Copyright Flora Breen Robison 

 

Because Writers Hubpages is dealing with all their hubs published word for word  in the last 72 hours and counting-no matter what the subject and even if  the name is listed with copyright -I am taking this opportunity to share the articles I wrote on HP about My Biography Being Stolen. 

This Following  Is The Body of My Hub As Is, Without Photographs, As It was When I Last Updated It. However, I have found My Biography on all kinds of Websites And Have Had to Deal With Them Since  Then

 

September 30th, 2011 9pm update: Victory is mine.

Finally, I have gotten the person in question removed from Imagekind.com. I took a lot of hassle on my part. I have no idea why the website is automated and why they needed proof from me that they needed to remove the username when he was selling ambien anyway. But the website did indeed take down the content, so I am adding this new information. . Just because it has been removed does not mean I can relax my vigilance. I will continue to monitor my name on Google to see if this person tries to sign up on any new website with my biography.

 

Thus, this issue has been resolved with Imagekind. But they still need to improve their moderating system to secure their site. They need a real person moderating new members. automation cannot tell who is a legitimate person and who is a scammer.

 

The article as it appeared earlier in the afternoon on September 30th:

UPDATE ON MY BIOGRAPHY BEING STOLEN: September 30th, 2011 at1pm.

Note: I know that you have to prove that work is copyrighted to you in a legal form and provide proof to the main website that the work belongs to you. This article is not about that. It is about the fact that that a legitimate art website doesn’t seem to mind that there is a user on its site who wants to sell sleeping pills even if Flora Breen Robison were a fictional character.

I am sick and tired hiding the name of the person who has stolen my biography on several sites. most of these sites have banned the user where my biography was used, but he (?) continues to join new sites and these sites have my biography written up as his. I am very angry and not just at him, but at a particular website that merely deleted my biography from his profile page but allowed the user to stay on the site. The user has since retyped in my biography in the first two paragraphs of it onto his Imagekind’s profile page.

The username is ralphwooten1222. You will find this person all over the web. Type my name Flora Breen Robison and his/her page at Imagekind still appears on the first page, and very near the top. This person may be male or female. This person’s primary focus is to sell ambien. Even if there was no mention of my bipgraphy at all on the person’s profile, it would stand to reason that you wouldn’t want a person selling ambien on your legitimate art site. Correct?

No. So far, ever other site that has had my biography under this person’s name has banned the person without getting back to me by personal email, because my contacting them has notified them that this person is trying to sell sleeping pills and their site is about movies, birds, or books, etc. and not about sleeping pills.

And yet Imagekind in their response to my second contact with them-following the original biography merely being deleted with no reply from them beyond an automated response that they had read my request-was a list of things I need to do to prove that my biography is mine.

 

In part, their reply to me was as follows:

 

“Thank-you for contacting Imagekind. As you may know, Imagekind.com provides an automated service to a rich and vibrant community of users. [my comment-there is no art on his page] Unfortunately, because our service is automated, sometimes content that is not consistent with our Content Usage Policy is posted on Imagekind.com. Please provide the following information so that we can take appropriate action…”

 

Ignore for the moment the issue of copyright. Pretend that issue doesn’t exist. Why is an art site automated? And why do the web owners not care that a person called ralphwooten1222 has a webpage on their site with the title Larry Vaughn art, no art shown, and a biography that does not match ralphwooten or Larry Vaughn? A person who, if they took the time to Google the user name would see that-even if I personally did not exist-this person sells ambien, not artwork and is not a legitimate artist, art lover, or art agent?

 

I do not understand. It is one thing to have spam on your site that you do not know is there. But when it is pointed out to you, why should your response be, regardless of who pointed it out to you, that the person complaining needs to prove that the work belongs to her?

This tells potential customers who want to use your site that your site is not secure-no matter what your TOS states.

Advertisements