I done been violated, I think

[slappy4428]

Last night was the state's Mr. Football award... as deputy grand imperial poobah of the group giving the award, I wrote a press release that went out to all member papers and the AP after the banquet was over. About an hour after that, I followed it up with one story, including quotes, for the same group and provided a third story with more and different quotes and background for the daily I work for.

Am surfing the web this morning and find my copy on a website. The lead is rewritten, most the background and the quote used are solely mine; the website doesn't subscribe to AP and the credit reads "footballblab.com staff reports" of which I'm not.

What should I do? Anything? Nothing? I know footballblab.com didn't send anyone there and sure as hell didn't get the same quote I did down to the comma, since I used that quote in the story for the daily paper.

Not sure which bothered me more: This or the f-tard that used one of my credit cards to by 500 bucks worth of iTunes...

 

[93Devil]

If this was PR you were sending out, the newspaper or the .com did exactly what you wanted them to do with your story.

They printed it with their name (credibility to the story), they used canned quotes (nothing embarrassing) and they used the facts you provided (controlling the story).

I know this is a harmless little awards ceremony, but I wonder how often 90 percent of a press release about a player or coach getting into trouble turns into copy?

 

[slappy4428]

Actually, it's not a harmless little awards ceremony, and the quote (as I said) was NOT the canned quote but one that I used in the daily paper.
Actually, none of the quotes were canned, they were all from the event and real-time, so to speak.
Also, the people of .com were not on the list to receive the press release. They did use facts provided, word for word, but were not sent the information to use, word for word.
The more I think about it, the more the fine folks at footballblab.com stole my work.

 

[pseudo]

They copied the story off your newspaper's site, rewrote it, and credited .... themselves. Yeah, that sucks. As long as you can prove the quote was an exclusive (and it sounds like you can), sic 'em.

BLOGS !!!

 

[93Devil]

My fault. Yes, you were screwed with by the person ripping your quotes.

Will your paper have a problem with you writing a press release for this awards ceremony? That whole company time doing work for another party type of thing.

If not, I would report it.

 

[slappy4428]

My fault. Yes, you were screwed with by the person ripping your quotes.

Will your paper have a problem with you writing a press release for this awards ceremony? That whole company time doing work for another party type of thing.

If not, I would report it.

No, the event was at the paper and my work on the committee helps the paper. Until he changed jobs a year ago, the press release would have come from one of their writers in his capacity on this committee.

EDIT: I looked at it again. It was a quote in the story I wrote for the members of our association to use in their papers and not for the one in our daily. However, footballblab.com was not sent a copy of the release and it sure as **** ain't from their staff reports.

 

[dooley_womack1]

They just wanted your cookies

 

[lone star scribe]

Here's a question: Why would you not send the press release to footballblab.com, especially if you want to get the award the widest possible exposure?

 

[93Devil]

Here's a question: Why would you not send the press release to footballblab.com, especially if you want to get the award the widest possible exposure?

I did the same thing.

The quotes were from the story he wrote for his publication. They were not in the press release.

 

[slappy4428]

No, the quotes were in the press release. It was my bad.
However, the release was sent to A) member papers who could not attend (which footballblab.com is not a part of) and B) the Associated Press (which it does not subscribe to). It also passed off the work as "footballblab.com staff reports" which the story -- especially the quotes -- weren't.

 

[93Devil]

No, the quotes were in the press release. It was my bad.
However, the release was sent to A) member papers who could not attend (which footballblab.com is not a part of) and B) the Associated Press (which it does not subscribe to). It also passed off the work as "footballblab.com staff reports" which the story -- especially the quotes -- weren't.

Any SID or PR guy should be happy their quotes were used in print. Paid for or not.

What that PR person or SID should do is add the outlet that used the quotes to their mailing list.

Staff reports usually are PR flak, right?

 

[Fredrick]

I'd just forgetaboutit.

 

[lone star scribe]

In our shop, "Staff Reports" is code for "we took all these press releases, boiled them down to their newsworthiest essence, and rewrote them in something resembling our style."

As I said above, and 93-D concurred, solve the problem by adding footballblab.com to your release list next time.

 

[slappy4428]

The release went out to member papers in the group -- and we've established a sharing cooperative with scores and stories if needed. Give and take when needed
Said .com is all take, no give.
It probably wouldn't bother me except for the quote. And 93, I am neither an SID or PR flak. I am a reporter, quite uncomfortable seeing someone who should know better pawn off work -- including quotes -- as their own product, when it was not their own work, nor intended for use by .com.

 

[Rhody31]

It sounds to me like the releases were sent from you as the grand marshal. If this site took quote that ran in your paper that weren't on the press releases, it's bad.
This is really no big deal. The issue you have isn't this specific incident; it sounds like your more angry because they don't help you out the way you want.

 

[slappy4428]

It sounds to me like the releases were sent from you as the grand marshal. If this site took quote that ran in your paper that weren't on the press releases, it's bad.
This is really no big deal. The issue you have isn't this specific incident; it sounds like your more angry because they don't help you out the way you want.

Not entirely true, because we don;t want **** from them.
They weren't give the information for a reason; then passed it off as their own -- including quotes. More irksome than anything, and won't be forgotten.

 

[93Devil]

I think Moddy should input on this, Slap.

I think your definition of a release and my definition of a release are different. When I think "release" I think open to everyone, not just a selected few.

 

[wicked]

Only way this is OK is in the unlikely scenario that the site subscribes to AP -- and I'm guessing it doesn't.

 

[lone star scribe]

You're missing the point, Slap. The .com IS giving you something -- more exposure of your group's award, further validating it among the high school football cognoscenti. The .com is deeming it newsworthy, passing it along to its readers. Maybe you don't like how they cover the sport, but that's irrelevant. Why would you not want the widest possible exposure of your award?

 

[sporting_guista]

Rain down the lawyers on them