‘Economist’ rips me off

Interesting that the Economist recently used a quote from the portion of my January 16 interview with Khaled Meshaal that had been published on the Foreign Policy website, by agreement.
Hat-tip to eagle-eyed spouse for noticing that. (Okay, both of us tend to read our copy of the Economist fairly long after it lands in the mailbox.)
I’m still thinking about the intellectual property issues involved. Prima facie I would say the intellectual property rights to the quote reside with me. Perhaps with Meshaal himself? No. Because in granting me the interview, he was granting me the right to use his words– with, of course, due attribution.
Well, I gave (sold for a very small mess of potage, actually) some limited web-publication rights to FP. I would feel better about the Economist ripping me off if they had given even FP as the source, since then people would have at least known where to look for that portion of the longer interview. (The whole text of which, you can read here, btw.)
Well, it is true that the whole of the Economist is written and edited by a large gang of castrati who subsume their personas completely with that of their beneficent employer and never use bylines. So maybe they view questions of attribution and of ripping off other people’s work without attribution differently than the rest of humanity.
But still….
Anyway, FWIW I think they got their analysis significantly wrong in that article. They were trying to draw a clear distinction between Mahmoud Zahhar (= hardliner) and Khaled Meshaal (= not hardliner), and to stir up the idea that there’s a significant gap between their respective positions. I think they misunderstand the different roles the two men play.
But then, what do I know? All I am to them is an anonymous, quite rip-off-able nobody. And they are the new janissaries of the global era.

13 thoughts on “‘Economist’ rips me off”

  1. A quick clarification. I’m not saying that, for using a short quote like that, they should pay me. (Though hey, if they want to, why would I object?) But they should at least give me due attribution. The way they present the quote you’d think the Economist had gone to the trouble and expense of sending one of their own people to hang around in boring Damascus hotel rooms till s/he got the interview.

  2. When you say there is not a significant gap between Zahhar and Meshaal are you including this part of the account of the interview with Zahhar:
    “He repeatedly refers to Fatah as traitors and collaborators, and denies that the accord between Fatah and Hamas in Mecca last year entailed accepting the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s previous agreements with Israel—though other Hamas people have so implied. In any case, the PLO “does not represent a majority”.””
    Having interviewed both men, is it your belief that this basically represents a united Hamas position – ie that as the democratically elected government of the PA in 2006 it had no obligation to uphold agreements signed by the outgoing PA govt and which were subsequently internationally endorsed?

  3. I’m still thinking about the intellectual property issues
    Yap, no surprise of these thing, a complete country theft without shame and most of you cheered that in early stage in one way or another, but when it comes to personal level it is intellectual property issues.
    What about Iraqi how compensate them for their loses?

  4. BB,Fatah ARE collaborators. That’s why Israel and the U.S. want them to be on top. That is hardly a “hard line” view. It might even be a majority view. It certainly is among the Palestinians I know, none of whom is a Hamas supporter.

  5. Helena, ‘intellectual property’ is a largely meaningless term. What you have is copyright, on the entire article. Sorry to say that quotes are probably considered ‘Fair Use.’ Generally, it’s permissible to quote a small segment, but not the entire piece verbatim. Attribution is a professional courtesy in this case–if it’s on their website, perhaps you can contact them, and they can add one for you.
    Keep up the good work, and i’m looking forward to your book!

  7. Helena, on the intellectual property issue: I think there is, in most national laws about intellectual property, a right to quote from protected material, provided that the quotes are not excessive in length. I doubt it very much that you would have an actionable grievance here…
    Great blog btw!

  8. The absence of by-lines in The Economist is an editorial affectation of authority.
    Its readers acquiesce and even enjoy this pomposity. They and the editors should be lambasted with criticism. The “castrati” who work there for a living are the least to blame for the exploitative no-by-line policy. They are victims.
    I never read the rag.
    Pinching the products of your interview without attribution is just cheap bad behaviour. I should say that your own chances in litigation would be slim and not worth pursuing. Your pen would be a much more effective and satisfying weapon. In fact this post of yours is a measured and sufficient response in itself.
    The FP, which paid you a consideration, the size of which is not material to the case, would have a better claim against the Economist. A stiff lawyer’s letter from that quarter to the Economist might pull the latter up sharp, and make a point, and protect them and others from future raids of this kind.

  9. Its readers acquiesce and even enjoy this pomposity. They and the editors should be lambasted with criticism.
    I hardly think it’s necessary to insult the Economist’s readership this way, esp. since it clearly includes Helena and her husband (subscribers, no less).
    So its board ‘speaks with a collective voice’ — so what? So do the editorial pages of nearly every newspaper. So for that matter do most of the world’s political parties. Are they all ‘castrati’ for asking that their analysis be judged before their individual personalities?
    The identities of Economist’s editors are easily discovered through its website, which lists their names in its ‘media directory.’ Current Mideast editors are Peter David, Gideon lichfield, Max Rodenbeck and Xan Smiley. I don’t see how knowing this adds or subtracts from anything they’ve published under a collective by-line.

  10. The near-universal use of by-lines (which used to be reserved as a privilege – another kind of pomposity) has been a great advance for journalism and its relationship with its readers.
    The Economist is reactionary in this regard as in others. It appeals in general to a reactionary readership, by design.
    If you feel insulted by this obvious truth, it’s probably because the cap fits you, all too well.
    Toughies, mate.

  11. If you feel insulted by this obvious truth, it’s probably because the cap fits you, all too well.
    Dominic, whatever prompts you to address complete strangers in this extremely hostile manner? Try your best, but you’ll find it very hard to ‘insult me’ although I hope that isn’t your aim. If it is, I really do pity you. Spewing hostility at strangers isn’t a healthy pastime.
    Unlike Helena (who you have insulted) I don’t read the Economist at all, although not because I find their politics obnoxious. Personally I like to challenge my political views once in while. How can you expect to know the minds of ‘reactionaries’ if you refuse to read their journals? Or are ‘Economist’ readers all ignorant barbarians undeserving of your attention — knowing in advance what foul thoughts they’re circulating… you’re either a psychic or a forthright bigot.
    Anyway, their politics seems irrelevant to the issue of by-lines, which is common enough editorial policy in every newpaper in the world. The Economist has an editorial stance, and so does the ‘morning Star’, the people’s daily etc.

  12. i read the economist when it falls in my lap, just as i read the NYTimes. both are absolutely invaluable for knowing what (rather different) segments of the owning class think the world should know and think. they both also have better access to a significant number of people with power in the world than your average indymedia collective, or your average independent media rockstar journalist, which translates into interesting information.
    the economist’s anonymous writers are rather like the ‘skinless genderless man’ who has a cameo appearance in diane dimassa’s hothead paisan. allegedly generic and neutral, blatantly patriarchal and reactionary. like much of the magazine, it’s affected to the point of obnoxious, but quite revealing – which is more than one can say about most right-wing rags.
    but what makes ‘fair use’ fair is attribution. along the lines of “…wrote dominic while being snarky at vadim on helena cobban’s Just World News“. or, say, “… opined meshaal, in a recent interview with helena cobban”.
    legally: not a leg to stand on. fair use doctrine is dead & buried for all practical purposes.
    ethically is a whole nother story, but i wouldn’t count on anyone who self-identifies as a capitalist tool for ethics.

Comments are closed.