The Auswine Forum

From the Penfolds thread ....

GraemeG wrote:Oliver (or whomever) has written, say, a 50-word tasting note. And a two digit score (3 if it's really, really, good). All Brian has posted that's copyright that I can see is the score. One 2-digit character only out of 50 words. That's 2% of the 'material' at best, less if you're counting individual letters! Intent is irrelevant. Anytime someone quotes from copyright material - whether fair use or not - it's to impart information.

Brian posted the score - and whose score it was.

Now here's another scenario. Say someone in a wine store now uses that tasting note - to sell the wine naturally - and to impart information - the wineries do it all the time as a good tasting note from a wine writer and a good score is marketing material. So long as they quote the source, I call that fair use, and it does indeed impart information.

But what about when they do it without disclosing the source? What about when a wine retailer (not our Gav of course) uses the note as their own? What about if they use a note a winewriter has written, and use it for the same wine and brand but for a completely different vintage?

Can you trust a wine retailer who claims to their customers that the notes they have sent out in their mailer are their own, but customer finds an identical tasting note for a previous vintage written three years before, then retailer claims that original note for previous vintage plagiarised their note?

It seems to me this is misleading and totally unfair use.

Oh yes - I have a great example. And I'm looking for more from the same retailer.

Non disclosure of the source is a breach of copyright.

Saying it's their own is also a breach.

Attributing a TN to the wrong vintage is unethical.

Taking tasting notes out of context is also unethical.

Can people do this be trusted? No way.

TORB wrote:Non disclosure of the source is a breach of copyright.

Saying it's their own is also a breach.

Attributing a TN to the wrong vintage is unethical.

Taking tasting notes out of context is also unethical.

Can people do this be trusted? No way.

I agree. We always ask permission from the reviewer to quote tasting notes.

Sue

I can think of 4 or 5 retailers who have quoted my tasting notes with no reference to myself or website in the last few months.

For me I thought about it for a while, deciding whether to go down 'that track' of complaining, spitting tacks etc etc. I decided in the end not to bother, and to not care so much. I think it is sloppy and sometimes manipulative work by retailers but in the end i have nothing to gain by getting upset over it.

That however is my personal decision and im not saying that it should be the same for everyone.

Attributing a TN to the wrong vintage is unethical.

Ive had worse, ive had shelf talkers with my tasting notes a) with no reference to me or site, b) against the wrong vintage and wrong wine!! c) Attributed as 'winemakers notes' If I started caring too much I probably couldnt sleep with all the sloppy promotion that occurs by retailers after a quick buck.

I've noticed this sort of thing quite a few times.

The more devious extension is using the TN and even attributing it, but leaving out the (slightly) negative bits.

Well, I call that devious or deceptive advertising, but the particular e-tailer I outed for doing it objected to my question as to whether is was either sloppy of devious. It's obviously a deliberate attempt to improve the potential for sale of the wine by leaving out anything that could detract from the wine. Maybe you would avoid the wine if you saw the left-out bits of the TN: "Quite a reserved nose," at the front and "Full bodied and very young with firmish tannins that need a year or two. Not one if you are averse to Viognier characteristics." at the end.

The practice will continue as long as the authors let them get away with it.

Craig(NZ) wrote:I can think of 4 or 5 retailers who have quoted my tasting notes with no reference to myself or website in the last few months.

Ha ha, didn't want people to know the points were out of 109, not 100, makes it look much better. You've unleashed another way to fool the gullible public.

Craig(NZ) wrote:Sue

I can think of 4 or 5 retailers who have quoted my tasting notes with no reference to myself or website in the last few months.

I wouldn't have known, except for a consumer who was looking for a back up rave review of a wine promoted in a retailer's email after having a couple of dodgy experiences from previous purchases with the retailer. She searched the Internet and found my notes written 3 years earlier for the previous vintage (2001). She asked the retailer, who said they were their own notes and I must have copied them! She then asked me if I wrote my own notes and deduced from the dates (as I date every tasting note) that mine were indeed the original.

What upset me about this is not that they used my notes, but

a/ they used it for a wrong vintage wine
b/ they firmly averred to the consumer who complained, that the notes were their own and asked her was using 'their'descriptions. But they later told me the wine description must have come from the wine company
c/ they misled the consumers.

Incidentally after a few emails between myself and the retailer, they pulled 'my' wine description off their website, but it still went out in an email to consumers and has left this particular consumer wondering how many other tasting notes are 'plagiarised'.

Oh yes, they left out the slightly negative bit (about the Brett) but that subsequent vintage may not have had Brett. And the wine has a score of 91/100. I wonder where that came from.

They also told me that they and an airline were the ones who had this wine - but that must be in Australia, as the previous vintage was available in NZ as I tasted it, and it is/was also available in the USA.

I think if a retailer is using the producers's tasting notes for marketing, they should totally declare that. If they are using a winewriter's tasting notes, they should declare that too. If they are giving scores to wines - as they have on some of the wine reviews, they should declare whose score it is.

And if they are the only retailer of the wine in Australia and it is USA export surplus, how can it be "was $22, now $9.70".

Ha ha, didn't want people to know the points were out of 109, not 100, makes it look much better. You've unleashed another way to fool the gullible public.

Dear Mr R (yawn) B. If you want to confess the fact you cant count to 109, or understand the beauty of the mathmatical perfection behind rating out of 109, then start a seperate thread please.

Im sure interested parties (that counts me out) will then be able to offer you the appropriate counselling

Incidentally after a few emails between myself and the retailer, they pulled 'my' wine description off their website, but it still went out in an email to consumers and has left this particular consumer wondering how many other tasting notes are 'plagiarised'.

Sue, plagarism is rife. your story does not surprise me at all. ive seen some of my notes doctored/ added to/ changed to suit whatever barrow retailers want to push and im sure it is the same for basically anyone who pens anything on wine.

For me, although it is just a little annoying i have nothing to gain by making a scene and pissing off retailers who at the end of the day get me the wine that i want to buy, or run the tastings i want to attend etc etc.

Let the buyer beware and all. How often do we see advertised "best ever vintage", "last year was stellar, this year is even better". Its amazing!! every vintage is getting better! imagine how good wines will be in 50 years time!!

Its exactly why now i ignore so much wine prose, my own taste buds and the opinion of ordinary grounded people is what i listen to

Craig(NZ) wrote:

Ha ha, didn't want people to know the points were out of 109, not 100, makes it look much better. You've unleashed another way to fool the gullible public.

Dear Mr R (yawn) B. If you want to confess the fact you cant count to 109, or understand the beauty of the mathematical perfection behind rating out of 109, then start a seperate thread please.

Im sure interested parties (that counts me out) will then be able to offer you the appropriate counselling

No confession, no new thread, no surprise you don't care about how other people may be affected by misuse of stuff you author.

SueNZ wrote:And if they are the only retailer of the wine in Australia and it is USA export surplus, how can it be "was $22, now $9.70".

Must be about time for Ric and I to update this one from 2004, there are a few new tricks around these days:
http://www.torbwine.com/pa/2004/The%20G ... Play.shtml

And don't get me started on the dubious practices of a certain big Auction House that sells a lot of remaindered wine.

no surprise you don't care about how other people may be affected by misuse of stuff you author.

shall i cry the points lemmings a river?? my heart is bleeding

in my country the government continually goes as far as even legislating to protect the dumbest of the dumb from themselves/harm. I however do not subscribe to that theory.

let the buyer beware

Red Bigot wrote:

SueNZ wrote:And if they are the only retailer of the wine in Australia and it is USA export surplus, how can it be "was $22, now $9.70".

Must be about time for Ric and I to update this one from 2004, there are a few new tricks around these days:
http://www.torbwine.com/pa/2004/The%20G ... Play.shtml

And don't get me started on the dubious practices of a certain big Auction House that sells a lot of remaindered wine.

Thanks Brian - I may link to this article if that's OK.

Sue, it's Ric's article, although I contributed, I don't think he'll mind you linking to it.

I'll work on an update for it while he's busy with the Vic Tour Diary.

Sue, fine by me.

Brian, Good on ya! I am up to my elbows in Tour Diary materials.

this happens to us regularly.
our notes turn up in newspaper and online ads.

one website even thought it was appropriate to directly copy about a dozen online articles, and then pretended they didnt know about it!

I know a retailer that uses reviews which are credited to the author (which is good) but change the score attributed to the wine (a bad thing in my book).

I know a retailer that uses reviews which are credited to the author (which is good) but change the score attributed to the wine (a bad thing in my book).

yeah appears to be the 'state of the nation' - dodgy little retailers they are!! (gavin aside of course)