Normally I don't go poking around for free legal advice, but I was somewhat curious to know who's in the right in the eyes of the law here.
Until recently I wrote hardware reviews for a large AV Forum. They own the copyright on the reviews written for them.
However, since my absence, they've published a review of a similar TV to one I reviewed. The new review contains passages of text which I wrote, often with only minor alterations made to suit the new content. However, my name does not appear anywhere on the new article, it is entirely attributed to someone else.
My understanding is that, although they have the right to exploit the reviews I wrote for them as they see fit, they have to credit me as the original author, and attributing a review that I wrote parts of to someone else is considered plagiarism. Is that the case?
Until recently I wrote hardware reviews for a large AV Forum. They own the copyright on the reviews written for them.
However, since my absence, they've published a review of a similar TV to one I reviewed. The new review contains passages of text which I wrote, often with only minor alterations made to suit the new content. However, my name does not appear anywhere on the new article, it is entirely attributed to someone else.
My understanding is that, although they have the right to exploit the reviews I wrote for them as they see fit, they have to credit me as the original author, and attributing a review that I wrote parts of to someone else is considered plagiarism. Is that the case?
Comment