Forum Moderators: not2easy
Say if one site placed they're keywords and links a certain way cause they knew that these keywords did well for them in google. Can they copyright thier keyword/linking strategy. Is this possible?
I personally say no, does anyone else have this asked of them as a SEO?
I guess the answer is no again , in trying to copyright this.
It is not possible to copyright generic words (case law and de minimis principle tells us this). You can obtain trademarks for words, but not generic ones (unless the generic word is part of a particular style of get up and arrangement - so it's not really "just a word", but it's a logo or a graphical element, etc - you can trademark this).
The specific expression of a particular style and arrangement of material as a "typographical arrangement" may qualify for copyright. Again, this is subject to de minimis, and other criteria such as feist (
[bitlaw.com...]
In the European Union, you can also qualify for "sui generis" database right: which is a right on a collection of material even where the collection of material has no creativity in its arrangement, but merely has investment of time and effort. This not called copyright, but is a "related right" in the IPR family. It is a relatively new right, and not yet fully clarified.
[europa.eu.int...]
So the basic answer is that yes you can have copyright in the layout and particular order of the keywords and links - after all, copyright is about protection of a particular form of expression.
>Say if one site placed they're keywords and links a
>certain way cause they knew that these keywords did
>well for them in google. Can they copyright thier >keyword/linking strategy. Is this possible?
>
>I personally say no, does anyone else have this asked
>of them as a SEO?
It's not possible to copyright a "strategy", that's not what copyright is about - now we are talking about ideas rather than expressions. The first site will have copyright in its particular web page (the layout and arrangement) - whether or not the arrangement of that web page gives them a good position in google (that's actually irrelevant, copyright isn't concerned with the what the material is for).
For example, if the optimisation algorithm by a search engine is that (very simplistically): rank(keyword1, keyword2) = (keyword1 and keyword2 in same sentence, separated by minimal verbs) + (keyword1 or keyword2 in link url) + (keyword1 or keyword2 in other paragraphs in the page) - 10 * (keyword1 or keyword2 exists more than 4 times in the page); then there are many ways to construct a webpage that gives a high rank without having to have copied someone elses webpage. If you copy someone elses webpage, you're ripping off their creative time and effort - and copyright is designed to protect creative time and effort. You'll just have to invest your own creative time and effort to come up with an expression that satisfies the strategy.
The first site does own the copyright in its particular page, and if you do copy their page, you are infringing their copyright. If you look at their webpage and extract the general ideas from it (i.e. you learn what arrangements of data gave them a high ranking) and you create a new webpage that is a different expression of that idea, then you are not infringing their copyright. Copyright doesn't protect ideas. If you take the content from their webpage and produce a new web page that is too similar to the original, then you are in dangerous territory - because you are verging on having copied the expression of the original.
And, if I forgot to mention it, copyright affords protection for two equivalent expressions, so long as those expressions were independently created. In other words, to prove copyright infringement, you need to demonstrate a tangible act of copying (or strong prima facie evidence: such as equivalent spelling mistakes). In the United States, unfortunately, infringement may be considered to have occurred without this evidence.
I doubt this is a real problem though, even though two web pages may have similar words and links, they can still be substantially different and not have been copied from each other.
>What if another site had 99% copied another sites exact
>same keywords, the filenames they used, titles, and
>keywords in the text?
>I guess the answer is no again , in trying to copyright
>this.
This could amount to infringement - they've copied the original expression and reproduced it. Would need to know specific facts of the infringement to give a precise answer, but "99% copied" is dangerous territory to live in.
By the way, when you say "in trying to copyright this" - copyright is an automatic right (well, it wasn't in the United States until the last 10-15 years, at which time registration was required) so you don't need to try to do anything. Copyright is there automatically (provided certain criteria are met). It's free. It protects our creative investments.
