much of my instruction meant that she was infringing on my copyrights. She apologized and removed much (but not quite all) the offending material, and I decided not to make anything more of the incident.

But seeing that she was now purporting to be the co-author of how-to instruction for projects so similar to mine, I could only assume that were I to read the text, I would find many of my own words and phrases, descriptions and instructions replicated as well. I immediately printed out pages from the websites both women had posted, where they mentioned how my books had introduced them to this art. I also printed out the free instructions that had remained in place, to show that the person who posted them seemed not to grasp the concept of copyrighted material. I sent the material to my publisher, who in turn, sent it, along with copies of all my books, to the publisher of this forthcoming book.

The wheels turned slowly, but after almost four months, I was relieved to hear that the publisher in question had reviewed the materials, comparing my books to the work submitted by their authors, and had come to the conclusion that there did, indeed, appear to be issues of infringement and possible instances of plagiarism involved.

The book was withdrawn before publication (although the listing still appears on Amazon as of the date of this writing, some nine months after it was cancelled.) There followed a brief dust-up where upon the two authors who were required to return their advances complained bitterly on-line about having been bullied by me and my publisher, and ultimately being denied the right to become authors themselves. Both have since turned to selling their not-so-unique designs on-line as electronic downloads.

I wish I could say that this is the only instance of seeing my original work published by others. One how-to author has borrowed so heavily from my original projects that I find myself looking for my name on her dedications page. By avoiding stepped out instructions, she’s managed to keep from being too blatant, but I am tempted to write and ask that she at least change the colors she uses so as to make her duplicating of my projects a bit less obvious! There are so many colors available that you might think she could choose to paint her rock car something other than the purple I painted mine, and her lizard could just as easily have been brown or tan rather than making it green as my original version was!

The weird thing is, and this is what makes the whole issue seem so confusing, ideas can’t be copyrighted. Merely thinking up something is not enough to make it yours. It is only when you convert your original idea into s