Posted By:
davidcyclebackI am not accusing any individual of anything. The book had multiple authors and perhaps editors, and different authors, editors and contributors may have contributed in different and isolated from each other areas. My dad used to co-write engineering textbooks and said that, on some books, different profesesors would contribute different chapters. While the book would be edited and read by the others professors, a specific author was largely responsibible for his personal chapters. In other words, in a group effort book, if an individual says he had nothing to do with this or that part of the book, that is perfectly plausible. It's possible that misattribution is an error or omission of the editor or publisher, not the authors.
Again, I am only saying that that I feel I deserved due credit in the book, as I feel the book is largely based upon my previously pubilshed work and the book would not have been in its present form without me. It's not that I'm a head case, but I work hard writing and reseraching and my only real compensation is to get credit when the work is used. MastroNet trumpeting itself as the photo experts due to what I feel is my unattributed work is what bothers me. If, on page 22 (random number), they said, "We used Cycleback's guide in the researching of small section" or named my guide in 6 size font in a bibiography, there wouldn't be an issue today. I don't ask for the moon. But, if you don't want to properly credit the creator of the information you use to write your book, then don't use the information.