Copying free articles?

[Danielist18]

Hi
It seems that I am allowed to copy various articles on education or whatever else I need from websites like Enzine or other free article type website and then post them into my website as if it is my original content. But I am surprised this is allowed because I thought that one could not copy from other websites and include them into their own because Google, Yahoo etc. would then ban my site for copying. So how is this allowed, why is it okay to copy articles from these type of websites and use them into mine for SEO optimization? I am concerned and while I want to gain traffic quickly, and will do almost anything to get it, in the end being banned by major search engines is not what I have in mind.

Please let me know your thoughts…

D.

[MayaLocke]

It is unlikely you would get banned for using free-reprint articles, you may want to add value to the articles by either agreeing, disagreeing or commenting on specific points raised in the article.

[AustinG]

I think Google can ban you for copying copyright content onto your website if they are of course notified. However you will also be breaking the law. Articles that appear on article directories such as Enzine allow you to copy articles with conditions. Some of these conditions include, having to name the author and source of the article or only posting a small portion with a link to the rest. You should find out more about this before you get caught stealing copyrighted content.

[Canonical]

Originally Posted by Danielist18

Hi
It seems that I am allowed to copy various articles on education or whatever else I need from websites like Enzine or other free article type website and then post them into my website as if it is my original content. But I am surprised this is allowed because I thought that one could not copy from other websites and include them into their own because Google, Yahoo etc. would then ban my site for copying. So how is this allowed, why is it okay to copy articles from these type of websites and use them into mine for SEO optimization? I am concerned and while I want to gain traffic quickly, and will do almost anything to get it, in the end being banned by major search engines is not what I have in mind.

Please let me know your thoughts…

D.

I'm not sure why you think you're "allowed" to do this by ezine or other article submission sites. It is my understanding that what you say is not true unless the author explicitly gives you the right to copy and republish their content without attribution.

One of my articles that was published on EzineArticles.com got picked up through an RSS subscription I think by some guy who politely removed the links pointing to my site INCLUDING the author attribution box at the bottom. He then added lots of links to his own site instead. He was pretending that he wrote the article and republished it on his blog. His blog where he posted my article was on blogspot.com so I submitted a DMCA request with them showing that the article was mine... gave them links to the ezine article and the date it was published there... links to my article on the offending blogger's site... Google/Blogspot took down the page off the guys site in about 8 hours after I submitted the DMCA request.

When you write an article and publish it, it is yours and protected by copyright laws even if you don't put a copyright notice on it. Perhaps reading this will help:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf

Note in the section who can claim copyright:

Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created
in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship
immediately becomes the property of the author who created
the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights

through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

On ezinearticles.com specifically, if you want to re-publish their articles you are bound by their publisher terms of service which clearly states you will republish it EXACTLY as it is with no changes, leave all links pointing to the author's site and leave them followed, leave the author attribution at the end of the article, etc.

The author of ezine articles retains all copyrights (implied or explicit). They simply give ezine and its publishers the rights to republish the article that YOU own.

[innominds]

You can simply copy and paste any article or content but make sure that you mention the source or author bio.

[Danielist18]

Hi,

So i can copy paste any article from other sites if i'm mention the right's of the author?

Thank you!

[povidiu]

There are many free articles websites arround the internet. You can take those articles full including the last line where normally there are mentions about the author, ecc

[Doc]

Originally Posted by innominds

You can simply copy and paste any article or content but make sure that you mention the source or author bio.

I would differ with you on this, innominds. At least in the US, the work of others can be referenced, which would typically mean mention, a snippet, or short, specific quotes, provided the original author and publisher are prominently credited. Even at that, if you put such copied works on your site, where you've also monetized the site, if they catch it, you can expect to give up a good portion of your monetary gain as well, and any damages deemed reasonable by the court.

In short, copyright means precisely that... the owner holds all rights to any copies. lntellectual property rights is a very sensitive subject, and some will go after offenders very aggressively, simply because of their perception of the seriousness of the crime. If you intend to go about doing C & P on any articles you find interesting, and simply mentioning the source or the author, you can expect some rocky times ahead.

[tangeray]

Why don't you spend 10-15 re-writing the article or better yet, merge a few articles together on the same topic.

[cw1865]

Originally Posted by Doc

I would differ with you on this, innominds. At least in the US, the work of others can be referenced, which would typically mean mention, a snippet, or short, specific quotes, provided the original author and publisher are prominently credited. Even at that, if you put such copied works on your site, where you've also monetized the site, if they catch it, you can expect to give up a good portion of your monetary gain as well, and any damages deemed reasonable by the court.

In short, copyright means precisely that... the owner holds all rights to any copies. lntellectual property rights is a very sensitive subject, and some will go after offenders very aggressively, simply because of their perception of the seriousness of the crime. If you intend to go about doing C & P on any articles you find interesting, and simply mentioning the source or the author, you can expect some rocky times ahead.

I tend to agree. We also have to remember that quite a few of these articles are written with the intent that others pick up on them and provide links to the websites. Of course, the specifics of the situation matter, but typically a the article directory will have a comment regarding copying which will essentially say that you can do it as long as you provide the reference link.

[james113]

If you find an article that you think your website users will benefit from then by all means go for it, but this does very little for SEO. Make sure you add your opinions and/or any insights on the article and the proper reference link. If the source of the article is not a well established industry leader, I would recomend adding the "nofollow" attribute to the outgoing link. Submitting your own original articles to free article sites can get you backlinks and traffic.

[briguy]

Originally Posted by james113

I would recomend adding the "nofollow" attribute to the outgoing link. Submitting your own original articles to free article sites can get you backlinks and traffic.

Is the "nofollow" attribute still valid..thought I read that it was being ignored!

[notsoold]

I don't think you are allowed to copy articles from Ezine and other free article directories. But you can quote them and give the source and credit the original authors in your site.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by innominds

You can simply copy and paste any article or content but make sure that you mention the source or author bio.

Originally Posted by Danielist18

So i can copy paste any article from other sites if i'm mention the right's of the author?

Aside from small excerpts deemed to be Fair Use, one cannot copy the work of another without the express permission of the copyright holder; and, then, only subject to the terms stipulated by such holder.

[allenhoward]

If you have an informational website then you can copy and pate but you must place a link of reference site.

[simonm]

I use external news / articles but always refer to them in the form of a title and summary ensuring I use as many keywords as are good for my content and support the referring page on my site. Thus both I (my page) and the original source of the article gain. I think its also perhaps more in the spirit of the web?

Built into a CMS newsfeed with tags on each page defining what news is shown where, its an excellent way to keep many web pages 'dynamic' while maintaining a single resource, the newslist.

[chrisJumbo]

Originally Posted by innominds

You can simply copy and paste any article or content but make sure that you mention the source or author bio.

You can not simply cut and past unless your cut and past retains the HTML (<a href>)

99% of Article Directories allow reprints as long as the article is not changed, the author details remain, and any links that the author included are retained. Anything else is a violation. Before copying articles read the republishing guidelines.

You don't want to be on the bad side of Article Writers.

cd :O)

[Canonical]

Originally Posted by james113

If you find an article that you think your website users will benefit from then by all means go for it, but this does very little for SEO. Make sure you add your opinions and/or any insights on the article and the proper reference link. If the source of the article is not a well established industry leader, I would recomend adding the "nofollow" attribute to the outgoing link.

I think this is TERRIBLE advice. First of all you shouldn't be telling people to "go for it.". It is a violation of copyright laws to copy any more than a few sentences. It's called Fair Use. And if you think someone's article is worth ripping off then at LEAST leave their links as followed links. The only time you should be nofollowing outbound links to other sites from whom you've ripped off content is if you are referencing that site as some kind of example of what NOT to do. But obviously if you are stealing peoples content you must think it has some value to your site, and the links should therefore be followed.

I put a lot of time and thought into writing blog posts and articles. If I catch you ripping off my articles you can bet I'm going to contact your web host, fill out a DMCA, get my content taken down by the host and if you persist, get your site shut down or have my attorney contact you.

People who are too freakin' lazy to write their own content and instead choose to rip off and bottom feed off of the hard work of others (and not give the original author of the content credit with at least a link) are total loosers and don't deserve to have a web site or be called webmasters.

There is a reason for copyright law... to protect authors from low lifes who want to steal from, take credit for, and benefit from other people's hard work.

[chrisJumbo]

Well said Canonical.

cd :O)

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Canonical

I think this is TERRIBLE advice. First of all you shouldn't be telling people to "go for it.". It is a violation of copyright laws to copy any more than a few sentences. It's called Fair Use. And if you think someone's article is worth ripping off then at LEAST leave their links as followed links. The only time you should be nofollowing outbound links to other sites from whom you've ripped off content is if you are referencing that site as some kind of example of what NOT to do. But obviously if you are stealing peoples content you must think it has some value to your site, and the links should therefore be followed.

I put a lot of time and thought into writing blog posts and articles. If I catch you ripping off my articles you can bet I'm going to contact your web host, fill out a DMCA, get my content taken down by the host and if you persist, get your site shut down or have my attorney contact you.

People who are too freakin' lazy to write their own content and instead choose to rip off and bottom feed off of the hard work of others (and not give the original author of the content credit with at least a link) are total loosers and don't deserve to have a web site or be called webmasters.

There is a reason for copyright law... to protect authors from low lifes who want to steal from, take credit for, and benefit from other people's hard work.

I agree completely!

[on-SEO]

Originally Posted by Canonical

I think this is TERRIBLE advice. First of all you shouldn't be telling people to "go for it.". It is a violation of copyright laws to copy any more than a few sentences. It's called Fair Use. And if you think someone's article is worth ripping off then at LEAST leave their links as followed links. The only time you should be nofollowing outbound links to other sites from whom you've ripped off content is if you are referencing that site as some kind of example of what NOT to do. But obviously if you are stealing peoples content you must think it has some value to your site, and the links should therefore be followed.

I put a lot of time and thought into writing blog posts and articles. If I catch you ripping off my articles you can bet I'm going to contact your web host, fill out a DMCA, get my content taken down by the host and if you persist, get your site shut down or have my attorney contact you.

People who are too freakin' lazy to write their own content and instead choose to rip off and bottom feed off of the hard work of others (and not give the original author of the content credit with at least a link) are total loosers and don't deserve to have a web site or be called webmasters.

There is a reason for copyright law... to protect authors from low lifes who want to steal from, take credit for, and benefit from other people's hard work.

I totally agree. If you want fresh content, write it yourself or hire a copywriter to do it for you.

As far as "free" content site, how is regurgitating content going to help you or your users? The search engines shouldn't penalize you for duplicated content, but they won't reward you either.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by allenhoward

If you have an informational website then you can copy and pate but you must place a link of reference site.

WRONG

See Copying free articles?

[zbikenut]

It is really simple the terms are stated in the terms of use agreement allow you to use Ezine articles as long as all links are left in and as long as you do not change the article. You can quote from any page anywhere on the net as long as you use quotes and state where the information came from.

[paperkool]

Originally Posted by Danielist18

Hi,

So i can copy paste any article from other sites if i'm mention the right's of the author?

Thank you!

Yes, you must mention the Author, however copying content isn't the way to traffic. You need to come up with origanal stuff of your own. Have keyword targeted Titles to make it easy for people and robots to find your material. That's better then expecting the search engine to pick up on something you pasted from someone else.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by paperkool

Yes, you must mention the Author, ...

Once again, WRONG.

You need the permission of the copyright holder.

And, you must adhere to his terms.

[Doc]

It seems we have a LOT of misunderstanding about copyrights, and what constitutes infringement or piracy.

In a nutshell, folks...

you can't copy ANYTHING, without the author/owner giving you the right to do so. without being subject to a possible lawsuit for copyright infringement. The exceptions to this are so limiting as to be not worth mentioning in the context of this thread.

[deepsand]

What we really have is a lot of PEOPLE WHO DO NOT READ, believing instead that they know everything that is of any import, and thus have no need for any more information!

[on-SEO]

could the issue here be that not everyone in this thread is in the US? I won't claim to know the copyright laws, nor the international enforcement of US law, but here's my two cents:

DON'T COPY OTHER PEOPLES' WORK!

Yes, there are Fair Use issues, but if you are not sure, don't do it.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by on-SEO

could the issue here be that not everyone in this thread is in the US? I won't claim to know the copyright laws, nor the international enforcement of US law, but here's my two cents:

DON'T COPY OTHER PEOPLES' WORK!

Yes, there are Fair Use issues, but if you are not sure, don't do it.

It could certainly be that many of our members are from outside the US. However, most countries' copyright laws are actually even more stringent than those of the US.

And Fair Use is something that mainly exists in the US, from what I've read. US Copyright law is some of the weakest out there. The UK probably has the most stringent.

[on-SEO]

Originally Posted by Doc

It could certainly be that many of our members are from outside the US. However, most countries' copyright laws are actually even more stringent than those of the US.

And Fair Use is something that mainly exists in the US, from what I've read. US Copyright law is some of the weakest out there. The UK probably has the most stringent.

Thanks Doc. I wasn't sure. Regardless, I don't see why anyone would want to throw duplicate copy on their site. I don't see the gain, unless they are trying to make their site appear more useful than it actually is.

[admonharr]

It could be penalized, just show the credentials.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by admonharr

It could be penalized, ...

How?

Originally Posted by admonharr

... just show the credentials.

Credentials?

[angilina]

Originally Posted by Danielist18

Hi
It seems that I am allowed to copy various articles on education or whatever else I need from websites like Enzine or other free article type website and then post them into my website as if it is my original content. But I am surprised this is allowed because I thought that one could not copy from other websites and include them into their own because Google, Yahoo etc. would then ban my site for copying. So how is this allowed, why is it okay to copy articles from these type of websites and use them into mine for SEO optimization? I am concerned and while I want to gain traffic quickly, and will do almost anything to get it, in the end being banned by major search engines is not what I have in mind.

Please let me know your thoughts…

D.

Copying the content that is already published on the internet will not help your site. SEs will not rank your site with such content high in SERPs as SE have already found that content on other site.

If you wish to get organic traffic, then you should try to add useful/fresh/informative content in your site. Copying articles/content will not help: in fact it can hurt a site if the number or amount of copied articles/content is too much.

You can watch this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=6hSoXutuj0g

It is mentioned in this video that if a site has nothing but all copied content, then Google will consider such sites as spam sites and they will get a penalty.

[james113]

Originally Posted by Canonical

I think this is TERRIBLE advice. First of all you shouldn't be telling people to "go for it.". It is a violation of copyright laws to copy any more than a few sentences. It's called Fair Use. And if you think someone's article is worth ripping off then at LEAST leave their links as followed links. The only time you should be nofollowing outbound links to other sites from whom you've ripped off content is if you are referencing that site as some kind of example of what NOT to do. But obviously if you are stealing peoples content you must think it has some value to your site, and the links should therefore be followed.

I put a lot of time and thought into writing blog posts and articles. If I catch you ripping off my articles you can bet I'm going to contact your web host, fill out a DMCA, get my content taken down by the host and if you persist, get your site shut down or have my attorney contact you.

People who are too freakin' lazy to write their own content and instead choose to rip off and bottom feed off of the hard work of others (and not give the original author of the content credit with at least a link) are total loosers and don't deserve to have a web site or be called webmasters.

There is a reason for copyright law... to protect authors from low lifes who want to steal from, take credit for, and benefit from other people's hard work.

Ok, I thought the question was about Free Article Sites like Ezine. I thought that it was good when I submitted an article to Ezine and other people copied it to use on their site along with my reference link .

However if I write original content for my site, I wouldn't want someone to take it to use on their site without my permission. Thats just common sense.

[james113]

Originally Posted by briguy

Is the "nofollow" attribute still valid..thought I read that it was being ignored!

I really couldn't tell ya. I myself have never used a "nofollow" attribute. I don't apply too many outgoing links on my sites unless I totally trust the site that it goes to, thus I have never needed to try it out.

[james113]

Originally Posted by on-SEO

Thanks Doc. I wasn't sure. Regardless, I don't see why anyone would want to throw duplicate copy on their site. I don't see the gain, unless they are trying to make their site appear more useful than it actually is.

Many sites use articles from other sources to entertain and inform their website users. MSN and Yahoo feature news articles from other soureces on their homepage. Just a couple of examples, off the top of my head. Entertaining and informative articles from other sources has been proven to be beneficial for site owners as well as users.

[alanwalters]

Copy content from another people,it would not help.I think it is better to write own fresh content and then market it through article sites and social media.

[full house]

It would be ok if you edit the article or you can put the links or the author.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by full house

It would be ok if you edit the article or you can put the links or the author.

"It" being what?

If you mean that you can alter the article so as to make it appear to be your own writing, and/or use such without the express permission of the author, then, no, it is not "okay."

[cw1865]

So true, deepsand, for it to be a derivative work, you have to do a lot more than just alter the words.

[weegillis]

Originally Posted by cw1865

So true, deepsand, for it to be a derivative work, you have to do a lot more than just alter the words.

And, even as a derivative, it still requires original copyright holder permission and attribution, no matter how much it is modified or extended.

I can't believe we are still having this discussion after all these years. While I might not feel quite as vehement as Canonical, it does boil one's blood to find wholesale use of content ripped from one's site. Fortunately the copyright holder does have recourse, even if they have to do their own policing.

Doc: copyright infringement is not a crime, it's a tort.

[deepsand]

Given the persistent "information wants to be free" clamor of today's youth, their lack of acceptance of the property rights of those who create IP, as evidenced by the wholesale theft of music, and their indignant screams when such thefts are punished, it should come as no surprise that we here see the same.

[cw1865]

The use needs to be transformative:

'I believe the answer to the question of justification turns primarily on whether, and to what extent, the challenged use is transformative. The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. ...[If] the secondary use adds value to the original--if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings--this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society.

Transformative uses may include criticizing the quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original in order to defend or rebut it. They also may include parody, symbolism, aesthetic declarations, and innumerable other uses.'

Transformativeness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by weegillis

And, even as a derivative, it still requires original copyright holder permission and attribution, no matter how much it is modified or extended.

It depends on the circumstances. The key is that the derivative work needs to create something new. You have to remember that many copyright holders are dead and to obtain permission would be so completely impractical that to require permission in every circumstance would have a chilling effect on building onto all kinds of academic endeavors.

Originally Posted by weegillis

Doc: copyright infringement is not a crime, it's a tort.

Copyright infringement can constitute a crime under Federal law:
§ 506. Criminal offenses

(a) Criminal Infringement. —
(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

[weegillis]

Excellent clarification CW. So we're still left with having to perform a 'litmus test' on a work to predetermine its clearance status. Something only conscientious writers or developers will bother to do, unfortunately.

My own take on which is which follows this line of thinking:

In the case of blatant infringement with intent to subvert or deprive an owner of potential windfall, the law may be clear and prosecutable. These are the cases that end up in the criminal courts. Culpability and intent may be more easily proved, ergo, crime. Clearly, the accused has crossed the line from offense against the individual to offense against the state.

When much copyright infringement is not thought out, the perps falling into the group that deepsands refers to, it becomes more than a small burden on law enforcement, so the responsibility falls to the plaintiff to build their own case and pursue it through civil litigation, ergo tort.

Making criminals out of an entire society removes all deterrence to crime. I'm just throwing this out here, however I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this is one of the precepts in the creation of civil law.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by weegillis

Making criminals out of an entire society removes all deterrence to crime. I'm just throwing this out here, however I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this is one of the precepts in the creation of civil law.

Not sure what you mean here, as civil law was not "created," but is simply a formalized recognition, i.e. a codification, of abstract principles, as opposed to common law, which derived from customs. The intent of codification is to provide, in principle, a collection of law, available in writing to all, which judges must follow.

The greatest distinction between the two is that the latter evolves based on case law, whereas the former does not.

[divengrabber]

if you put duplicate article on your website the google not index that article on their data base. He also not given you pr.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by divengrabber

if you put duplicate article on your website the google not index that article on their data base. He also not given you pr.

Google indexes everything that it finds; what is does not do is display everything.

Furthermore, Google does display duplicate content.

As for PR, such is not granted by Google, but accrued by way of Inbound Link (IBLs.) Google's role is simply that of determining which IBLs to count or discount.

[tripper]

Better not copy anyone's work... Spend some time and effort is the best to avoid penalty

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by tripper

Better not copy anyone's work... Spend some time and effort is the best to avoid penalty

To what penalty do you refer?

[mit]

You must have a permission through the writer / author of the article before you place any content from any other site.

We should be ethical.