Forum Moderators: martinibuster
When a publisher steals your content:
If someone is using your content without permission and is running AdSense on that content, you can file a DMCA with Google [google.com]. You can also use this to see those pages removed from the regular Google index.
You need to follow all instructions they give you, for it to be considered a legal DMCA notice, then send an email to the AdSense team at adsense-support@google.com. Once this is done, Google will investigate remove the pages from the index (usually takes about ten days once they have received it), and will either warn or suspend the publisher. They will also send a copy of the notice to Chilling Effects [chillingeffects.org].
When you are the one publishing the infringed content:
I don't know how many people file DMCA requests, rather than going the "cease and desist" route, but if you are stealing content from someone, consider yourself warned. Victims of copyright infringement may be more likely to react when they see you making a profit off of their content without permission.
If Google receives a DMCA filing with URLs you are running AdSense on, they can (and have done so) suspended publishers from the AdSense program. The very least they will do is place a block, either on those specific pages or that entire domain, to prevent AdSense from showing on those pages, even if the AdSense script is present. They may also suspend the account until the infringing content has been removed. And yes, they have suspended publishers for copyright infringement when a DMCA has been filed.
When you have been falsely accused of copyright infringement as an AdSense publisher:
You do have options. You can file a Counter Notice [google.com] and then contact the AdSense team once you have done so.
I suspect that this must be something the AdSense team is asked about frequently, since it has been included in the FAQ. Many publishers and non-publishers have been anxious to see something spelled out more clearly about publishers who steal content for their own AdSense profit. But it hasn't been clear exactly what to do when the victims wanted to make sure AdSense was aware that
I am wondering how they choose to enforce this - will it be a standard suspension for any infringers - or will there be varying levels of "punishment" depending on who the publisher is and perhaps by how much money each generates.
And things could heat up if they plan to apply this to publishers who take only partial content (a paragraph or two) from a variety of sources and place it on a single page. Will just one person filing a DMCA for a couple of paragraphs being placed on a site be enough to suspend the publisher's account? Or could it fall under "fair use".
This fits in nicely with the People using my content to make Adsense money: Is this Evil? [webmasterworld.com] discussion over the last few days.
You can also read the copyright infringement in the AdSense FAQ here:
[google.com...]
While some people look upon adsense as an oppurtunity to grow & add good, useful content to their sites, other are getting greedy & shamelessly stealing content from websites.
I am glad to read this post.
donstar.
It answered in fact many of my questions in regards of websites stealing some of our content.
I hope to see a lot of these worthless adsense sites getting accounts suspended / terminated.
At Pubcon 6 I spoke with Gokul about my incident and asked for this to be explicitly written into the policies and it seems to have happened.
At what point does 'scraping' become copywright infringement? It links to the origional source, quotes the source verbatim, and credits the source with the content - so could that ever be considered infringement?
This is one area I am quite interested to see how Google AdSense reacts to. Many of these types of sites did end up getting removed when they did the big "clean-up" back in December.
If anything our website creates a substantial market for the reviews. People visiting our website go to reviews that seem to be interesting based on the snippet we pick. If they like the site enough they are sure to visit again. If not, well at least that publisher got ad revenue from the non-return visitors as well.
I don't see how we'd be a useful service without publishing the snippet. Headlines alone can be incredibly deceptive or uninformative.
This surely falls under fair use under the DMCA. The only country in the world that I know of that doesn't even allow snippets or headlines to be used is Scotland. (So yes, we avoid posting Scottish reviews). So I certainly hope that people don't view us as "evil."
The only country in the world that I know of that doesn't even allow snippets or headlines to be used is Scotland. (So yes, we avoid posting Scottish reviews).
Who threatened you with what regarding this as I supsect they were merely sabre rattling. Scotland does have copyright laws (along with much of the rest of the world) which are mainly covered by lisc agreements. However, snippets/headlines can be used especially with some newspapers.
Sticky me if private
At what point does 'scraping' become copywright infringement? It links to the origional source, quotes the source verbatim, and credits the source with the content - so could that ever be considered infringement?
I suspect at that point you would only have a case if you could show it was hurting you financially. Not that I like it, I don't want to even be associated with that kind of a site.
My major problem has been with people copying me to help sell their "antiques" on EBay. I don't want to be associated with thier questionable practices.
So, I am very tempted to report them, but given the decent revenue I generate from AS myself, I am leery of possible backlash by the owners of these sites. My concerns are in regards to retaliation- through the form of clicking repeatedly on my site ads, etc. to try to get me cancelled as well.
And hence, the dilemna - These sites are both nuisances at best, but very blatantly ripped off my site. They should be punished - AS should definitely cancel their accounts. But, is reporting them worth the risk of possible cancellation myself, as a result of their likely underhanded retaliation?
So, I am very tempted to report them, but given the decent revenue I generate from AS myself, I am leery of possible backlash by the owners of these sites. My concerns are in regards to retaliation- through the form of clicking repeatedly on my site ads, etc. to try to get me cancelled as well.I think this is a valid concern.
But, is reporting them worth the risk of possible cancellation myself, as a result of their likely underhanded retaliation?
Reporting them won't do any good unless you're filing a DMCA complaint at the same time.
And, get in touch with G about it too.
You said that "My concerns are in regards to retaliation." Seems to me that if you report them, AdSense bans them, and they retaliate, that Google would be VERY likely to listen to you if you told them you were being sabotaged. They might even be able to find that the click saboteurs came from IPs of those content thieves. DON'T let a fear of retaliation stop you from reporting them. Deal with the retaliation if and when it happens. Good luck!
Who threatened you with what regarding this as I supsect they were merely sabre rattling. Scotland does have copyright laws (along with much of the rest of the world) which are mainly covered by lisc agreements. However, snippets/headlines can be used especially with some newspapers.
Noone threatened me. I'm basing this on early Internet case law in which a scottish newspaper succesfully sued another newssite for copying the headline wording only and linking to the actual articles using the headline.
Here's the case (Shetland Times vs Willis):
[netlitigation.com...]
I suspect at that point you would only have a case if you could show it was hurting you financially. Not that I like it, I don't want to even be associated with that kind of a site.
Sorry, I'm still not seeing what's wrong about copying a sentence or two to describe the article I'm linking to. This isn't copying the content for "stealing's" sake. It's more along the lines of quoting a source. In any case, Google news does it, yet you associate yourself with Google by being a part of the adsense program...
Sorry, I'm still not seeing what's wrong about copying a sentence or two to describe the article I'm linking to.
It depends on the site. This has nothing to do with the law but how I feel. I have no problem with a reputable site copying a line or two with a proper reference or better yet a link like you do. My problem is when it turns up on a scummy looking site and worse yet my Ebay experience has with been people selling fake antiques. Then it hurts my reputation.
I haven't seen your site but it sounds like it would be fine. Do you write any of your own text then include the quotes? That would be better yet as the quote would be in a review of the site. That would definitely be fair use plus it would add value to your site. I don't think it would have to be a full page review, just a line or two.
they list no fax number on that page...
Don't you guys think that this would be a problem..because goverment can also sue you for using their content/ articles..AM i right? or this is taken as acceptable practice...
Thanks for your time..
Don't you guys think that this would be a problem..because goverment can also sue you for using their content/ articles..AM i right? or this is taken as acceptable practice...
That may vary from government to government, but in the U.S., the federal government's documents are in the public domain. However, a third party's formatting, indexing, etc. of a governtmend document may be protected by copyright. For a discussion of how this works, scroll down to the "Government Documents" section of The Copyright Website's Info page at:
[benedict.com...]
I was just reviewing the site cancer.gov and it says that they are in public domain and also says "Most of the information on the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Web site has been written by federal government employees. This material is in the public domain and is not subject to copyright restrictions. Therefore, no special permission is required to use it or reproduce it. However, any reproduced material should contain proper acknowledgement of NCI as the originator and the NCI Web site, www.cancer.gov, as the source." but the site cancer.gov says the text is copyrighted.
Where do you think this site falls?
Thanks
However, any reproduced material should contain proper acknowledgement of NCI as the originator and the NCI Web site, www.cancer.gov, as the source.
To me this means it's not necessary to attribute anything to them whatsoever. If they stated must that would be different.
So on the one side it says...anybody can copy and on the other side they say that "it is copyrighted"
So What is the final message they want to give? I do not mind crediting them as source...on that very page..
thanks
