CATEGORIES
- WEB STARTUPS
- WEB NEWS
- CONFERENCES
- WEB TECH JOBS
- VENTURE CAPITAL
- MICROSOFT
- INTERVIEWS
- ADVERTISING
- VIDEO
- ALL TOPICS
- ALL COMPANIES
CONTRIBUTORS
- ADRIAN CHAN
- ALICIA NAVARRO
- ALLEN STERN-EDITOR
- CORSIN CAMICHEL
- DARREN HERMAN
- HANK WILLIAMS
- MARK DAVIS
- RICK TUROCZY
- SANFORD DICKERT
- SHANNON CLARK
Copyright Enforcement - how much lifting is ok before the referee calls a foul?
Written by Allen Stern - January 14, 2007
Let me start by saying that I love getting links. Yes, they are great for SEO purposes, but I like them because it makes me believe that people are actually reading what I write and then linking because they either agree or disagree. I check my stats hundreds of times during the day and check every single referrer to try to participate in the discussion no matter which side the author is on. Now let's talk about copyright and the potential for a referee to call a foul.
I authored an article on Saturday morning, "True cost of an iPhone". It was well received overall, hit the Digg home page for 14 minutes before being buried (as usual) and has received a bunch of links. Technorati shows 5 links (which isn't complete) as of this post.
What I struggle with is how much copy should be lifted from the original post to the sites that link in? My policy is (except in very rare cases) when companies send me their releases to lift 1-2 paragraphs of importance and then link back to the original release and site. I understand the penalties for duplicate content and I also understand the time and effort the author put into their content. I have already debated the need for Digg to change certain functions of their site to make the author rewarded for creating the content to which Digg survives on, but Digg is not part of this story.
Let's look at some examples of sites that are linking to my article and I will provide my thoughts about whether they have stepped over the line or not --- but more importantly I want to know what you think! Do you agree or disagree with me?
Here are the links:
Are you finding a lot of lifting from the content you create whether it is for a blog or for a news organization?
I authored an article on Saturday morning, "True cost of an iPhone". It was well received overall, hit the Digg home page for 14 minutes before being buried (as usual) and has received a bunch of links. Technorati shows 5 links (which isn't complete) as of this post.
What I struggle with is how much copy should be lifted from the original post to the sites that link in? My policy is (except in very rare cases) when companies send me their releases to lift 1-2 paragraphs of importance and then link back to the original release and site. I understand the penalties for duplicate content and I also understand the time and effort the author put into their content. I have already debated the need for Digg to change certain functions of their site to make the author rewarded for creating the content to which Digg survives on, but Digg is not part of this story.
Let's look at some examples of sites that are linking to my article and I will provide my thoughts about whether they have stepped over the line or not --- but more importantly I want to know what you think! Do you agree or disagree with me?
Here are the links:
- Added 10pm Jan 14 - Mriphone - stole the entire article
- Afstyles - they lifted my entire article. I consider this too much to lift.
- Web Strategy by Jeremiah - just a link and added his own comments - Perfect! (btw Jeremiah, that new pic is great!)
- Voice out your view point - This one seems to have lifted the exact post from Consumerist below - and then linked to CN as the "source" - I don't get this type of deal at all. They really only posted my math which I think is ok as a blurb.
- Beta Alfa - a blurb and a link - perfect!
- Consumerist - They lifted the math which I think is reasonable plus a link to CN. I like this as it goes along with what I said above, 1-2 paragraphs of importance plus a link.
- DuggMirror - takes a copy of the page at the time of the Digg and shows it in a frame with their information plus a DuggMirror advert. Not sure what to think of this one as the links all point back to CN, the ads and so forth too. I guess overall, this should probably be considered just like Google Cache is.
- Technically Speaking - this is probably the best way to link perhaps. Write an article about your views and then provide a line or two about the initial content and a link back. I like this method as well.
Are you finding a lot of lifting from the content you create whether it is for a blog or for a news organization?
COMMENTS - Add New Comment
good question, sensitive topic. there#s a thin line between quoting, referencing and lifting or copying.
it would be great if you could maybe interview this guy about it:
http://www.cyberjournalist.net/ufm/feedback.php
i am sure he will have more infos on this.
I think you have the opportunity to be as big as TechCrunch or GigaOm, but you need to focus. This post raises good questions (relevant to my interest in intellectual property), but it is not right for this forum.
CenterNetworks should be for Web2.0 stuff, not personal wonderings/commentary on other subjects. Both Om Malik and Mike Arrington have personal blogs for this type of stuff, and I would recommend you do the same.
Thanks for the comments kdonovan. I know that I am still working out some of the kinks here and will take your comments into my kink-workout-list.
I appreciate your open and honest feedback. I do know that CN won't be a copy/clone of TC or GO or Mashable or any other site.
If those bothered you, this site, http://crenk.blogspot.com/ must make you livid ;)
Ok shaxs - are you kidding me! They stole every single FULL article. Interesting they have the top Web bloggers on there - I wonder what Richard, Mike, Pete think about this.