Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Just found an MFA that is constructed entirely from content taken from one of my pages. Its more than 300 words long. Some of the words are underlined and linked to my site, but other than this there are no credits mentioning me as the author
The owners have a faded disclaimer at the bottom citing "Fair Use" and some rationale about hyperlinks that lead to the "authors page". However I wonder if 300 odd words or more is within the bounds of 'Fair Use'
More to the point, this is a page that doesn't look like a scraper site that has used my content to generate revenue from Adsense. I have reported it to Google as a violation, but I wonder if Google will respond to my email...... Let's wait and see
[google.com...]
if they are not running adsense, you can file dmca requests with any search engines that are linking to the infringing site, or to the host.
This was my original thought, but I wasn't sure if 300 words was pushing the boundries of Fair Use or not.
a short quotation, and maybe even a paragraph is probably ok.
another factor might be the overall length of the work. if someone copied 300 words out of a book that is 500 pages long, then maybe it is acceptable. but, if you have a 300 word article and someone copied the entire thing, i think it is clearly infringement.
PS webdoctor I started to read that stuff you posted a link to. Thanks
If the visitor doesn't notice the faded small print disclaimer or the underlined words in the body (hyperlinks) it would never become apparent that this was copied content.
just to be clear... quoting a source does not allow someone to copy it. citing a source is required for quotations, but merely naming a source does not give licence to copy; permission is required.
Be sure to follow ALL of these procedures:
This will remove the page from Google's index:
[google.com...]
This will remove Adsense from that page:
[google.com...]
This deals with the Adwords side (if they are using adwords to drive traffic to that site)
[google.com...]
I might be "spreading panic", but if you can afford it I suggest removing Adsense from your site (the one they stole contents from) for a couple of weeks. This will eat your revenue, but will reduce risk of "revenges" from the thief.
BTW, fair use is NOT a right, it's just a defense.
So, attack and let them defend their (in this case, indefendable) case.
[copylaw.com...]
Points that apply to your case:
10: Make certain you comment ....
14: If the use diminishes the market for the copyrighted work .... it is probably not a fair use.
16: .. fair use is a "defense" to copyright infringement, not a right.
(This is the most often mis-understood point.)
also,
[publaw.com...]
See the "three criteria" and you will see that your thief probably misses all of the three!
just to be clear... quoting a source does not allow someone to copy it. citing a source is required for quotations, but merely naming a source does not give licence to copy; permission is required.
Yes, this wasn't written in the context of a quote, it was straight out plagiarism. In this case the source (me) hasn't been named, just some obscure notice claiming to have linked to the source.
Thank you so much for the links, I'll have a read now.
Nolo Press on Fair Use
[nolo.com...]
A couple of notable quotes are:
Violations often occur when the use is motivated primarily by a desire for commercial gain. The fact that a work is published primarily for private commercial gain weighs against a finding of fair use.
And my favorite for your case:
Rule 2: Are Your Competing With the Source You're Copying From?Without consent, you ordinarily cannot use another person's protected expression in a way that impairs (or even potentially impairs) the market for his or her work. Thus, if you want to use an author's protected expression in a work of your own that is similar to the prior work and aimed at the same market, your intended use isn't likely a fair use.
Since they are competing with you for AdSense $$$, they can sit and spin on their fair use statement.
If they're in the US their ISP will knock 'em offline almost immediately upon receipt of the DMCA letter to make sure they are within their safeharbor and can't be named in a lawsuit.
Enjoy.
Those quotes are interesting. I noted similar points on the document Frox linked to.
I'll have a good read of the source that you have referred, thanks your links.
Just a point regarding the DMCA. Google mentions the possibility of it backfiring, presumably if the other party successfully counterclaims, using a defence such as fair use.
This reminds me of a scrape I had with a lowlife a couple of years back. The guy copied slabs of my content. I contacted him asking him to remove it. He made some excuse blaming his wemaster but finally removed it after a couple of days. Months later, he copied graphics from my site and made slight modifications to them, I confronted him again and he returned fire with abusive emails trying to turn the situation on me. Fianlly after some time he removed them.
I've had other scrapes where C&D letters did the trick.
I might sleep on what I've read so far and see if Google responds from an adsense policy violation standpoint before taking the DMCA approach.
I am a little anxious in case the guy turns vindictive if and when I file a DMCA.
Hopefully Google will do the right thing and shut his Adsense account down. On the plus side I notice the offending page is not indexed by Google (yet) but is by at least one other search engine. I haven't checked the domain yet, but I'll do that tomorrow.
Goodnight and thank you all.
If you're writing an article for print media the time honoured rule is you can quote no more than 4 lines/sentences of text without having express permission from the original author.
For anything other than primary source (ie interview), one should provide full documentation of the source (see Chicago Manual of Style for proper format).
A link, by itself, is not a proper citation - and I believe most style manuals have been updated to include recommended formats for electronic media quotations (ie from TV, radio, net).
addenda -
sumarazing/paraphrasing and rewriting (ie changing the adjectives in a sentence) or alteration of graphics (ie the "make ten changes to it and it's yours" fallacy) does not alter copyright.
Remember a DMCA can backfire so make sure before you go forward with one you have a lawyer review your case should you be countersued which can and does happen you will be in the clear. I would suggest a copyright/patent lawyer for this stuff if it goes that far.
Remember a DMCA can backfire
we have filed many DMCA requests... how can it backfire? all have been successful, except one died in the water - how can it backfire?
Just make sure you have run your information by a lawyer before you choose to file a DMCA or you could be the one paying. Also be prepared for legal fees if the entity that you are filing against chooses to take it to court, a lawsuit can be a very expensive affair easilly 30-50k in legal fees depending on the experts you require and legal team you choose.
I am a little anxious in case the guy turns vindictive if and when I file a DMCA.
Send him a demand letter requesting he pull down your content within 24 hours or you will DMCA him to his domain name registrar, web host, Google, Yahoo, and MSN.
If that doesn't produce results, then DMCA him, he's been warned. I haven't had the opportunity to file a DMCA in over a year because most scrapers aren't married to their "content" and so are quick to take it all down.
Just make sure you have run your information by a lawyer before you choose to file a DMCA or you could be the one paying
This is exactly what I am afraid might happen. The CD does sound like a good option because it is probably the safest.
In the meantime I have reported him to Google as an Adsense violation, because his site exists for Adsense. On a sidenote, it also promotes links to an ebook on another site. I shudder at the thought of investigating to see if I have been ripped off here within the ebook.
Somehow I doubt that Google will respond back, even if he is obviously breaching Adsense TOS. I am afraid I have lost more than a little faith in this regard.
I have also reported him to MSN and Yahoo as spam. His content (on the offending URL is duplicate content and his domain home page (which is indexed by Yahoo and MSN) contains no content whatsoever.
He doesn't rank high in the SERPS or anything unlike the guy (who stole my text and graphics) whom I battled with a couple of years ago. That guy ranked and continues to rank in the top few within our niche worldwide.
This is exactly what I am afraid might happen. The CD does sound like a good option because it is probably the safest.
I've filed a TON of DCMA letters, cheap, quick, and the ISP has to move on them fast or risk being sued. Heck, I had 10 sites closed with a single notice once and they still aren't back online 2 years later ;)
They can only backfire if you aren't the original author or making a fraudulent claim or have to proof to back up your claim.
Most people can back up their proof with file dates and times, when the content was first indexed on the Internet Archives, etc.
There is no question about me being the original author. However, what if it goes to court and my right is upheld? Then i am still up for my own legal costs.
In a totally unrelated case to the cases I mentioned above, I had a scrape with someone. I used a copyright lawyer. It cost me $1100 just to get them to write one letter.
It cost me $1100 just to get them to write one letter.
That's why I used the DCMA notices as I can execute them for free and if the jerk doesn't give up right away the court would be step two. My attorney told me to go ahead and do the DMCA's to save a bunch of money if would cost him to set them up and come back if it failed.
I've yet to be back over copyright action since that day.
Besides, you're allowed to recover all court costs over copyright, you should never be out of pocket on anything in the end.
I wonder if it could potentially backfire as he does mention (in his tiny faded text) the copyrights belonging to owners and authors being hyperlinked. He then goes on to say that he is using everything on a "fair-use" basis for the purpose of site "comparison"
I havent ruled out DMCA but I don't want to hang myself by jumping in without considering the potential issues first.
Hell, I ran a hosting company for 5 years and we got a DCMA notice just on a branded logo, shut the site down until they removed it. The host won't get in your way and these idiots claim fair use just to keep from getting sued but it sure wouldn't stop me.
Hope you filled out the $35 for a real copyright which gives you real legal teeth, and if you haven't, do it now and nail the next one to the wall. Real copyright filing gives you potential statutory damages over $100K, plus other perks, which common copyright doesn't allow.
In Australia, as I understand it there isn't a system where you file for copyright. The international nature of this thing also worries me a bit
Then those idiots run into idiots like me that when I find sites like his, look up bunches of other comtent to see who owns it and notifies a boatload of people so all hell rains down on his parade.
