"Copy and Paste" on MP

I recently had a discussion via email with a fellow Mountain Project contributor about copy and pasting directly from other websites, i.e. Climb Europe. After going to an area to add some info and pictures I noticed that the area description sounded familiar (because I researched for this trip extensively online). I looked at the few websites where I found information on this climbing area and sure enough there was the description, word for word. I know that I am not the "Mountain Project Police" or anything but I decided to email this contributor and ask him why if he had climbed there did he not write his own description and logistics. Here is his reply copy and pasted from my email.

"People copy info all the time when it's good and reliable. Half the route and area descriptions on mountain project are copied almost word for word from guidebooks. I feel this creates a good "standard" description. Everyone is going to climb and feel differently about an area or route and that's what the comments section is for."

I let the conversation end there because I for one have added many areas and routes and every one of mine have been in my words with photos to match.

What do you all think about this?

plagiarism AND copyright violation

While this specific instance is probably clear-cut (theft!), be aware that there are a lot of legal / ethical situations here.

There's absolutely no reason not to copy / paste with the author's permission. But this permission may be granted via license rather than explicitly. If you find content in the public domain or with a permissive license, there's nothing wrong with moving it to MP. If content is controlled by a share-alike license (such as Wikipedia), then you're free to use it at MP but MP would be required to share back any modifications. This isn't a part of the MP license so you would be on shaky ground here. You could get the original author to give permission since this is a non-exclusive licensing situation. Similarly, MP does not require an exclusive license from its members so you could give permission to someone else to copy your contributions to MP elsewhere without the consent of MP. That's a good thing because I wouldn't contribute here if MP required an exclusive license.

Unfortunately you often have to go into "lawyer mode" to untangle all of this so it's usually best to either write your own material or get author's permission.

So in the end, know what you're doing before you steal stuff! I've done it myself, both with permission (A Guide to Ragged (1964)) and by assuming that content is in the public domain (

).

I copy Dough Hemken above.

Plagiarism is very serious. Don't do it!!!

WRT plagiarism: deliberately copying without attribution is always dodgy - it is fundamentally a misrepresentation.

WRT copyright: there are "fair use", "with permission", and public domain exceptions, but these all ought to give credit to the original author, otherwise they are plagiarism.

I have this to say:
While this specific instance is probably clear-cut (theft!), be aware that there are a lot of legal / ethical situations here.

There's absolutely no reason not to copy / paste with the author's permission. But this permission may be granted via license rather than explicitly. If you find content in the public domain or with a permissive license, there's nothing wrong with moving it to MP. If content is controlled by a share-alike license (such as Wikipedia), then you're free to use it at MP but MP would be required to share back any modifications. This isn't a part of the MP license so you would be on shaky ground here. You could get the original author to give permission since this is a non-exclusive licensing situation. Similarly, MP does not require an exclusive license from its members so you could give permission to someone else to copy your contributions to MP elsewhere without the consent of MP. That's a good thing because I wouldn't contribute here if MP required an exclusive license.

Unfortunately you often have to go into "lawyer mode" to untangle all of this so it's usually best to either write your own material or get author's permission.

So in the end, know what you're doing before you steal stuff! I've done it myself, both with permission (A Guide to Ragged (1964)) and by assuming that content is in the public domain (Photo).

People copy info all the time when it's good and reliable. Half the route and area descriptions on mountain project are copied almost word for word from guidebooks. I feel this creates a good "standard" description. Everyone is going to climb and feel differently about an area or route and that's what the comments section is for.

DannyUncanny wrote:People copy info all the time when it's good and reliable. Half the route and area descriptions on mountain project are copied almost word for word from guidebooks. I feel this creates a good "standard" description. Everyone is going to climb and feel differently about an area or route and that's what the comments section is for.

I had the reverse happen. I posted a route description to a website. Later, I saw it printing word for word in a guidebook that I paid for.

Though I was credited on the website, I did not get credit or acknowledgment in the printed book.

wivanoff wrote: I had the reverse happen. I posted a route description to a website. Later, I saw it printing word for word in a guidebook that I paid for. Though I was credited on the website, I did not get credit or acknowledgment in the printed book.

I've seen that done with a photo. By a guidebook author who fiercely guards his own work!

One or two little uncredited things is no big deal, but when it turns systematic ....

Within the context of route descriptions, copying information even from a published guidebook is not automatically a copyright violation.
Copyright is based on a idea/expression dichotomy- the idea and facts are public domain, the heart of the expression of that idea is not. Directly copying "blunt arete, 3rd route from the left, 8 bolts, no anchors" from a guidebook for a climb that is in fact on a blunt arete, 3rd route from the left with 8 bolts and has no anchors is not a copyright infringement, it is simply repeating the facts.
Gathering facts, such as the details on a route, only merits copyright protection if there is sufficient originality and creativity in how those facts are portrayed. The work put into gathering those facts does not create a copyrightable expression.

As long as you are only taking the facts- not the author's anecdotes or stories or some sort of creative and original expression- it is not copyright infringement, even if it is just a copy/paste deal.

That being said, follow the site Terms of Use. If they say use your own words, then don't copy/paste.

D. Durrant wrote:I recently had a discussion via email with a fellow Mountain Project contributor about copy and pasting directly from other websites, i.e. Climb Europe. After going to an area to add some info and pictures I noticed that the area description sounded familiar (because I researched for this trip extensively online). I looked at the few websites where I found information on this climbing area and sure enough there was the description, word for word. I know that I am not the "Mountain Project Police" or anything but I decided to email this contributor and ask him why if he had climbed there did he not write his own description and logistics. Here is his reply copy and pasted from my email. "People copy info all the time when it's good and reliable. Half the route and area descriptions on mountain project are copied almost word for word from guidebooks. I feel this creates a good "standard" description. Everyone is going to climb and feel differently about an area or route and that's what the comments section is for." I let the conversation end there because I for one have added many areas and routes and every one of mine have been in my words with photos to match. What do you all think about this?

D. Durrant wrote:I looked at the few websites where I found information on this climbing area and sure enough there was the description, word for word.... What do you all think about this?

Plagiarized contributions are not acceptable. If you tell me where these plagiarized contributions are I will remove them for you, and thanks for keeping an eye out for us.

Yer Gonna Die!

oh sorry, cut and pasted that one

Buff you are safe. Using common terminology doesn't fall in the plagiarism category. Phew!!!

I was so mad I made a map of this town when I was young and now Garmin has the same info posted. WTF

D. Durrant wrote:I think MP is better off if climbers post their own descriptions, I can buy a guidebook if I want another, more in depth description.

+1

I use MP for alternative info. Some guidebook authors rely on second-hand info for some of the routes so they could have more complete guides for the area in timely manner. This sometimes results in either vague or inaccurate beta. The MP is a great source to get first-hand info on the route from somebody who led it personally or from the FAs.

This topic has been addressed here before, and probably will be again. Here are a few comments I posted previously on this topic. They are longer winded then anything else I have posted, or care to post, however, I believe this to be an important topic for discusion for the climbing community, especially for those who wish to see quality guidebooks continue to be published.

Edit: None of this is intended to be a critisism of Mountain Project. This site brings climbers together to discuss climbing, among other things, and is a great contribution to the climbing community and we should all be grateful for MP :)

POST #1

OP - "I am curious how people feel about using a printed Guidebook's information for an area to create routes on MtnPrjct.............." 



Let's skip pass the discussion of what is legal, and forget what is ethical/moral toward a guidebook author and go directly to what is probably the most important question:



Is posting known route info to online resources, which is easily available from guidebooks, in the best LONG TERM interests of the climbing community? What is in YOUR best interest?



Please consider the consequences of continuing to "rip off" info published in climbing guidebooks and add the info to free climbing data bases when pondering this question.

The time, effort, and financial investment to produce a well researched guidebook is huge, with very little financial rewards. Certainly the amount of money to be made is far less than working for minimum wage, not to mention the financial risk of putting up the capital for gas, software, consulting, publishing and distribution. 
(For example, the guidebook I wrote took an investment of OVER 6,000 hours of direct research and production devoted strictly to this effort. That is the equivelant of working a 40 hour a week job 50 weeks a year for OVER THREE YEARS. It took much longer than three years due to having a "day" job and a family to raise though. Certainly not a minor investment in time and effort) 



Much of the time and effort involved in writing a guidebook is NOT devoted to documenting the well known 'trade' routes of an area. Much of the time of doing a well researched guidebook IS spent tracking down and actually interviewing the first ascentionists (Many that may not have even climbed for 40 years and now live far away) and then hunting down and climbing many long forgotten, obscure routes that come to light from this painstakingly time consuming process. I spent a not insignificant amount of $$ traveling to meet many first ascentionists of long forgotten, obscure routes and picking up the food/bar tab from these meetings/interviews in order to preserve the history of and document these routes.

By doing the necessary legwork to document these routes guidebook authors can "protect" these obscure, but historically worthy, routes from being retro bolted by subsequent over eager "first ascentionists" and hopefully set the historical record straight. (See camp4press.com for more info about upcoming guidebooks btw)



Most climbers do not have a personal knowledge of the first ascentionist info, or even knowledge if a route has ever been climbed for many obscure climbs, for a VAST majority of routes that they climb or would aspire to climb. This information was most likely, at least originally, gleaned from information that was painstakingly collected and published by a guidebook author who was hoping to not lose money on his effort. 

If route info that is available in guidebooks continues to be "ripped off" and placed on internet data bases (which allows climbers to use the efforts of the guidebook authors without contributing to the effort by purchasing a guidebook) then guidebook authors will quit putting in the effort to do well researched, comprehensive guidebooks. This includes posting "commonly known" route info because that "common knowledge" very likey originated from a guidebook authors work, and not from hearing about it directly from the first ascensionist. (Even climbing a route does not give a climber insight into the history of the route or what name was given to it)



In the case of my effort to do research I found that many, many routes were previously credited to the wrong first ascentionist as well as some notable routes being mislabeled in previous guidebooks and then passed on as being 'common knowledge" because it was in print or on data bases such as Mountain Project. 

Most climbers posting to internet sites probably are not willing to do the hard research that a good guidebook author does. If online resources continue to undercut guidebook authors then we will no longer see guidebooks being published, with the result being much of the historical lore will be lost forever and far fewer of the obscure climbs will be documented and very posssibly many fine obscure trad routes will be retro bolted over by newer generations of "first ascentionists". What we will be left with is a splattering of over crowded "trade" routes, which have easily found beta on these websites, because no one will be motivated to take the effort to document all of the more obscure routes anymore. 



For those that want to "do their part" go out and document routes, with verified info, that have never before been published/documented, instead of posting info readily found in a guidebook. That would be a much better service to all climbers who want to continue seeing comprehensive guidebooks printed. 



Online climbing forumns are great, but they should not be a substitute for well researched guidebooks. Online data bases should be reserved for posting new route activity, updates, and providing corrections to previously published routes. Leave route documentation to those willing to truly do their comprehensive homework and let the guidebook authors/publishers collect their 3 cents per route (1,300 routes x 3 cents per route = $39.00 of which the retailers take about 50% of, which actually comes out to 1.5 cents per route for the authors and publishers of a 1,300 route, full color, guidebook to share) It is small payment indeed for the service they provide to the climbing community imho.

POST #2

Brian- "I appreciate printed guidebooks. I also appreciate this site as a resource too. Its dynamic and can incorporate up to date information that a printed book cannot. I find it super useful."



I agree with this^^^ 




Twenty five years ago there were many "mom and pop' mountaineering shops stocked with everything a climber could ever want and staffed by people who KNEW climbing and climbing gear from first hand experience. Slowly the big box chain stores moved in and provided just enough generic gear (cheaper) to take away just enough business from the speciality climbing shops that they could no longer stay in business. Now most of the great climbing shops are all gone and we are the worse for it imo. No shops full of speciality climbing gear that you can actually put your hands on or get in depth information from a knowledgeable local climber working there. Sure you can get the basic generic type stuff from a kid that probably doesn't even know how to tie a figure eight, and it is cheap and convenient.



Posting just enough info (lifted from a guidebook as the op proposed) has some similar issues. Guidebooks are a low volume, very tenuous, financial proposition to start with. Guidebooks (historical research) are supported by not only the climber who bags 200 days of climbing a year at his local crag and climbs every obscure route there is, but also by the climber just passing through who needs some route beta for the weekend. Guidebook authors, and publishers, need even these infrequent users to purchase guidebooks to make a guidebook even a break even scenario. Posting just enough route info, which was lifted from a guidebook in this scenario, about a select number of routes at an area which will convince enough of these "casual" climbers to use the incomplete data online, instead of supporting the guidebook efforts by purchasing a copy may take just enough sales away to make guidebooks impossible to be even a break even scenario. (The commercial printing setup costs to print full color guidebooks would probably surprise most climbers, and the printing is a certain money losing proposition without a certain number sold) 



Rarely are there well researched stories attached to route info in online data bases, and even first ascent info is largely left out. If there is detail it usually is of the sort "place the #2 camalot three feet above the horn before stepping your right foot up, blah, blah, blah." If we squeze guidebooks out we may lose much of the history and insight that guidbooks provide, which would be a shame.



What is the purpose of taking info from an easily found guidebook and posting it? To save someone a few bucks so they don't have to support a guidebook for an area? Is the $$ saved really worth it in the long run if well researched guidebooks cease to be written?



There are plenty of new routes and old obscure ones that have never been documented that would be good to post up about, (That actually takes some initiative) that would be more productive than posting info that was obtained through the work in an existing guidebook.



Guidebook authors do not need guidebooks, certainly not financially, and they already know the beta for the region. Imho we aught to treat the long time local climbers that write guidebooks for us as treasures, not try to rip off and torpedo their effort. Having gone through the experience of doing one, I know that I am very thankful to all the authors that have written the guidebooks I have used over the years and I hope those with unique knowledge of climbing regions continue to produce quality, well researched guidebooks.



And..... I hope online sources continue to contribute new information and historical content as well..... :-)



POST #3 (A partial out take from a different discussion)

It is important for climbers to realize that Mountain Project, for all it's good intentions, has destroyed the possibility for producing an, economically viable, guidebook in certain parts of the country by posting up to much info taken from published guidebooks. Has not happened in Northern California yet, but it could.

Once enough route info about a region is posted on the net (usually originally gleaned by the efforts of a guidebook author at some point in the past) climbers don't feel the need to buy a guidebook. Not enough guidebook sales to even break even on the production/setup costs = no more guidebooks = authors not going out and doing the time consuming task of researching, publishing the obscure, moderate routes that no one knows about=everyone climbing the same old trade routes that everyone already knows about. (and rarely does anyone do the hard reseach on the history of a route, unless it is readily available from a guidebook, in order to include it on MP)


Posting new info on MP is great, however, posting info available from the hard work of a guidebook author may not be in the long term interest of the climbing community. One overzealous person (or a collection of individuals working separately) could, in theory, destroy the economic viability for a new guidebook to EVER again be updated for a region. Certainly a topic for discusion anyhow.

POST #4 (Partial out take from same discussion as post above)

Part of the other comment, not directed at this post btw, probably was spurred by a very recent experience I had.

A prospective guidebook author approached me about assisting (producing/publishing/financing) a guidebook project which he had been collecting new route info for in a region I am not really familiar with (a region in Southern California) I contacted a few places that might have a feel for the need/marketability of a new guidebook for their region. ALL of the responses I got were that "climbers around here do not buy guidebooks anymore, they just use Mountain Project". A real shame because the guy did have some interesting/unique new areas/routes to put in an updated book. However, it is very likely that the info would very quickly get added to the MP site for that region, based on how much info (probably originally put out in a guidebook) that had previously been added, and thereby rendering the guidebook a financial impossibilty. (The initial setup costs for a full color, quality guidebook are far more than most would ever expect and just printing a few hundred copies is financially out of the question) 



Just hoping that never happens here in Northern California, as we have an exciting series of "LOCALS GUIDE" guidebooks for Northern California in the works from various authors and are hoping the internet sites do not make publishing them, and documenting all the really fun new crags, financially prohibitive by killing the guidebook sales. Not only does that hurt the authors, but it hurts the retailers/shops (whom reap the majority of the profits, unless the book is purchased through a direct website) Even in the best of circumstances it is hard to just break even, as the numbers are still relatively small vs the initial cost outlay of commercial printing. 


there are way too many words in that cut and paste

I disagree with many of the posts in here, I do not believe it is plagiarism if you copy and paste information AND cite the source. I mean, that is pretty much what college writing is all about. Just about any academic paper will contain information that did not directly come from the student, and that is perfectly fine as long as it is properly cited in accordance with APA or MLA standards. In fact, if you were to submit a research paper that was entirely written by yourself, with no references or citations, you would probably receive a failing grade.

John Marsella wrote:I agree that much of academic writing uses ideas or information already made by other authors to elaborate on one's own, preferably new, topic; however if one thinks that means "copy, paste, and cite" is acceptable, perhaps he wasn't writing top quality papers in college? A good writer takes the information previously presented by others and distills it into his own words, citing the originator of the thought she has paraphrased; in some situations, direct quoting better conveys the thought/information, but there are certainly formatting considerations that elevate this type of quotation above simple copy and paste (as you have noted, i.e., MLA/APA/CMoS). Of course, the basis of the above comment is 100% accurate: citing the source removes the specter of plagiarism; however, it doesn't make it good form. Also, how many of the copy/pasted MP entries include a hyperlink to the original, or a citation (ie, author, title, page number, etc, style guides be damned) of the printed guidebook?

Of course simply copy and pasting info from Wikipedia and calling that your paper is crap work. I don't know any professor that would let that slide. My university states that no more then 20% of a student's paper can be direct quotations. My papers normally contain 0-2% direct quotes as I pretty much just paraphrase if needed, rather than directly quote. But the basis of a research paper is normally constructed by using another writer's ideas and expanding off of them; or at least my papers are. My school expects that I would use the library to learn the basics about my topic, and then expand off of the basic references using my own research and data. If I were to just jump into a paper and start writing about the topic with no supporting references to lay down the groundwork, I would get an F. The only exception would be if I was a subject matter expert on the topic, in which, less references would be required.

But my point is that although copy and pasting info is not the best way to go about things, as so long as you properly cite the information, it is not plagiarism. Plagiarism refers to coping another writer's work and attempting to pass it off as your own.

20 kN wrote: Plagiarism refers to coping another writer's work and attempting to pass it off as your own.

That's right. If the cut and pasted Mountain Project pages had citations to the original sources, then that wouldn't be plagiarism. It's still copyright infringement though, which the site owners should be much more concerned about now that they're selling the site's content (i.e., the mobile app). It's no longer fair use. Moreover, John Jackson is right. What will the cut and pasters do when local climbers can no longer afford to write guide books because everybody uses Mountain Project?

For both legal and ethical reasons - and for the long term survival of the guide book - Mountain Project suggests we write original descriptions based on our experience. However, it sounds like there are plenty of people still lifting content from other sources. My suggestion: get rid of the inane "points" system; it's an incentive to upload pointless pictures, make stupid comments on route descriptions, and substitute guide book descriptions for first hand experience. And it gains us very little.

Kalil Oldham wrote: That's right. If the cut and pasted Mountain Project pages had citations to the original sources, then that wouldn't be plagiarism. It's still copyright infringement though, which the site owners should be much more concerned about now that they're selling the site's content (i.e., the mobile app). It's no longer fair use. Moreover, John Jackson is right. What will the cut and pasters do when local climbers can no longer afford to write guide books because everybody uses Mountain Project? For both legal and ethical reasons - and for the long term survival of the guide book - Mountain Project suggests we write original descriptions based on our experience. However, it sounds like there are plenty of people still lifting content from other sources. My suggestion: get rid of the inane "points" system; it's an incentive to upload pointless pictures, make stupid comments on route descriptions, and substitute guide book descriptions for first hand experience. And it gains us very little.

You are actually against the best things about this site such as current conditions beta, grade consensus (both from those stupid comments), FREE route descriptions, and pics that inspire or point you to the right route? Tough crowd. Clearly you've never experienced the plethora of piece of shit guidebooks that contain inaccurate route descriptions, faulty gear recs, missing or inaccurate approach and descent beta, and crap photos. There are many crappy guidebooks out there and there used to be no real remedy for it until sites like this one. Well, just bitching about the "book of lies" and such ;).

We can both support guidebooks (I own $1,000s of dollars worth), while also supporting one of the best sources for free beta out there. It's simple-minded to think otherwise and solely dedicate ourselves to a format that is being outmoded. Guidebooks eat up trees, wear out, don't provide current beta, and may reflect the equally inane point of view of whoever beg, borrowed, or stole the information in the first place.

I would like to say a big thanks to the many guidebook authors whose books I have enjoyed and used throughout the years, lest they think I have it in for them. There is the sticky wicket of the leg work it takes to get the history and accurate information that John Jackson alludes to, of course, and that is an invaluable use for guidebooks. I'll still be buying guidebooks for many years to come, I'm sure! But when the FA actually chimes in on a route description on mproject.com, or authors the description here him or herself? Awesome! Isn't getting the routes out there more important than the medium? And if you think cliques haven't played petty games using guidebooks as weapons by excluding certain FAs or straight-up lieing, you would be sorely mistaken.

Many areas have wallowed for years while the forthcoming guidebook never materializes. What loss in excitement for route development and denial to the community of a resource is served when that very real scenario occurs? Additionally, areas such as Needles, CA - real jewels of climbing - do not have an in-print guidebook, so online beta is the ONLY real source for these treasures. Personally, I want to climb, not wait around for years while somebody "gets around to it".

The person describing a route does not own the route or the experience of climbing it, that belongs to all of us. If you want to get your information from interpretive dance, word of mouth, binary code, or good old fashioned reading, I'm sure the rocks will care just as much. Better yet, just throw the damn guides out and climb what you can climb, lie about what you couldn't, and enjoy the day ;).

Also, big props to those guidebooks that donate proceeds back to the crags they publicize or ACCESS Fund and are truly helping safeguard the resource.