Sep
29

What Do We Do About Plagiarism?

Yesterday I blogged about my experience at the 2009 Small Press Expo.  That post was commented on and retweeted by several readers, which I appreciate.  It was also reposted on three websites of varying legitimacy, by other people and without my permission.  That, I’m not so cool with.

Repost #1 – John Lessnau’s Traffic-Building Scheme

I don’t know John Lessnau, but his blog’s author bio states that he “create[s] web sites and web services that are evolutionary and revolutionary because there is too much warmed over crap on the Internet for my liking.”  More succinctly, his Twitter profile explains that he drives “web traffic and fast cars,” so his revolutionary evolutions must be working.  And while his recent tweets indicate that, like most of us, he’s not a fan of spammers, he apparently is a fan of aggregating articles from around the web and re-listing them in some kind of information buffet — my own included.

Lessnau’s About page cites him as the founder of two apparently successful text link ad services, which may explain his propensity for mining other people’s work for his own fun and profit.  And although I’m flattered that Mr. Lessnau (or perhaps one of his text scrapers) thought yesterday’s post was worth including in his list of “Articles About Making Money as of September 28, 2009” (as opposed to considering it more of the “warmed over crap on the Internet”), I find fault with his presumption that I (or anyone else) would naturally enjoy being linked to from his infoglut menagerie.

Mr. Lessnau states that I (or anyone else who’d rather not have their work scraped to his site) can use his automated contact form to request that my blog be removed from his “RSS resource list.”  Funny; I didn’t realize that the default online procedure was to build ad networks around other people’s work unless they choose to opt out.  In that case, I’d also like to opt out of any service that repurposes my video, images, audio, likeness and name, please.

(And yes, I realize he uses a picture of Tom Waits as his author photo.  That’s beside the point.)

Repost #2 – PulpLit.com

Another blog-as-traffic-misdirector ploy, PulpLit reposted the first 491 characters (or 79 words) of yesterday’s blog post — oddly cutting themselves off mid-word — and then supplied a link to my full article.  Classy.

Their About page says: “Our objective is to provide our users with the most comprehensive database of sources to the comics publishing world.”  While I’m not really sure what that means, I’m also not sure who PulpLit is, since the only “author” they list is someone named admin.  (He’s the guy / girl / mongoose who “wrote” my blog post.)

Best PulpLit design choice: at the bottom of my hijacked post’s page, their three-column format is filled with the exact same column (of similarly “aggregated” material), three times over.  That’s the comprehensivest.

Repost #3 – CelebrityTwitterGossip.com

This one is my favorite.  Not only did they repost my entire article (without attribution), but they kept my original hyperlinks (and then added their own keyword links via AdBrite).  Alas, not all of their automated scraping goes so smoothly.  At least they had the good taste to use the same blog template I do.

So… What Do We DO About Plagiarism?

In Lessnau’s case, he at least invites people to opt out of his text scraping scheme (even if they never opted in).  The other two sites are no different from thousands of other ad farms, spam ovens, linkbaiters and domain squatters out there; I just happened to notice them because their spiders noticed me first.  This wasn’t the first time it happened and it won’t be the last.

You might ask, “But who gets hurt in this situation?  It’s just one website duplicating free content from another.”  Which is technically true, except that:

  • No one asked my permission to reprint my own work,
  • No one credited me as the author of my own work, and
  • All three of those sites are conceivably pushing ads based upon my work.

Not that I’m expecting to make money off blog ads.  (If I were, I’d have installed them already.)  But my words are making pennies per click for someone else out there, and I’m not seeing a peso of it.

The web’s inherently permissive culture, in which information is free and intended to be shared, remixed and reconceived, is unfortunately very exploitable by the people most inclined to abuse loopholes in the system — or to steal other people’s work outright.  And as much as I reject the strictures of copyright, it’s clear that something has to be done to prevent the bottom feeders from profiting at the expense of actual creators.  Creative Commons is a step in the right direction, but it still doesn’t stop things like Douglas Coupland’s conceptual theft from Ze Frank.

The onus of accountability shouldn’t be on the creators; it should be on the thieves.  I’m not entirely sure how we’re supposed to stem the tide, but I do have three suggestions:

  • Be vigilant in monitoring where your own work turns up online.  If you’re not credited, or if you feel like your work is being misused, demand that it be removed from the site.
  • Since most of us would go broke filing DMCA takedown notices every time a robot, scoundrel or multi-level marketer stole our work, I’d also like to suggest the creation of a Bloggers Legal Defense Fund (unless something like that already exists — anyone have any such links?)
  • License your own work.  You don’t have to be George Lucas to manage your creative assets all the way to fame and fortune.  If what you’re writing, filming or otherwise creating is good (or relevant) enough to be plagiarized by someone else, it’s good enough to be licensed for reprinting in other sources.  Think of it like “guest blogging,” but you’d actually get paid.  (And at least you’d have a tiny war chest built up for litigation during those times when an informal request isn’t enough to make things right.)

Anyone else have any ideas on how we can keep the bastards from winning?

UPDATE (9/30): In a stroke of irony that only the Internet could produce, this post itself has been listed as one of 50 Posts About Working with Video on the Web as of September 29, 2009 by Perry Multimedia.  If you’re wondering, Perry Multimedia’s services include “any form of project you may need help with that would utilize web sites, audio, video, CD Rom/DVD, video conversions, or even designs or copy for print or other forms of desktop publishing.”  So, really, every form of communication possible.

Doubly interesting: that list of 50 blog posts was scraped by something called The RSSdoodle, created by (drumroll, please)… John Lessnau!  (See Repost #1 above.)  Lessnau describes this widget as “yet another plugin that will bring relevant content to your blog in an automated fashion.”  Evidently, this “relevant” content can even include blog posts that expose said content as a legally-questionable sham.  Download yours today!

Share This Post:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted by Justin Blogging, Social Media Subscribe to RSS feed
  • I see this as a double edged sword with a sharp tip!

    The tip being that other people see that people realise their content is of value so they want to "have it as their own" because they did not think in that direction on their own and it kinda makes sense to them.

    One of the blades cuts deep and makes one think and add to what was written and give one a direction in which to write an article.

    I remember Chris Brogan saying that going out and sitting in a cafe',reading and talking was his inspiration for the articles that he writes. To my mind very few have their finger on the pulse as does Chris and I always enjoy and learn from his insights. I told my husband that Chris know his craft and many a time one fall in love with him as a person! {Now I said it!}

    Then there is the other side of the blade that turns in the soul of the author that says: "mine!" "I said that first" and it should be acknowledged or I should be rewarded every time that something in this vane is written!

    The point is that we are dealing with language and ideas. Once an Idea is out there is kind of goes places and can we really stop it.

    The other point is collaboration and creation spurs more ideas and great inventions and do we want to prevent this?
  • I think Max Barry said it pretty good awhile ago here: http://maxbarry.com/2005/06/09/news.html

    He also proposes that copyright should expire after a flat '10 years.'

    I feel that creativity should be rewarded, and that copyright is a good way to control what is done with your specific creation. But when you release something, you release it to the world. Whether it succeeds or not is not a question of mere PROMOTION, but of the quality of the work.

    People should not be allowed to lock down ideas, stories, or media forever plus 50/100 years from reissue. There may be nothing new under the sun and everything that can be said has been said, but it hasn't been said my way.

    Here's another post by Max dealing with copyright and how it will die: http://maxbarry.com/writing/bits/copyright.html
  • Collin: yes, that part where I said "IP is a silly idea" (and that part where I'm wearing a Pirate Bay tshirt right now) implies that I don't believe in IP.

    Ideas are different than physical property. Even IP law acknowledges this. 'Theft' and 'infringement' are different for a reason. You cause no loss to others when you repeat their ideas. And it may be your perrogative under current law, but it's not under what is moral or right (to me personally).
  • My solution is to make my writing so bad that no one would ever copy it!
  • Mary
    I'm generally in agreement with Steve. While repurposing your entire post is copyright infringement, as Blogger #3 did, pasting a section of it and linking to you (as in Blogger #1 and #2) is not. (Blogger #2, though, should be shamed for setting up their aggregation to make it look like someone else's post is their own. Tsk.) While you may not like it (and thus may spend some of your own time asking bloggers to cut it out), other sites are legally allowed to do so under the fair use doctrine, unless they've taken the "spirit" of your work. This part of copyright law is intentionally fuzzy and frustratingly so, but using a paragraph or two is generally fine. (You could make an argument otherwise, though, and leave it for a court to decide.)

    Positing that you should make a buck off someone else's link to you, when they've used your work under the fair use doctrine, is dangerous territory. Should Google be paying us for people that find us via search results, and link to us? I'm not so sure. Links make the Web go 'round.

    However, I can understand how it feels to have done the work and watch what, in these cases, are essentially bots pick up what you've done and repurpose it -- it feels a little icky. And it is. But unless they're taking the "spirit" of your work, it's legal. (And isn't this essentially what Google is doing, too?) If they want to sell ads on their own aggregate/link-farm sites, that's their prerogative.

    One final thing about copyright: You automatically own the copyright for every creative work you produce, whether you note that officially on your site or not.

    All that said, your ideas for solutions are really good ones. I especially like #1 and #2. CC is a partial solution, but you can't use it to make your original copyright stick more -- you just use it to license it to who you want to license it to.

    Phew.
  • Steve must not believe in intellectual property.

    If someone creates a work, they have a right to do anything they want to it (profit from it or not profit from it) it unless they've given that right to someone else or the public domain. I might call this a natural right--a right of property.

    Using that creator's property without his permission is theft, misrepresenting it as your own is fraud.

    Steve, you can choose to let people copy your content without hearing a peep from you. However, others, e.g. Justin and I, chose not to let others freely use our content. It's our prerogative.

    Karen, copy and paste from the web used to be able to be controlled via Javascript, and it likely still may be on some sites. However, these controls are useless, as they would do more to prevent fair use than flagrant copyright infringement. Next time you encounter a site which prevents you from copy/pasting, hit Ctrl+U in your browser: voila! you now have access to the source code of the page, and all of its contents, unfettered.
  • Wrong. You'll fall behind because you're only following, not leading. You'll never be able to keep up in the marketplace because your content will be old news.

    If I had more than two things on my blog, and any of it was relevant to your audience, you could copy one of my articles wholesale and not hear a peep from me at all.
  • Steve: I like your style. Inspired by your insights, I'm going to start selling other people's work as my own. Making new content is time-consuming and has a high rate of failure; better to steal what someone else has done and sell it as my own, because at least I'll save money on production costs.
  • Ah. The phrasing was confusing to me. My bad.

    We're still in disagreement, then. It's a bit of a fundamental one: I don't see why (in a "personal ethics" sense) someone else can't make money from something you create (and not just you, the hypothetical "you"). I'm not going to say that creating link farms isn't a bit of a dick thing to do, because it is, however, those people aren't actually doing anything to actually harm you in any way.

    I acknowledge that my opinion is in a bit of a minority, but IP is a silly concept in general. Support for my position is growing, however.
  • Steve: I never said I couldn't make money off blog ads. I said I don't, and I don't intend to. If someone else wants to make money by loading their own blog with ads, they're welcome to it.

    However, if someone else wants to make money by repurposing my content without my consent and then using my content to increase their own traffic & targeted ad clicks, I see that as a problem. (I believe it's called theft, or something similar.)
  • Karen, you misunderstand how the internet works on a technical level.

    Justin... I'm not sure why if you don't feel that you can make money off of ads on your blog, you're worried about someone else being able to. And if they're able to when you're not, then why shouldn't they?
  • Oops, I used a tag accidentally. I meant to say "Your RSS feed has no copyright notice in text or a copyright element."
  • As you find unauthorized copies of your work, update the post in question with a "Plagiarists" section with "nofollow" links to the offending copies.

    Devil's advocate: Your RSS feed has no copyright notice in text or a element. Looks like there may be a Wordpress plugin for that.
  • Brian
    Great discussion piece! I would say since they are using your work commercially, and you have a copyright notice on your site, that they are violating your copyrights and IP rights. Send them a bill for the use of your work, if they do not pay enforce it in your local small claims court. You are only trying to recover fee for services.

    Is adding a licensing form on your site good, or should you go through a service? -- worth thinking about.

    Good Luck.
  • Heard about a site called FairShare last night from my podcast-mate Christine Cavalier (@PurpleCar) during recording of PushMyFollow. It keeps track of where your content is republished and lets you know about it. It's a first step to keeping the poachers in line.
  • Why should browsers allow you to right click and cut and paste. Is this a function of the internet we need? Couldn't it be worked into browser functionality that copy and pasting isn't possible? This would save a tremendous amount of headache for many people - bloggers, writers, etc...and then open up the ability to freely publish writing that may otherwise unavailable.

    Am I just being naive here? Think about it...there really is no good use for being able to copy and paste from a website. Want to note the information, highlight and bookmark the website.
  • It's nice to see someone else carrying the banner for a change. I've written extensively on this subject for years now and it's a much wider-spread problem than most realize.

    I've even observed certain so-called a-listers doing it, and it's not just about copying someone else's work word-for-word either. That's called copyright infringement.

    Plagiarism is about changing the words around a little and trying to pass-off someone else's intellectual property as their own. (Like many of us tried to do in College on our term papers until the Professor found us out). ;-)

    I've even read so-called "blog tips" that encourage the "recycling" of content. They have no compunction to raiding someone else's ideas and passing it off as their own without even so much as a link (or mention) to the original source.

    Those of us who pioneered the blogosphere played by the rules (mostly) until the Internet marketers and SEO types got together to game Google for profit. Since then plagiarism has become commonplace and the Internet is now a cesspool of plagiarizers and sploggers.

    And it just keeps getting worse. It is one of the reasons why I don't blog as often I used to. I've had enough of being ripped-off and turning a blind eye to the problem. It's a cancer running rampant and as long as certain influential bloggers continue to encourage it the problem will only continue.

    Thanks for writing about this and continue with the good fight.
blog comments powered by Disqus