Article Copyright Infringmrnt

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mcuk2000

New member
May 26, 2008
201
1
0
London, UK - NYC, US
Here's the thing: I have an article directory with a kicking ass revenue model. I am ready to go live, and will be sending big amount of traffic since the beginning(over 20k/day).

Most of my current DB come from other articles directories. It's not original content, not for now, but it's not what it matters now as I am not SEOing.

I will link to the writer, and he might get some traffic from me, for free...

What are the copyrights risks I am facing here? Will they eventually ask me to take out the articles, or they will sue me and fine me? Who owns the copyright? the directory, or the writer?
 


if you got the articles from different sources then mix them up and post them. The writers own the copyright - check this, so don't worry about the article directories. It is common for people to post their articles multiple places anyways, how they gonna prove you stole it?

To start an article directory, you need some bulk to make authors think you have something worthwhile going so you don't look like the PR 0 site that you are. I recently did the same thing, and shamelessly scraped 40,000 articles from one site and nothing bad has happened to me. All they can really do is make you remove the content.
 
Seriously- don't worry about it. In the event of Copyright infringement, the first step they'll take is to send you a c&d letter (that's cease and desist for non-legal eagles). You take your shit down and comply they'll leave you alone. Unless you are making boku bucks off their stuff (not likely) they aren't going to hold you liable or go after damages.
 
mcuk2000 said:
What are the copyrights risks I am facing here? Will they eventually ask me to take out the articles, or they will sue me and fine me? Who owns the copyright? the directory, or the writer?
Click to expand...

A basic and commonly used copyright notice is: (c) year - writer/company name. All rights reserved, Used by permission only.

All rights reserved means they're the owners and hold all rights to control it's distribution. The date is when it originated and the time period.

The key phrase there is: "permission only"

This means if you want to republish the document - ask 1st and detail what your intentions of use are.

The copyright owner will base their decision on:

A) if you are re-publishing their document for "free use" with no charges attached to view the document. In this case, they'd most likely have no problem with this, and state that you also clearly publish their (c) copyright notice at the end of the article, with a link to its origination.

B) if you are planning to charge people (in a private members area, or resell outright) to view or download their document. In this case, they'd want to write a contract with you and set up a royalty rate in which you'd have to pay them for each individual sale (or a flat one time fee or both).

They also have the right to refuse any duplication for any reason they want.


mcuk2000 said:
ezinearticles.com and places like that
Click to expand...

Took a quick look at that site. They did a pretty good job covering their terms. For both authors submitting to their site and other publishers wanting to republish their materials.

EzineArticles.com Terms of Service For Authors

Terms of Service For Publishers Who Wish To Reprint Any Content From EzineArticles.com


And if for some reason you don't want to go with the steps above (which would be good because they'd respect your ethics and you may end up having a long term partnership developing with them) , if you just post it, as phillian pointed out, then they'd contact you to take it down or modify it to reflect it's origin and copyright notice.

If you're passing it off as your article (when it's an exact duplicate), or your copyright and reselling it. That's copyright infringement and looking for major trouble.

Good luck!
 
"Major trouble"? Unless they actually go out and get a copyright (e.g. submit an application with the gov't) which is notoriously hard to keep up with for content like websites- they can only go after you for 'actual' damages. That means they have to prove the specific article(s) you copied benefited you monetarily, and they only take that. There is so much proving it's ridiculous, which is why even the RIAA has a hard to doing it.
 
"exact duplicate and reselling it" (not reworking it to become a variation on the same topic) - is what I meant.

"Major trouble" - oops, kinda overblown words (for this situation) - but again relating to the above phrase.

I do not know the ins and outs on written content (articles) but I'm sure it falls under the blanket of intellectual property rights.

How much hassle or trouble can you get in? Really depends on what you're doing and how big of a corporation you are doing it to.

I do have some experience in the audio recording department (and have also seen film studios take action - locally near me).

Does this stop pirating and the underground economy? No

Would you be happy getting slammed? I wouldn't be.

If they're offering terms which they'd like you to follow - why not just follow it.

/2 cents
 
d03boy said:
There is no official government copyright document AFAIK. They do not exist. You might be thinking of a trademark.
Click to expand...

There is an official document- it's called a Copyright Registration.

The deal is, if you file for it within 3 months of publication and someone rips off your work, you can go after the infringer for statutory damages... 3x the amount of 'actual' damages, attorneys fees, etc.

If you don't have a copyright registration and successfully sue someone who ripped you off, you can only recoup 'actual' damages, which is more difficult to calculate, trace and prove. Plus, you're already out your attorneys fees.

Anyway- as I said before- the worst that will ever happen to you is a C&D letter. Lawyers are lazy assholes too and they don't want to do anymore work than their client is willing to pay for... sending the letter alone will cost them a few hundred. If it ever happens, comply and you should be fine.
 
If they do decide to go after you, all they have to do is file for the copyright BEFORE they sue you. They don't need to have the copyright on the article filed when the article is posted on their site.

I'd hire someone cheap to start rewriting articles and build up your own library. It will take some time but there is no risk.
 
I am not arguing that it's always better to keep your nose clean and rewrite/ create your own stuff. Obviously, if you have the time or inclination, this is the best thing to do.

But... just so the information is out there...

No, they have to have registered the work before it was infringed upon or within a three-month window of time from the date of publication, whichever is earlier.

... yes, they can always file for the copyright (and likely will in the event of substantial damages) before suit, but they cannot claim statutory damages unless they file within 3 months of publication of their content.

Sources: Statutory damages for copyright infringement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also "Getaped.com Inc. v. Cangemi"...
As Getaped registered its website within three months of this date, it was entitled to statutory damages under the Copyright Act, 17 USC 505, as a result of defendants’ copying of its site, which occurred after plaintiff’s site went live, but before a copyright therein was registered. As noted by the court “both statutory damages and attorney’s fee and costs are unavailable if “(1) an infringement of copyright in a unpublished work commenced before the effective date of its registration; or (2) any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration, unless such registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work.” 17 USC section 412.
 
I've spoken to one of my professors with a law degree and the form does not have to be filled out. Anything is automatically copyrighted when it is created. Proof on the other hand is your burden. Sending yourself a sealed envelope with contents inside is considered to be proof.
 
d03boy said:
I've spoken to one of my professors with a law degree and the form does not have to be filled out. Anything is automatically copyrighted when it is created. Proof on the other hand is your burden. Sending yourself a sealed envelope with contents inside is considered to be proof.
Click to expand...


And... I do this (IP law) for a living.

Yes, copyright is automatic. But it's not about having a 'copyright', it's about the money. If you want max money, you have to apply for and obtain a registration within three months of publication. If you don't have that, all you can do is go after 'actual' damages. In this case, actual that = 1/4 of what you would have gotten if you had just spent the $35 and filled the damn thing out.

... but, thanks to most people being ignorant to this fact, it's why I say that you are almost never going to encounter problems beyond a C&D letter. And it's so hard to find, even that is unlikely.

But, what the fuck do I know anyway?
 
True comments made above.

And just for info sake, if anyone is wondering where to register their work:

Library of Congress Home

They usually have a system where you can register 1 document or creation, or bundle up a collection or works.

cheers
 
d03boy said:
I've spoken to one of my professors with a law degree and the form does not have to be filled out. Anything is automatically copyrighted when it is created. Proof on the other hand is your burden. Sending yourself a sealed envelope with contents inside is considered to be proof.
Click to expand...

Whereabouts are you? Copyright law differs vastly across the world. Here in the UK copyright cannot be registered, as you state it exists automatically from the moment a work is created, but it is different in the US (and most likely more makes the lawyers more money).
 
Didn't want to start a new thread in the Dev section on it, but...

How are PLR, MRR rights tracked? how does a buyer know that the 1000 articles bought from a ad. in this forum for $5 are legetimate? Seems like an original author is SOL if a mis appropriated work gets into the system.
 
@ Lazy hippy..Sunny England! It FREEZING MAN!!!

Back on topic...As the legal eagle Phillian has said, Try and rewrite ...If not wait for the C&D (a rarity) or if you get an email etc. just drop the offending article.

Don't stress 'to' much as most likely if your making money of their stuff will they come a running otherwise they wont.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom