First, she should report this unauthorized printing to her editor (who
might have legal services at disposal). Include, or let the editor know,
she has copies of all correspondence.
Then she should contact Yahoo and Google's Customer Service explaining
the situation
(Just because EZine has savvy coders, they shouldn't have free rein.)
[Meanwhile, have a third party search on use of this poem.]

There is probably a governmental site to report such abuse as well;
unfortunately I don't know what it is.

Make sure she keeps ALL correspondence related to this -- I suggest
hardcopy as well.

Contact her local Bar Association and see if there's a pro bono lawyer or
paralegal versed in copyright who can write off a cease and desist
message with that law firm's letterhead.
[For a $25 poem, I wouldn't ask for more than that -- but otoh, if
they're stealing from her, they're stealing from others -- and it *IS*
theft, not only theft, but clearly, at least from her message, loot the
store and rub your nose in the broken glass theft -- so some lawyer might
smell the dragon to ride off and slay (many lawyers do have this "White
Knight" complex).]

Off the top of my head, that's all I can offer at this time -- most of
which is likely of minimal value.

But do tell her that there are folks out her who feel deep compassion for
her situation, and regret we cannot help directly.
It's a pity and downright appalling how little regard folks have for
other people's intellectual property.

*sigh*


On Thu, 29 May 2003 14:17:21 -0700  writes:
> Hi all, your advice requested, please.  This is from a friend.  I 
> have told her that she is right, they are wrong, and she should 
> stand her ground.  This looks like copy right invasion to me. (Such 
> 'zine should be put out of biz, IMHO.) Am I right? Lezlie 
> 
> When I
> >got back from my nephew's funeral, decided to do an internet search 
> in my name
> >just to get my mind off things, and came up with another illegal 
> publication of
> >one of my poems without my permission at an EZine.
> >This is the third time this has happened with the same poem! As I 
> always do (
> >at the advice of my writer friends ) I wrote a letter demanding 
> they remove the
> >poem and pay me a whole $25 for theft of my intellectual property 
> and resulting
> >inconvenience to me and  my reputation- it was more disturbing 
> because it was
> >with another editor, and it was not supposed to be published 
> anywhere and under
> >my complete control. In most cases, they remove the poem, 
> apologize, and pay
> >me. This time they sent me an incredibly nasty letter screaming in 
> ALL CAPS
> >saying I was an "extortionist" ( I am not, I am
following accepted 
> protocols )
> >and that I would hear from their lawyer who would "teach me a 
> lesson". They
> >called my request to be payed for my poem “obscene” when I was very 
> nice, just
> >firm.
> >They also said they had contacted Yahoo and Goggle "to make sure 
> you can never
> >find out who is publishing your poem again” or something like that 
> ( the
> >implication being that to get back at me they posted it to other 
> sites). When I
> >attempted a search, it was blocked! Whaat on Earth did they tell 
> them, that I
> >was running a scam? They also said I obviously did not "have a 
> life", ect.I
> >have PTSD and am still grieving over Richard, I am so upset over 
> what they said
> >and did at this terrible time I am literally shaking.
> >I explained I am a disabled writer on SSI who needs the income from 
> my writing
> >to get above poverty level, AND they I had just come back from 
> burying my 21
> >year old nephew! I told them the poem was with another editor who 
> might be
> >uset. I gave them copies of "10 copyright myths" (
included below, 
> in case you
> >don't have them). On their own site, they even said no one could 
> submit
> >material unless it was theirs! What jerks!
> >Do you have any suggestions? I feel so abused. I did not need this 
> right now!
> >And it seems they have fixed things with the search engines so I 
> can't check on
> >whether the poem is being published, or where, somehow. I just 
> tried-
> >nothing.How can I ever submit it again? What do I tell the editor 
> who has it?
> >Anyhow, I'm sorry I'm so upset. Have you ever dealt with this 
> before? I'm at a
> >loss. Everyone else always cooperated.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >Melissa
> >
> >http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
> >
> >        10 Big Myths about copyright explained
> >
> >An attempt to answer common myths about copyright seen on the net 
> and cover
> >issues related to copyright and USENET/Internet publication.
> >
> >- by Brad Templeton 
> >Note that this is an essay about copyright myths. It assumes you 
> know at least
> >what copyright is -- basically the legal exclusive right of the 
> author of a
> >creative work to control the copying of that work. If you didn't 
> know that,
> >check out my own brief introduction to copyright for more 
> information. Feel
> >free to link to this document, no need to ask me. Really, NO need 
> to ask. 1)
> >"If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted." 
> >This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations 
> follow the Berne
> >copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything 
> created
> >privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and 
> protected
> >whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for 
> other
> >people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied 
> unless you
> >know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection 
> without notice,
> >but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure. 
> >It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning 
> people, and by
> >allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not 
> necessary. If it
> >looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to 
> pictures, too. You
> >may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and 
> if you come
> >upon something unknown, you shouldn't post that either. 
> >The correct form for a notice is: 
> >
> >        "Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]"
> >
> >You can use C in a circle © instead of "Copyright" but
"(C)" has 
> never been
> >given legal force. The phrase "All Rights Reserved" used to be 
> required in some
> >nations but is now not legally needed most places. In some 
> countries it may
> >help preserve some of the "moral rights." 
> >
> >2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation." 
> >False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, 
> but that's
> >main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give 
> it away --
> >and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial 
> value of the
> >property. There is an exception for personal copying of music, 
> which is not a
> >violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include 
> widescale
> >anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no 
> commercial value, the
> >violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal 
> action. Fair
> >use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the 
> involvement of money.
> >
> >3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain." 
> >False. Nothing modern is in the public domain anymore unless the 
> owner
> >explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you 
> have a note
> >from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public
domain." 
> Those exact
> >words or words very much like them. 
> >Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to 
> everybody to
> >copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that 
> Usenet is an
> >automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of 
> copies made are
> >done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This 
> is a matter
> >of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this 
> writer's opinion we
> >should all pray it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are 
> implicitly
> >granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect when 
> one posts
> >to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement of material into the 
> public
> >domain. It is important to remember that when it comes to the law, 
> computers
> >never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are 
> given commands,
> >not permission. Only people can be given permission. Furthermore it 
> is very
> >difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly stated 
> licence
> >that the copier was aware of. 
> >Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post the 
> item in the
> >first place. If the poster didn't, then all the copies are pirated, 
> and no
> >implied licence or theoretical reduction of the copyright can take 
> place. 
> >(*) Copyrights can expire after a long time, putting something into 
> the public
> >domain, and there are some fine points on this issue regarding 
> older copyright
> >law versions. However, none of this applies to an original article 
> posted to
> >USENET. 
> >Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete 
> abandonment of
> >all rights. You can't make something "PD for non-commercial
use." If 
> your work
> >is PD, other people can even modify one byte and put their name on 
> it. 
> >
> >4) "My posting was just fair use!" 
> >See other notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear the 
> following in
> >mind: 
> >The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to 
> allow things
> >such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education 
> about
> >copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's 
> important so
> >that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own 
> works -- only
> >the ability to express other people's. Intent, and damage to the 
> commercial
> >value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing 
> an article
> >from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise 
> the quality
> >of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write 
> your own
> >story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New 
> York Times
> >web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably 
> aren't. 
> >Fair use is usually a short excerpt and almost always attributed. 
> (One should
> >not use more of the work than is necessary to make the commentary.) 
> It should
> >not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people 
> no longer
> >needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the 
> entire work
> >is a problem.) 
> >Note that most inclusion of text in Usenet followups is for 
> commentary and
> >reply, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original 
> posting (if
> >it has any) and as such it is fair use. Fair use isn't an exact 
> doctrine,
> >either. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the 
> copyright on an
> >individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go beyond 
> the bounds
> >of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to the typical 
> net
> >misclaim of fair use. 
> >The "fair use" concept varies from country to country, and has 
> different names
> >(such as "fair dealing" in Canada) and other limitations outside 
> the USA. 
> >Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted, but their expression and 
> structure can.
> >You can always write the facts in your own words. 
> >See the DMCA alert for recent changes in the law. 
> >
> >5) "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." --
"Somebody 
> has that name
> >copyrighted!" 
> >False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless 
> explicitly given
> >away. You also can't "copyright a name" or anything short like 
> that, such as
> >almost all titles. You may be thinking of trade marks, which apply 
> to names,
> >and can be weakened or lost if not defended. 
> >You generally trademark terms by using them to refer to your brand 
> of a generic
> >type of product or service. Like an "Apple" computer. Apple 
> Computer "owns"
> >that word applied to computers, even though it is also an ordinary 
> word. Apple
> >Records owns it when applied to music. Neither owns the word on its 
> own, only
> >in context, and owning a mark doesn't mean complete control -- see 
> a more
> >detailed treatise on this law for details. 
> >You can't use somebody else's trademark in a way that would steal 
> the value of
> >the mark, or in a way that might make people confuse you with the 
> real owner of
> >the mark, or which might allow you to profit from the mark's good 
> name. For
> >example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I would be very 
> wary of
> >trying to label my works with a name like "mtv." :-) You can use 
> marks to
> >critcise or parody the holder, as long as it's clear you aren't the 
> holder. 
> >
> >6) "If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my 
> new work
> >belongs to me." 
> >False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what 
> are called
> >"derivative works" -- works based or derived from another 
> copyrighted work --
> >is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This 
> is true even
> >though the making of these new works is a highly creative process. 
> If you write
> >a story using settings or characters from somebody else's work, you 
> need that
> >author's permission. 
> >Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is arguably a copyright 
> violation. If
> >you want to write a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need 
> Paramount's
> >permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not 
> all holders
> >of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even 
> subtly
> >encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that 
> it is
> >entirely up to them whether to do that. 
> >There is a major exception -- criticism and parody. The fair use 
> provision says
> >that if you want to make fun of something like Star Trek, you don't 
> need their
> >permission to include Mr. Spock. This is not a loophole; you can't 
> just take a
> >non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality. The way "fair 
> use" works is
> >you get sued for copyright infringement, and you admit you did 
> copy, but that
> >your copying was a fair use. A subjective judgment on, among other 
> things, your
> >goals, is then made. 
> >However, it's also worth noting that a court has never ruled on 
> this issue,
> >because fan fiction cases always get settled quickly when the 
> defendant is a
> >fan of limited means sued by a powerful publishing company. Some 
> argue that
> >completely non-commercial fan fiction might be declared a fair use 
> if courts
> >get to decide. You can read more 
> >
> >7) "They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!" 
> >Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you 
> would usually
> >get sued, not be charged with a crime. "Innocent until proven 
> guilty" is a
> >principle of criminal law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable
doubt." 
> Sorry, but
> >in copyright suits, these don't apply the same way or at all. It's 
> mostly which
> >side and set of evidence the judge or jury accepts or believes 
> more, though the
> >rules vary based on the type of infringement. In civil cases you 
> can even be
> >made to testify against your own interests. 
> >
> >8) "Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?" 
> >Actually, recently in the USA commercial copyright violation 
> involving more
> >than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch 
> out. (At least
> >you get the protections of criminal law.) On the other hand, don't 
> think you're
> >going to get people thrown in jail for posting your E-mail. The 
> courts have
> >much better things to do. This is a fairly new, untested statute. 
> In one case
> >an operator of a pirate BBS that didn't charge was acquited because 
> he didn't
> >charge, but congress amended the law to cover that. 
> >
> >9) "It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising." 
> >It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If 
> they want
> >them, they will be sure to contact you. Don't rationalize whether 
> it hurts the
> >owner or not, ask them. Usually that's not too hard to do. Time 
> past, ClariNet
> >published the very funny Dave Barry column to a large and 
> appreciative Usenet
> >audience for a fee, but some person didn't ask, and forwarded it to 
> a mailing
> >list, got caught, and the newspaper chain that employs Dave Barry 
> pulled the
> >column from the net, pissing off everybody who enjoyed it. Even if 
> you can't
> >think of how the author or owner gets hurt, think about the fact 
> that piracy on
> >the net hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful 
> new technology
> >to do more than read other people's flamewars. 
> >
> >10) "They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it." 
> >To have a copy is not to have the copyright. All the E-mail you 
> write is
> >copyrighted. However, E-mail is not, unless previously agreed, 
> secret. So you
> >can certainly report on what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what 
> it says. You
> >can even quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody who 
> sues over an
> >ordinary message would almost surely get no damages, because the 
> message has no
> >commercial value, but if you want to stay strictly in the law, you 
> should ask
> >first. On the other hand, don't go nuts if somebody posts E-mail 
> you sent them.
> >If it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of minimal 
> commercial value
> >with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all E-mail), you probably 
> won't get any
> >damages if you sue them. Note as well that, the law aside, keeping 
> private
> >correspondence private is a courtesy one should usually honour. 
> >
> >11)"So I can't ever reproduce anything?" 
> >Myth #11 (I didn't want to change the now-famous title of this 
> article) is
> >actually one sometimes generated in response to this list of 10 
> myths. No,
> >copyright isn't an iron-clad lock on what can be published. Indeed, 
> by many
> >arguments, by providing reward to authors, it encourages them to 
> not just
> >allow, but fund the publication and distribution of works so that 
> they reach
> >far more people than they would if they were free or unprotected -- 
> and
> >unpromoted. However, it must be remembered that copyright has two 
> main
> >purposes, namely the protection of the author's right to obtain 
> commercial
> >benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the 
> author's
> >general right to control how a work is used. 
> >While copyright law makes it technically illegal to reproduce 
> almost any new
> >creative work (other than under fair use) without permission, if 
> the work is
> >unregistered and has no real commercial value, it gets very little 
> protection.
> >The author in this case can sue for an injunction against the 
> publication,
> >actual damages from a violation, and possibly court costs. Actual 
> damages means
> >actual money potentially lost by the author due to publication, 
> plus any money
> >gained by the defendant. But if a work has no commercial value, 
> such as a
> >typical E-mail message or conversational USENET posting, the actual 
> damages
> >will be zero. Only the most vindictive (and rich) author would sue 
> when no
> >damages are possible, and the courts don't look kindly on 
> vindictive
> >plaintiffs, unless the defendants are even more vindictive. 
> >The author's right to control what is done with a work, however, 
> has some
> >validity, even if it has no commercial value. If you feel you need 
> to violate a
> >copyright "because you can get away with it because the work has no 
> value" you
> >should ask yourself why you're doing it. In general, respecting the 
> rights of
> >creators to control their creations is a principle many advocate 
> adhering to. 
> >In addition, while more often than not people claim a "fair use" 
> copying
> >incorrectly, fair use is a valid concept necessary to allow the 
> criticism of
> >copyrighted works and their creators through examples. But please 
> read more
> >about it before you do it. 
> >
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >In Summary
> >
> >*        These days, almost all things are copyrighted the moment 
> they are written,
> >and no copyright notice is required. 
> >*        Copyright is still violated whether you charged money or 
> not, only damages
> >are affected by that. 
> >*        Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, 
> and don't grant you
> >any permission to do further copying except perhaps the sort of 
> copying the
> >poster might have expected in the ordinary flow of the net. 
> >*        Fair use is a complex doctrine meant to allow certain 
> valuable social
> >purposes. Ask yourself why you are republishing what you are 
> posting and why
> >you couldn't have just rewritten it in your own words. 
> >*        Copyright is not lost because you don't defend it; that's 
> a concept from
> >trademark law. The ownership of names is also from trademark law, 
> so don't say
> >somebody has a name copyrighted. 
> >*        Fan fiction and other work derived from copyrighted works 
> is a copyright
> >violation. 
> >*        Copyright law is mostly civil law where the special rights 
> of criminal
> >defendants you hear so much about don't apply. Watch out, however, 
> as new laws
> >are moving copyright violation into the criminal realm. 
> >*        Don't rationalize that you are helping the copyright 
> holder; often it's not
> >that hard to ask permission. 
> >*        Posting E-mail is technically a violation, but revealing 
> facts from E-mail
> >you got isn't, and for almost all typical E-mail, nobody could 
> wring any
> >damages from you for posting it. The law doesn't do much to protect 
> works with
> >no commercial value. 
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> >http://calendar.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 


====
But what life is without danger, really? [Jill Fredston, arctic
adventure's] father, Arthur Fredston, a courtly Manhattan attorney, was
walking near the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001.
Her mother, Elinor Fredston, was diagnosed with peritoneal cancer almost
six years ago.... So, compared with terrorism and cancer, what's an
occasional polar bear? --Michael Ryan

--- Rachel's Little NET2FIDO Gate v 0.9.9.8 Alpha