Copying/Republishing Poll

[Doc]

There seems to be a lot of disagreement on when and how it is acceptable to copy & paste the work of others. Please share your opinion on the question by selecting all the answers you feel are correct.



You see an article on the internet that you would like to share with the readers on your blog or website. You don’t find anything either encouraging or prohibiting you from copying it, so you…

[crankydave]

Voted Doc

Dave

[danlefree]

Looks like everyone who has voted thus far is playing it smart and staying well within their legal rights under Fair Use (applicable for those of us in the USA).

For those who answer "differently" and live in the USA, consider the following recommended reading: (unless you would prefer to read DMCA takedown notices)

• Copyright Law of the United States
• Principia Ethica (summary)

[morestar]

I must admit though, in my earlier days of article writing, i did snag a few articles here and there and re-write the copy so as to make it original. Now'a days I'm getting enough success from my original articles that I don't do that at all anymore. PLUS, it's rather embarrassing once you become more known on the web...

I selected "write my own copy!"

[claybutler]

I use Copyscape to track my most "attractive" pages. I've sent take down notices to at least six other designers for stealing my bio. I'm not kidding. They take my bio, swap their name, location and number of years in business and post is as is. Unbelievable.

The number of designers who have stolen complete passages of my business descriptions is over a dozen.

Ironic is an over used and often incorrectly used word. But when someone steals this passage:

"everything I create for you will be uniquely your own and singularly effective"

Now that's ironic.

[danlefree]

Originally Posted by claybutler

"everything I create for you will be uniquely your own and singularly effective"

Can I "quote" you on that?

Does Copyscape offer any deals or is it a standard $0.05/lookup deal?

[deepsand]

Looks like we're still waiting for those other than the cognoscenti to answer.

[claybutler]

Good one Danlefree,

I use the Copyscape's Copysentry program. Copyscape - Copysentry Protection

Your pages are checked every week.

Only $4.95/month for up to 10 pages.

$0.25/month for each additional page.

It's pretty cost effective peace of mind I'd say.

[Tubby]

There is a lot more "snagging" goes on than I think people are prepared to admit.

A few years back I received an email from (reputedly) a legal firm advising me to remove some images of vehicles from my site as they belonged to their client. I emailed them back telling them I took the photos in 1998 with my SLR cannon and I had the original copies and negatives in a tin box.

They email back that the site they were located on was established after their clients site had the photographs placed and that their clients side had them prior to my web site going on line . I mention politely that their client probably stole them from my earlier web site.

This I figured was a good way to eliminate unclaimed images that have been stolen from car for sale pages etc. . Just steal the image. then forward threats to anyone else who has done the same. The chances are the original photo could have been taken merely as a sales aid ( Free for collectors willing to claim them)

Cheeky Bastards.

I now only use low quality gif images. (nobody steals them and they load faster)

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Tubby

There is a lot more "snagging" goes on than I think people are prepared to admit.

A whole lot more. It's 'easy' and very often automated... scrapers.

If you happen to have a personal blog, make a post about credit cards/banks and watch what happens.

Dave

[mjtaylor]

Oh, I have been scraped, and it's very annoying to find a page of original copy is no longer cached and have a search reveal someone else now has a ranked page with my words!

[weegillis]

I find the last option a little bit 'ironic' since the poll question clearly states, "You want..." If the last option was your real choice, this question wouldn't even come up.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by weegillis

I find the last option a little bit 'ironic' since the poll question clearly states, "You want..." If the last option was your real choice, this question wouldn't even come up.

I don't know that I'd agree, wg. I've seen articles that I found very interesting, and would love to share with others, but for one reason or another, have had to simply forego any sort of quoting, and write my own article (using information provided in an existing article as part of one's research doesn't equate to plagiarism ).

[weegillis]

In the world of essaying, every thesis needs a supporting argument and/or some authority that is objective, not speculative. Where we find these authorities is obviously some other work(s). If we do not attribute works from which we have siphoned our background, we are still plagiarizing, even if we haven't quoted directly.

[deepsand]

I find that to be a very large stretch indeed.

Carried to its logical conclusion, one would then need to give attribution to all those works which influenced the work that directly influenced our own, ad infinitum.

There is a very important distinction between an idea and an expression of that idea, a distinction that is embodied in Copyright Law by design. Only a particular & unique instance of the latter may be protected by way of Copyright.; the former, once revealed, is deemed to be in the public domain.

[Feydakin]

I voted

Snag just a brief snippet, give credit to the author and post a link back to the source.

but I'm thinking that the other 9 are lying..

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

I voted but I'm thinking that the other 9 are lying..

What a terrible thing to say, about a such an upstanding group!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Doc

What a terrible thing to say, about a such an upstanding group!

Perhaps he means the "other 9" of those who haven't responded.

[weegillis]

The publishing industry uses literary agents for a reason: to cover their proverbial butts and protect themselves from litigation. Long before an author's work every makes it to final run it will have been drafted in galley after galley for circulation amongst proofreaders, editors and critics. It will fall under so much scrutiny the author had better know their subject, and be forthright with their source material.

Free Willy style press has none of that; ergo, we have rampant theft of IP left, right and center all over the web. What makes it most deplorable, though, is that all this theft is of material that has no authority, has not been scrutinized, except by its small audience, and likely crosses some line, somewhere, most of the time, yet IT BECOMES THE AUTHORITY.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by weegillis

Free Willy style press ... most deplorable ... BECOMES THE AUTHORITY.

All to sadly, such is the case even if published by the author himself.

[Dinghus]

Intereting responses which show most people do not understand the copyright laws.

Basically you can take anything as long as you give proper credit and it is in the proper context. Much like references in a term paper.

Now the title of this is "steal" copyrighted material. Of course you can not STEAL it. So the question is badly stated.

You can also look for material that is in the public domain and use it anyway you want. You can even copyright it as your own. A lot depends on your own morals.

[Dinghus]

Originally Posted by weegillis

The publishing industry uses literary agents for a reason: to cover their proverbial butts and protect themselves from litigation. Long before an author's work every makes it to final run it will have been drafted in galley after galley for circulation amongst proofreaders, editors and critics. It will fall under so much scrutiny the author had better know their subject, and be forthright with their source material.

You are joking aren't you? If you seriously think this is how the publishing industry works than you are sadly mistaken. You are lucky if a published piece of work gets a quick once over by a spell checker. Academia is rife with plagerism and it is up to the professors to catch it. Something they do not have the time to do for every paper.
Even peer reviewed journals have problems with catching plagerism. And if you are the original author, good luck getting the plagerist in trouble.

Of course who drives all this trouble on the internet? Google. Google wants "original and fresh" content on a regular basis. LOTS of it. This makes your website "relevant". Everyone who says they write their own content will be way behind the curve on this one. So what do you do? Put in an rss reader/presenter on your site. You get the new material without writing it and without plagerizing it.

Or you can go find somebody from India to write 100 "original" articles of 500 - 700 words for a buck an article (or less).

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Dinghus

Intereting responses which show most people do not understand the copyright laws.

Basically you can take anything as long as you give proper credit and it is in the proper context. Much like references in a term paper.

Now the title of this is "steal" copyrighted material. Of course you can not STEAL it. So the question is badly stated.

I don't believe the word "steal" shows up anywhere in the question or in the poll, Dinghus.

You can also look for material that is in the public domain and use it anyway you want. You can even copyright it as your own. A lot depends on your own morals.

I'd have to question that, mate.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Dinghus

Basically you can take anything as long as you give proper credit and it is in the proper context.

BZZZZ - WRONG

Firstly, the Doctrine of Fair Use limits how much can be copied; and, most countries do not follow such Doctrine.

Originally Posted by Dinghus

You can also look for material that is in the public domain and use it anyway you want. You can even copyright it as your own.

BZZZZ - WRONG

Originally Posted by Dinghus

Intereting responses which show most people do not understand the copyright laws.

As is clearly evidenced by the above quoted statements.

Originally Posted by Dinghus

Now the title of this is "steal" copyrighted material. Of course you can not STEAL it. So the question is badly stated.

No, the Title of this thread is "Copying/Republishing Poll."

Yes, Copyright infringment is theft.

And, no, the question is not badly worded.

Originally Posted by Dinghus

A lot depends on your own morals.

Not to mention having a correct understanding of applicable Law.

[Tubby]

reading Dinghus post , I thought I should check who ticked this box.

Copy it, change a few words to make it "original", and use it as my own work.

None of this going on eh?

[deepsand]

That's their story, and they're sticking to it.

[Terry Van Horne]

copyscape is cool but...
http://www.doccop.com
dropped 10 articles to check... html report in less than a minute doing 10 words at a time with a report telling you what % of the doc was dupe... price is right... freeeeeeeeeeee

[Tubby]

If I write an article. I would never ever check it in copyscape to find out what % was duplicated.

Is this what copyscape is for? - you use someone else's article, then you check it in copyscape, and keep manipulating the words until copyscape tell you it is now ' original ' ?

[Terry Van Horne]

Ummm I was checking to make sure the "unique" articles I bought were just that... unique. Copyscape... don't know... the reviewer at SeoPros uses to see who is "borrowing" content. A lot of it occurs an Ocean away if you get my drift. But yes I have heard that Copyscape could be used like that.

[Doc]

Just as a bit of clarification, here is a very basic explanation of copyright as it would apply to the topic of the poll (specifically, republishing on the internet):

In the United States, "fair use", as described in the Copyright Act of 1976, permits some copying and distribution without permission of or payment to the copyright holder. However, the Act doesn't really clearly define fair use. It instead gives four non-exclusive factors to consider in a fair use analysis. Those factors are:

1. How and why the use occurs;
2. What is the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. How much and how substantial in representation is the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. What effect the use can or may have upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

In most of the Commonwealth nations, interpretation is similar, although in Australia, ANY copying or redistribution, (other than for research, reporting, giving legal advice or review and critique) without the owner's consent is considered a breach of copyright, even if only for personal use. On the other end of the scale, in Canada, it's expressly legal to copy for one's personal use. Interpretations of fair use are almost universally vague, as in the US.

One interesting deviation that exists in several countries, including the UK and the US, is the legality of producing alternative versions for the purposes of accessibility (such as Braille or large print) without first securing the permission of the copyright holder. I would that a reasonable argument could be made that this would include reader-style presentations, such as audio-books.

[claybutler]

Interesting use of Copyscape. A reverse engineering tool to rework copy till it's original.

What makes paying for Copyscape protection so useful is that it constantly monitors you most important pages and generates weekly reports. No need to manually check. It also looks pretty darn cool when you send the offender the Copyscaped pages and it's just loaded with highlighter marks. Makes it very clear as to what you are referring to.

Somethings I generally don't care about (like someone using one of my illustrations or cartoons as an avatar). Somethings I deal with harshly (like stealing my bio or business descriptions).

My reasoning is simple; stolen text can be easily assimilated and then recopied hundred of times till it's nearly impossible to prove source. However, my illustrations are unique and my body of work is large and well documented enough that it would be nearly impossible to pass it off as your own. You'd get caught by someone eventually.

The more seemingly ubiquitous the source, the more vigorously you need to defend it.

[Tubby]

Sometimes I think, when the page opens on a new website you have never visited before, the aspects of originality and purpose are obvious. The page opens to tired worn words, images and layout. The viewer finds a vacancy instead of the message 'yes! this is the site I am looking for.'

Originality in text, image, and content often does not need running through a third program - it can be painfully obvious at first glance.

[York Web Design]

Information on the Internet is freely available, but is not free. Copyright law exists for a reason.

[bsnelling]

Originally Posted by Feydakin

I voted but I'm thinking that the other 9 are lying..

I agree and honestly, why should this be wrong if you give a link and credit to the author...? What else is needed?

[Doc]

Originally Posted by bsnelling

I agree and honestly, why should this be wrong if you give a link and credit to the author...? What else is needed?

I suspect that it is another case of laws being passed up by technology. Originally, copyright protection legislation was drawn up to cover written works. Then it was expanded to include performances. Later yet, broadcasting. Now, it needs to be brought up to speed with the internet. But essentially, any use of someone else's works can affect the value of that work. What if I wanted to publish a book, comprised of a couple of year's blog posts I had made? If someone else had copied those posts and put them on their website, or even published them in a book, the value of MY book would be nil. In that sense, it makes perfect sense to me.

[weegillis]

Pity the poor sod who first published this:

Link: Instead, just put the last four numbers.

Which of the 134,000 results is his?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by bsnelling

I agree and honestly, why should this be wrong if you give a link and credit to the author...? What else is needed?

Only the creator has the unfettered right to gain the fruits of his labor.

Only he can grant permission for his work being copied; merely admitting that you've copied the work of another does not compensate him for such.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by weegillis

Pity the poor sod who first published this:

Link: Instead, just put the last four numbers.

Which of the 134,000 results is his?

No. 133, 986?

[kgun]

"Forget it, I write my own copy!"

May be language problems. What is the exact meaning?

"Forget it, I write my own version"

The professional way to do it is to cite and link to or reference the source. That is my choice.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by kgun

"Forget it, I write my own copy!"

May be language problems. What is the exact meaning?

"Forget it, I write my own version"

The professional way to do it is to cite and link to or reference the source. That is my choice.

I think that citing with a snippet and linking to the source is probably considered by most to be acceptable, and I think it's a professional way to do it, as well.

This poll topic first occurred to me because I figured there would be a lot of differing opinions. The law is pretty clear, in those countries that protect copyright. The universal weakness seems to be in defining what portion of a work can be grabbed, in a snippet, for instance, without exceeding the limits of fair use.

I like to try to get permission, and then use the whole piece, with a link and credit. If I can't reach the owner, I'll often just use a snippet with a link and credit. There are a couple of major sources out there, though, that go after ANY quotation of their work, with blood in their eye. The Chicago Tribune is reportedly one of them.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by kgun

"Forget it, I write my own copy!"

May be language problems. What is the exact meaning?

"Forget it, I write my own version"

The professional way to do it is to cite and link to or reference the source. That is my choice.

Good observation; "copy" allows of multiple interpretations, namely :

• A reproduction
• Text
• Something deemed to be printable or newsworthy

[morestar]

Originally Posted by Doc

I think that citing with a snippet and linking to the source is probably considered by most to be acceptable, and I think it's a professional way to do it, as well.

To be honest with you, when I see a few of my articles in other places I guess I feel flattered...maybe in time that feeling will change...

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by weegillis

Pity the poor sod who first published this:

Link: Instead, just put the last four numbers.

Which of the 134,000 results is his?

[off_topic]

Ironically, that's 134,000 repetitions of false information!

With the exception of American Express, the L4D are check digits; for American Express, they identify a sub-account. In either case, the L4D are not necessarily unique for a given card servicer, as such may handle cards for multiple BINs (Bank Identification Number - the 1st 6 digits of the full 16 (15 for AmEx) account no., of which the 1st 4 identify the issuing bank, and the next 2 the portfolio.)

[/off_topic]

[kgun]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Good observation; "copy" allows of multiple interpretations, namely :

• A reproduction
• Text
• Something deemed to be printable or newsworthy

The meaning in Norwegian.

"Jeg skriver min egen kopi." = I write my own copy of the whole original source.

Citing is protected by law here, but you can not cite without responsibility. And the original is also protected by law ("Åndsverskloven").

Here is a delicate one:

1. Books on Web 2.0 developement, explaining CSS, XML, DOM, AJAX, OOP and Design patterns. Scroll down to Assembly programming.
2. Click the first link Don Morgan (1992) Numerical Methods, Real Time and Embedded Systems Programming M&T Books ISBN 1-55851-232-2

My reason for publishing those routines: "The book is from 1992". Is assembly programming dying a side from in hacking and virus coding?

And program code is different from text. You copy and paste code in your own programs.

So you have made no choice for me regarding text?

[deepsand]

Does not "Snag just a brief snippet, give credit to the author and post a link back to the source." suffice?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Does not "Snag just a brief snippet, give credit to the author and post a link back to the source." suffice?

I agree with that option that I did not notice.

[deepsand]

Re. eliminated "nonsense," see Now open for educational purposes.

[weegillis]

Originally Posted by deepsand

[off_topic]

Ironically, that's 134,000 repetitions of false information!

With the exception of American Express, the L4D are check digits; for American Express, they identify a sub-account. In either case, the L4D are not necessarily unique for a given card servicer, as such may handle cards for multiple BINs (Bank Identification Number - the 1st 6 digits of the full 16 (15 for AmEx) account no., of which the 1st 4 identify the issuing bank, and the next 2 the portfolio.)

[/off_topic]

Ironically... or paradoxically the failing of the internet search paradigm.

[claybutler]

This is why I love Copyscape. Just got this report this morning.

Excerpt from my bio at Clay Butler, Graphic Designer Bio, Illustrator Bio, Graphic Design Bio

I can take your project from a simple thumbnail sketch or idea to a fully integrated, fully formed product. This provides my clients the assurance and peace of mind that no matter what unexpected changes occur, or which direction or medium their project might take, I will have the experience and skills to see them through and deliver their project on time and on spec.

Claytowne... creativity, adaptability, punctuality and speed informed with a solid foundation in the classic arts.


Now Doug's "bio" from https://www.corephp.com/about-coreph...ug-taylor.html
I've bolded the direct lifting. The rest are synonyms of what I said or reworded copy form the other parts of my bio page. Even the format, the rhythm and story arch is the same. His sign-off in almost verbatim.

He can take your project from a simple thumbnail sketch or verbal idea to a fully integrated, fully formed product that achieves exactly what you want - whether that is to convey an idea, sell a product, or catch your customer's eye. With Doug at the wheel, you can be sure that no matter what unexpected changes occur, or which direction your project might take, he has the experience and expertise to see you through and deliver your project on time and on spec.

Definition for Doug Taylor:

Doug Taylor (n)...creative, adaptable, punctual and timely; informed with a solid foundation in graphic design.

I'm going to send him a "write your own bio" letter now. Perhaps some of you think this is OK but this is not writing your own copy. This is straight up theft of passages and the rest is just swapping synonyms. It would be one thing if this was a description for opening a can of cat food, but this is my bio and my mission statement. It's about me. Doug is not me.

But then again, if being "creative" is stealing someone's bio and being "adaptable" is changing it from first person to third, then perhaps Dough really IS a genius.

[Doc]

That is definitely NOT okay, Clay!