Forum Moderators: not2easy
Now the person is really upset that I've asked to have our name, page content and graphics removed from their site(s).
Looking a little further, I've discovered that the entire sites (more than 1) in question are nothing more than copyrighted material from a whole bunch of sites that have apparently "agreed" to let this person sell their products. It's all cobbled together - cut and pasted for the particular items being sold. To add insult, we've yet to receive a single order from this person.
I mentioned more than one site. The person behind it all apparently "builds" a site, adds it as a subdomain or subdirectory listing, and when someone comes along, will sell that site. After selling the site, however, the pages remain on the original site as well. It's akin to me selling you my car, but I get to drive it whenever I want to since I still have a key. You just get to fill the tank up for me.
Anyway, I just received an email from the individual. I am being referred to their attorney. They believe that since I gave permission to sell my product, and sent them a catalog, they have a right to do whatever they want with my name, page content or graphics. Grrrrr.
First stop tomorrow: the mailbox with a letter to G outlining the infringements in question. Meanwhile, if you sell anything related to Home Decor or products used in the home, you might want to see if you've been hijacked. Sticky me for the URL.
grandpa
What I've discovered is an individual with their own server. That person created a web site by cutting and pasting the content of other sites... tacky at best. Then they sell a domain and design a front page that sells these products, but each link goes back to the original pirated pages. Each of these sites that I've found all sell the same items. To my knowledge there are about 50 such sites that have been sold in this way.
I'm looking at this from several perspectives. First, I'm hacked that I've been hijacked. It's just plain wrong; I don't expect any debate about that.
By using my name and my resources, the individual increased my exposure somewhat. But should I accept this kind of exposure under false pretenses? And it's worth mentioning that my name has built reputation and recognition... not as much as Coke or Windows, but the reach is out there nontheless.
The people that buy into these storefront domains are out to make an honest a buck as I am. The first one I contacted apparently closed her site down completely. We spoke on the phone (I received the call) and the frustration of dealing with the situation was obvious. That doesn't make me feel like a hero.
The individual that maintains the server has already begun to remove my work from their other customers home pages. The issues that remain with this person are no longer mine, but perhaps they are yours, or someone you know. I'm not an internet cop - for the most part I care less what people do with themselves. But the fact remains that this individual still maintains and sells a site that is - from all appearances - 100% copyright infringement.
I like to go to bed at night knowing my space in the world is as right as it ought to be... anyone else?
It's good that you appear to have your situation on the way to being corrected, grandpa. I think there would be less theft of content if content owners were more aggressive. First, content owners need to search the web frequently for stolen content instead of waiting for someone to stumble across it. Second, if the thief is clearly a rip-off artist (as opposed to, say, a high school kid who unknowingly put copyrighted content on his personal site), a vigorous initial response may be better. Complaining not just to the site but also to the host, the ISP, major SEs, etc. may be a good start. For firms with the resources, filing suit without warning would definitely put the hurt on some of these thieves.
Some have advocated an initial friendly contact as the fastest way to get your content removed from an offending site. This may be true in some cases, but it does little to solve the bigger problem. If you knew that in a particular area the police would always issue a warning to first time speeders, would you obey the posted limit? I think many people would interpret that policy as a license to go as fast as they wanted to. The current status of content theft isn't too dissimilar; content thieves assume that the worst that will happen is that an angry site owner will ask them to remove the stolen content. If some of these people ended up in court, it might give them pause in the future.
In any case, grandpa, good work to put the hurt on this individual. I might even be tempted to see what other domains he's ripped off and drop their webmasters a note. Exposure is the key...
A company I once resold products for provided me with catalogs and a web site. I could scan images from their catalog or download from their web site, use descriptions, etc. In fact, it was encouraged.
So, an individual to whom you have given permission to resell your products may honestly believe that he can do the same.
Thus, the need for a reseller agreement or some other agreement which details what they can and cannot use. Can they use your images? If you sell pool tables, do you expect a web merchant to purchase every variety of pool table you have available and take their own photos?
I think you have to give your resellers some leeway. I don't think you need to allow them to copy everything of yours, but that's why you need to spell it out for them.
With resellers, even if they are being a "wholesale" seller to their own resellers (i.e. the web sites they sell), I think you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. It's one thing for a competitor to steal your content and use it; it's another for a reseller to do the same, who may not realize that there's anything wrong with it since other companies do allow it.
You do have the rights over your name, images and other content, and your resellers shouldn't *assume* they can do whatever they want with it. But, I think it would be worthwhile to develop some formal agreement as to what (if any) of your content they can use and how they can use it. It may be too late in this case, but would be good to have on hand for any other people that come along and want to sell your products.
When I get an e-mail that asks if you can sell my widgets I take the view that this person will be a typical wholesale customer, so I say sure. It's my responsibility to ask a few questions - which I did not ask.
To that end I'm considering drafting a couple of new documents - more content :-) I'll spell out exactly what is and is not acceptable and refer questions to my documents. After all, I'm not really out to drive people away. I remember posting about my first experience with my name, just few weeks ago. It turned out much better.
rogerd, I thought I tried a fairly friendly approach, even though I used words like "immediately". I didn't go for the throat, and sure didn't throw the book the M$ uses when someone infringes thier name :-) I believe the person running this thing got real defensive, real quick. Think of "getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar". If I had to guess, that person is hoping I'll go away once they remove my name and content. Well, the letter is still going to G, no matter that one site is down and others are changed. They can decide better than I if they want this person represented in their serps. It seems far fetched to think the person would have the honor of seeing a judge - at least in this matter - however, as long as they keep that site up there's hope...
<add>
After just reading JudgeJeffries post, I see my biggest mistake. Next time, I'll take screen prints, URL's and any other proof to a lawyer... then wait for my check to arrive in the mail.
</endadd>
Copying your whole site seems a bit extreme, though - it's hard to believe this individual did this thinking it was fine. Any normal businessperson would have seen the copyright notice and at least informed you of his plan. The fact that the rest of his content appeared to be ripped off is one indicator of the sort of "marketer" he is.
