Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Over a month later I finally received a reply that said Google is refusing a number of my requests according to their "content guidelines". No details or references were provided to these content guidelines.
Many of the remaining infringing sites are classic scraper spam with Adsense ads. Seeing as how these spam sites are built specifically to target Adsense revenue and are monitized entirely by Google ad dollars, I'd have thought they'd be quick to remove them so they'd qualify for DMCA Safe Harbor.
I've followed Google's DMCA rules to the letter but was still denied. The sites are clearly taking my content and Google has clearly stated that they will not act to remove it from their index. Anyone have an idea of how I should proceed from here?
Steve
Anyone have an idea of how I should proceed from here?
Consult an attorney... you've done all you can by yourself - it's probably time to bring some 'clout' to the table.
If your content is an actual registered copyright - I'm sure you'll have no problem finding counsel.
My guess is that they did what few ISPs would do and actually spent some time investigating your complaint. And for some reason (probably totally unrelated to AdSense) they disagreed with your appraisal that the sites were in violation of your copyright.
If they followed proper procedure, and can show their reasoning, they are almost certainly in the clear on the safe harbor provision, even if they are shown to be incorrect in court.
And don't expect a lawyer to take the case on contingency. I have gotten the impression that it is almost unheard of on copyright cases that are going to court, ass opposed to just writing threatening letters.
"The sites are clearly taking my content"
I haven't heard a word from Google and the page is still in the index.
Wonder if with all the hijacking and scraping, that Google copyright department is overloaded.
Hey Google, it might be easier to address the hijacking/scraping situation with some kind of algo change then trying to deal with the copyright violation problem on a one to one basis.
It's probably not enough duplicate text to have any effect on my rankings, but it's pretty annoying to me that both spammers and Google are knowingly making money off my original content.
And it is certainly not in google's favor to support people trying to press copyright claims on snippets of text.
Remember, copyright only grants you certain limited rights, not total control.
I'm not saying that it is not copyright infringement, just that most webmasters (and people in general) don't have a clue as to what copyright actually gives them, nor the limits on those rights.
Google on the other hand, in many ways lives right on that edge, and they have certainly done their legal research. I would not personally bet against them if they decide that something is not infringement.
So, I rather recommend you to go for the path of acuse them for violating Adsense TOS or search engine spam, you name it.
Read the thread "Why google sponsor scrappe sites?", it was a large one.
"Most are pulling 2-4 sentences of content from my sites (about 40-50 words of content)."
I guarantee you if someone pulled a few sentences from articles on WSJ, NYT, and Newsweek and put Adsense at the top heads would roll. :)
do a little bit more reading.
"fair-use certainly only applies to use that is fair. Is this fair? "
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
While I am not a lawyer, item #4 looks like it could have some application to scraper sites, page hijackings, domain poisoning, etc.
You do need to make the AdSense team aware of it yourself though - just filing the DMCA is not enough.
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.While I am not a lawyer, item #4 looks like ...
While I'm not a lawyer either, that looks exactly the same use search engine does of your content.
Are you going to sue them as well?
Go for the adsense TOS violation route, that's could be easier, though I've read about sometimes Google don't take down scrappers. Read the thread I mentioned in my previous post, specially this part :
[webmasterworld.com...]
As the owner of my business and my content, only I can determine if a site copying mine has 1) a positive impact on the market for my product, 2) no impact on the market or 3) a negative impact.
A listing in a respected SE, in my opinion as the owner of my busineess and content, is that my market value is thereby increased. So NO, I would not sue them.
On the other hand, the only folks who like scrapers and 302s are scraper publishers and page hijackers. The owners of the hijacked content hate them specifically because they negatively effect the real owner's profitablity.
If YOU feel that being listed in a SE is hurting your business, why not just ban them via robots txt?
If YOU feel that being listed in a SE is hurting your business, why not just ban them via robots txt?
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that.
Calm down. Learn to read slowly ;)
That is EXACTLY what you said. You said a search engine listing is "exactly the same" as a scraper listing.
I am not going to pollute this thread with a worthless debate about your inability to understand your own posts.
I provided the information from a legitimate government source to help inform this discussion of copyright. I hope that those interested in learning about the topic will make use of the material provided.
If YOU feel that being listed in a SE is hurting your business, why not just ban them via robots txt?
That is EXACTLY what you said. You said a search engine listing is "exactly the same" as a scraper listing.
Ok, ok, ok, ok, the SE listing does not hurt you while the scrapper does, because it beats you in the SERPs, ok I understand that.
My advise for the original poster pretend to encourage him to don't waste time on large routes.
What is YOUR final advise to the guy?
fair use only applies to non-profitable uses
Wrong. Oh so very wrong.
The commercial nature is only one factor. In fact virtually all fair use is commercial in nature. Newpapers are commercial, and they are major users of Fair Use in their commentary.
There is no "line in the sand" on any of the factors, they must be weighed in a court on a case by case basis.
do a little bit more reading
I always like to refer people to the 11th Circuits decision on Suntrust v. Houghton Miffin, also known as The Wind Done Gone Decision. While it deals with parody, it is an excellent example of weighing the different factors in Fair Use cases.
While I am not a lawyer, item #4 looks like it could have some application to scraper sites, page hijackings, domain poisoning, etc.
Read some Fair Use decisions to learn how those are applied. They aren't just a checklist. All four factors must be applied in weighing what is Fair Use.
There is also what is commonly considered to be a fifth unwritten (and often overriding) factor, is it in the public's interest.
As the owner of my business and my content
You are not the owner of your content. Your content belongs to the public as soon as you publish. You are the owner of the copyright on your content. There is a difference.
From the suntrust decision:
This has an important impact on modern interpretation of copyright, as it emphasizes the distinction between ownership of the work, which an author does not possess, and ownership of the copyright, which an author enjoys for a limited time. In a society oriented toward property ownership, it is not surprising to find many that erroneously equate the work with the copyright in the work and conclude that if one owns the copyright, they must also own the work. However, the fallacy of that understanding is exposed by the simple fact that the work continues to exist after the term of copyright associated with the work has expired. "The copyright is not a natural right inherent in authorship. If it were, the impact on market values would be irrelevant; any unauthorized taking would be obnoxious." Pierre Leval, Towards a Fair Use Standard, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1105, 1124 (1990).
only I can determine if a site copying mine has 1) a positive impact on the market for my product, 2) no impact on the market or 3) a negative impact.
Actually, you are not the one that makes that determination, and the determination is almost certainly not made on the basis that you would expect.
The determination would be made by a judge and a jury.
Again, I highly recommend reading the SunTrust decision, then going on to read some of the others.
I understand that judges and juries make legal decisions.
The "determination" to which I claimed sole rights is the determination as to whether I would want to sue someone for linking to me in a negative manner, not the final legal outcome of the case.
As I am the only person who knows what my income is, what kind of traffic I get from SEs vs scrapers etc, etc, then I am the only one who can determine who I might wish to sue or not. 'fishermx' is in no position to make a determination that SE listings effect my business in exactlty the same way that scraper listings effect my businees because he doesn't even know what industries I compete in, let alone my profits and losses. That was my point.
I understand that if i went to court that I would have to present evidence to back up my case and that the case would be adjudicated by others.
Otherwise your post was very informative and appreciated. But let me approach this from a different tack. At what point would you consider that copyright infringement HAS taken place? Surely there are examples of real and true violations of copyright law. If folks have a hard time understanding what is NOT intellectual property theft, can you show us what is the lowest possible threshold for something that would accurately be called copyright infringement?
can you show us what is the lowest possible threshold for something that would accurately be called copyright infringement?
No. Because there is no specific "threshold". There is a very large gray area where it would greatly depend on the judge, jury, and how good your respective lawyers are.
My non-lawyer advice that I have given several times in forum44 is to avoid the gray area from both sides, because it can be expensive and the results are unpredictable.
If you are using someone else's content without permission, then try to stay well within the definition of Fair Use on all the factors.
If you are a content provider, don't stress over casual personal use or excessive quoting. If they have a possible Fair Use claim that can get them past the Preliminary Injunction stage, then it is almost certainly not worth fighting. Instead, go after blatant infringers.
And if you insist on playing this game, get yourself a good experienced copyright lawyer and pay attention to what they tell you about which actions are worth persuing. Ones that just like to send C&Ds, but have no court experience won't get you very far when you are talking about legal action against a company like Google.
All excellent points. I'm well aware of the gray area, the link I provided explicitly describes it, "The distinction between 'fair use' and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined."
The very existence of the gray area may be enough to give some webmasters who wish to fight back some room to manuever. I agree that it would be useless for small publishers to try to take G to court over fair use issues. But I have found that sending an email expressing my concerns about intellectual property theft to parties copying my content was enough to get them to remove my content.
Sometimes the gray area works for you, sometimes it works against you.
I've had many, many, many problems with people copying entire articles from my site, and Google is very responsive to DMCA complaints. But you can't expect them to act on something that doesn't violate copyright law.
I don't think that anyone here is married to the idea that snippets constitute copyright infringement. What folks want is a way to fight scraper sites.
Does anyone here have any other ideas about how a publisher can uses the law to fight against the loss of income/reputation caused by scraper sites, page hijackings, domain poisoning etc?
I've seen scrapers do everything from 302 redirects gone innocently (?) awry to porno sites that copy another site's content for use as a SE trap, incorporating the original site's business name and even their copyright notices into pornographic content.
Who can give us a tool to fight against such things?
