Likely scenario if I upload old articles I'd removed four years ago?

[Roman Abramovich]

I wrote a few nice articles years ago, around 2012. I then removed them from my domain and never used again. I notice other sites have these articles copied on their sites when I search. If I decide to upload these same articles will Google think I am copying others, or because they indexed these on my site first years ago they will know I am the true owner of them.

[Wilburforce]

What you describe is infringement of your copyright.

Have a look at Wayback Machine ([archive.org ]), as there is a good chance your earlier publication date will have been recorded there, assuming the articles were published for any length of time.

Look for other evidence as well (e.g. date created, which will be available for the original files, although if you have modified them in the meantime this won't be much use).

If the evidence is there on Wayback Machine, use it in a DMCA notice of the copied content to Google.

You should also - anyway - issue infringement .notices to all the plagiarising site owners, as anyone who has copied content will know they have done so, and some may remove the content without waiting for evidence of your earlier publication. However, if the evidence is there, refer to it in your notices to them too.

Google is likely to have some data on the pages on which the articles were first published, and you probably won't suffer any penalty for re-posting the material, but enforcing your copyright is the best way forward, and you should keep this in mind when publishing new content.

[Roman Abramovich]

Thanks for that Wilbur, and yes I can view my original articles on the wayback machine ;) I will do what you said, much appreciated.

[30K_a_month]

for the sake of a few articles, get news ones made or run them through a spinner then do plagiarism checks. PErsonally I would ditch them

[tangor]

If the articles are good enough to return the question to be asked is why were they removed in the first place? As for others having copies, your removal and failure to control is a tacit "release" to the public domain. Fortunately copyright law does allow you to retroactively protect your intellectual property, though that hiatus will induce some questions.

[Roman Abramovich]

I don't think the reason of why they were removed in the first place comes into it at all. That's like me telling the judge I was free to take the car as the door was open with the keys in it and nobody was about :)
At the end of the day it's my work, I took them offline (which I think would be my right), and people stole them and now have my work on their sites.

[Robert Charlton]

IANAL, but here's one of several references that might apply, at least in the US...

Copyright and Fair Use: A Guide for the Harvard Community
http://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-use [ogc.harvard.edu]

Does a copyright expire when a work goes out of print?

No. The copyright lasts for a term of years... regardless of whether the work is still in print.

It may take a combination of the Wayback Machine and DMCA notices to enforce this. Changing or spinning the original work when you repost would probably weaken your claim.

Note, btw, that there is somewhere on Wayback Machine documentation a note to the effect that the archive isn't really there for legal purposes. I don't know how this might effect you in a trial... but I doubt it would need to go that far.

[RedBar]

or because they indexed these on my site first years ago they will know I am the true owner of them.

IME they haven't a clue, they lost control of this years ago and even more so insofar as images are concerned.