Forum Moderators: not2easy
This presents a problem - they often copy our content - sometimes we let it go - but on this occasion their page out ranks our own, for a key search term, and it's an obvious and blatant ripoff.
Not good! :(
We are gathering as much info as we can on the dates we first produced the content - proving this is not an issue, as we have printed evidence as our content mimics that of our company brochures - printed 2 years ago.
However I'd like to be able to see how long they have been using our copy - and to do this I need to date their pages.
I have tested the wayback machine but its results are sketchy - the page that they copied from our site is not listed and it's 3 years old.
So are there other methods to test a pages age? Another search tool? Alexa, Google, Overture?
Had a good scan here but couldn't find anything.
Cheers, Limbo
I have found 3 other site rips as a result - it's going to be a long morning!
Sign up with Copyscape and display their "warning" banner, usually does the trick. Also send the copy-cats an e-mail, a nice one, saying you know their game, and leave it at that. They'll think twice about copying your work as they'll be concious of you and others knowing what they are up to.
Grassroots said: On some of my copy I put: "Created 25th/9th/2001" for example to act as a date stamp....
limbo said: I'd like to be able to see how long they have been using our copy....
I would suggest that you make sure your own stuff is registered (some web hosts have started asking for copies of the Registration, in order to pursue DMCA filings), and that your stuff is in the Wayback Machine. If you can show that you existed "way back", and the other guy has no documentation, this at least shows you to be the more authoritative site. (You were worth archiving, and the other guy wasn't, right?) Would the authority, with a large stable of quality articles, plagiarise a "nobody"? Or the other way 'round?
It's up to a court to decide what's legal "proof", but the claim-counterclaim process says that the host has to remove or inactivate the content at issue, until the target of the claim (the plagiariser, in your case) makes a credible counterclaim. Since the plagiariser is unlikely to be able to do this, you should be "good to go".
In short, you have no need to find the other guy's first date of use. You created the stuff. You can back up your claims. He can't back up his claims. Get the copies taken down.
Good luck!
Eliz.
In fact, if a site's not blocking or otherwise limiting IA's robots (ia_archiver; ia_archiver-web.archive.org; archive.org_bot) via robots.txt, it may be archived, too, before and after updates. For example, here's [web.archive.org] a whopper of an archived array for Google.
Anyway, check things out by searching for yoursitename.com -- and theirs:)
Good luck!
.
P.S.
Netscape (and probably other browsers) offers a View menu "Page Info" selection showing page's date-related info, if available (from the server). However, I've always found the info advisory, at best. Usually it's most helpful finding out how old a badly linked-to page might be, to see if it's worth trying to locate someone to fix things.
"Nevermind."
:)
I am a little confuse, what do you mean when you say: "
I would suggest that you make sure your own stuff is registered (some web hosts have started asking for copies of the Registration, in order to pursue DMCA filings), and that your stuff is in the Wayback Machine. If you can show that you existed "way back", and the other guy has no documentation, this at least shows you to be the more authoritative site. (You were worth archiving, and the other guy wasn't, right?) Would the authority, with a large stable of quality articles, plagiarise a "nobody"? Or the other way 'round? "
Mostly what I want to know is what you mean by registered? Registered where?
Thanks.
techiemon said: [W]hat I want to know is what you mean by registered? Registered where?
For instance, the copyright authority for the US is the US Copyright Office [copyright.gov].
Eliz.
Thanks for the response.. However, I have been told numerous times that there is no need for an actual registration, that once you have the content that it is protected automatically, is this not true?
Also if one were to register the copywritten materials, but then updated their site several times a year, I would imagine changing the copyright would end up costing the person a lot of money...
techiemon said: I have been told numerous times that there is no need for an actual registration, that once you have the content that it is protected automatically, is this not true?
Yes, international convention (where respected) says that, upon putting the "work" in "fixed form" (like a photograph, a completed sculpture, or a published web page), the creator has the copyright to the work.
But that's not the same as being able easily to defend that work. I don't know which is your jurisdiction, but in the US, registration can be very helpful.
If -- god forbid -- I ever have to go to court to defend my rights, the process will be long and possibly cripplingly expensive. Without a registered copyright, I would have to prove damages, and would likely only receive an award for those damages. But since my copyright is registered, I can petition for (much higher) statutory damages, don't even have to bother proving any damages, and can possibly win court costs.
So no, you don't "have" to register. But the thirty-dollar fee could pay back hundreds of thousands of dollars later.
techiemon said: If one were to register the copywritten materials, but then updated their site several times a year, I would imagine changing the copyright would end up costing the person a lot of money.
I don't know what might be the fees and time limits in whatever is your jurisdiction, but filing an updated copyright every six months or so would only run me sixty dollars a year. In my circumstances, this is well worth the cost.
If you're not sure, you might want to speak with a copyright attorney regarding specifics.
Eliz.
