I see errors on both sides here.
First, way back when the initial email was exchanged (about the summary of Lyle's stuff), Lyle's response should have been "send me a copy of what you want to publish first, please, and we can go from there." Instead, he gave AC very brief directions of how to cite him--that's implied consent. Without giving more specific directions of when and how and where and how often those ideas could be used and reused, an argument for blanket approval for use of content could be made. As someone (Cynic?) said, the most prudent step would have been for one of them to get an intellectual property attorney to draw up papers for a very specific agreement, but that didn't happen. If someone had approached me to use something I had written, I would, at the very least, want to see what was going to be written before it was published, and I darn sure would be checking out the published product to make sure that what I had approved is what what published. In fact, I would have requested/required a galley or pre-release copy just to make sure of it.
It looks like AC/MR committed unintentional plagiarism in WSFL because of the missing credit paragraph. Clearly, whoever wrote the "summary" needs a new definition of summary, but as a writer, proofreader, and teacher, let me tell you that many many people see "summary" as something similar to what AC did. Incorrect, sure, but not evil.
All of this, in my mind, comes back to one of the problems in this fitness industry--the downloadable product. These books don't seem to be subject to the same level of scrutiny--proofreading, editing, facts checking--that would happen with a traditional publisher. You can bet that if I was putting my name on something, I would check, check, and double-check to make sure that all of the i's were dotted and t's crossed.
|