Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Elamarna 20 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Elamarna 33 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by David Orsam 39 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Debra A 52 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Debra A 54 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Elamarna 1 hour and 6 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (73 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (27 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (9 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: The Golden State Serial Killer - (7 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Was Whitechapel really any worse than other areas of London? - (3 posts)
Witnesses: Pearly Poll's Husband - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Media > Audio -- Visual > Rippercast

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-17-2018, 01:22 AM
PaulB PaulB is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,461
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
I've sometimes been by an author wanting to cite my posts if they should use my message-board alias or not. I usually tell them to go ahead and use my real name, which is Karen Trenouth.


(Only kidding! That's a joke for Jon Menges' benefit )
You can't pretend you're joking, Karen. Your secret is out now.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-17-2018, 03:14 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,628
Default

When i first joined the Casebook, for no reason at all, i found myself referring to ‘Sam’ as ‘she’ until i was corrected by Abby i believe
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-17-2018, 04:12 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulB View Post
You can't pretend you're joking, Karen. Your secret is out now.
Curses! I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky kids!
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-17-2018, 04:51 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,828
Default

Hi all
The question of using information from forums and online in general is indeed interesting to say the lesst.

I beleive so long as the original researcher is credited there should be no issue if it's just a passing mention, if the research is on an public site that is!

However in my up coming work on Bucks Row, anything more than a passing comment, as resulted in my asking for permission to quote, and being the people we are none have objected.
Indeed in the modern age of interactive Ebooks, links to any site not behind a paywall require no permission at all according to the European Court of Justice.
Of course it's best to link directly to the site and not place the content in a frame.

My own research on Casebook and on JtR Forums I Am more than happy for others to use as long as they mention me. Indeed that was the aim.

I guess my view is if it's on a public forum it's asking to be used in this day and age.
For good or ill technology has already made copyright somewhat unenforceable.
If something can be displayed on a screen it can be copied.
Such of course could be detrimental to future research, for that reason we need to be responsible and all serious authors should I beleive ask for permission even if it's not strictly required by law.
Paul I note in his impressive work gives full credit to each source.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-17-2018, 05:00 AM
Steadmund Brand Steadmund Brand is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Buffalo New York area
Posts: 524
Default

I have used Casebook and the like for research in the past, but when I have I have always contacted the poster asking permission, and if they do not respond I didn't use it..

I have also had my own research taken and used without being asked, I chalk it up to my own fault for publicly posting something, but still think it's unethical at best

Steadmund Brand
__________________
"The truth is what is, and what should be is a fantasy. A terrible, terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago."- Lenny Bruce
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-17-2018, 05:09 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,828
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steadmund Brand View Post
I have used Casebook and the like for research in the past, but when I have I have always contacted the poster asking permission, and if they do not respond I didn't use it..

I have also had my own research taken and used without being asked, I chalk it up to my own fault for publicly posting something, but still think it's unethical at best

Steadmund Brand
I agree, but would draw a line around for instance mentioning research say " x as done work on this subject" and give a ref or link to that research. If the research is to be discussed in any detail I ask.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-17-2018, 09:02 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 238
Default

An important and thorny topic, but all these posts are from the perspective of the internet poster. What about the other side of the equation? ie., someone who is keeping their research "under wraps," but wakes one morning and sees similar raw material being posted on-line? (There are a lot of people fishing in the same waters). Are they now required to give credit to someone on the internet for material that they themselves had independently discovered months or even years previously? It's a tricky issue. I see posters doing extremely detailed research, and "connecting the dots." Debra A., for instance. This obviously should be acknowledged if one was to refer to it in a published text. But if someone is just reprinting a document or a census return or a newspaper article, who is to say that they "discovered" this, rather, than 50 other people who are also combing the same data bases? To give an example. Many years ago I found what I consider to be an extremely important article. I never reprinted it, though I did send a copy to a very well-known Ripper author. It has since found its way on-line, although it's been basically ignored and misunderstood. If I ever use it in a published article, it will no doubt look as though I found this "on-line," but such is not the case. How would you personally handle this situation? And is it really in the best interest of historical research to rush to the internet with raw data in hopes of "staking a claim?" I don't know. I don't have any concrete answers, and it raises a lot of tricky questions in our new age where a person can "publish" something within minutes.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-17-2018, 12:46 PM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 3,061
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
An important and thorny topic, but all these posts are from the perspective of the internet poster. What about the other side of the equation? ie., someone who is keeping their research "under wraps," but wakes one morning and sees similar raw material being posted on-line? (There are a lot of people fishing in the same waters). Are they now required to give credit to someone on the internet for material that they themselves had independently discovered months or even years previously? It's a tricky issue. I see posters doing extremely detailed research, and "connecting the dots." Debra A., for instance. This obviously should be acknowledged if one was to refer to it in a published text. But if someone is just reprinting a document or a census return or a newspaper article, who is to say that they "discovered" this, rather, than 50 other people who are also combing the same data bases? To give an example. Many years ago I found what I consider to be an extremely important article. I never reprinted it, though I did send a copy to a very well-known Ripper author. It has since found its way on-line, although it's been basically ignored and misunderstood. If I ever use it in a published article, it will no doubt look as though I found this "on-line," but such is not the case. How would you personally handle this situation? And is it really in the best interest of historical research to rush to the internet with raw data in hopes of "staking a claim?" I don't know. I don't have any concrete answers, and it raises a lot of tricky questions in our new age where a person can "publish" something within minutes.
I think that it would be ridiculous to credit individual newspaper and census entries posted to the boards. There is no way of knowing who found something first when anyone can access the material. Newspaper articles are regularly 'rediscovered.'
I was wondering more about researchers who post original research in its entirety on the boards, where they have discovered something previously unknown through that research and shared it on the message boards for discussion, rather than writing an article or dissertation. Sometimes the ongoing research will be posted over several different threads. If that researcher's new findings were used by an author in a book, I wondered if a general acknowledgement at the beginning of a book would be acceptable or should the specific information be credited directly to that researcher?
__________________
,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

Last edited by Debra A : 04-17-2018 at 01:07 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.