Today, while searching for a different WordPress plugin, I ran across this troubling post from John TP from last week:
My blog posts have been reblogged a few times in Splogs in the past and that too directly from my feeds. After switching to partial feeds, I never faced this problem until recently a few splogs like http://weblog-pla.net have started it again. This raised my curosity as to how they do this and that too automated…I found two WordPress Plugins that these spammers use– Autoblog and FeedWordPress.…I highly recommend that you do not use these WordPress Plugins. Earning money through these methods is not safe and can get you banned by the Adsense team.
John’s discussion of these plugins is ambiguous at best. In fact, given the space he devotes to their features and functions, one might even think his goal is to encourage their use without being overtly encouraging. If John really didn’t want to encourage their use, he should be stronger in his condemnation of them.
In addition to “I highly recommend that you do not use these WordPress Plugins. Earning money through these methods is not safe and can get you banned by the Adsense team” John should note that losing out on Google Adsense advertising revenue the least potential consequence.
RSS feeds are published for individual, private consumption; they are not a blanket license to, or waiver of, reprint rights. Taking and republshing content–no matter how much or how little–without the original author’s permission is a violation of U.S. and international Copyright laws. There are exceptions, of course, detailed in the Fair Use doctrine, but such exceptions are very specific and do not apply to the vast majority of sites using FeedWordPress, Autoblog, and the like. In fact, Charles Johnson, the creator of FeedWordPress is in constant and frequent violation of copyright law because the apparent majority of his blog’s content is stolen without the original authors’ permission.
This entry, for example, does meet Fair Use criteria because I have quoted John TP’s content as part of a critical discussion in which I respond to John’s work instead of republishing it as if it were a native part of my blog. In over-simplified terms for those newbie bloggers:
blockquote = has a chance of being okay
adding complete RSS/Atom feed items to your blog without permission = definitely not okay.
Calling a site “an aggregator” does not exempt it from the laws or prosecution to enforce the laws protecting other content creators and owners.
Anyone contemplating “splogging” or even just pulling others’ related content into their blogs should know that, for each and every post or excerpt incorporated without the original author’s permission, U.S. federal law allows for a fine of up to US$50,000 plus potential damages to be awarded to the victim of the theft. In addition to the monetary cost, each post stolen could earn the thief a year in a federal penitary–and that’s if he can pay; if he can’t, the amount of potential prison time increases.
Contrary to popular Internet misinformation, copyright infringement is prosecutable regardless of any or all of: one’s ignorance of the laws, one’s intents, or whether one actually makes money from the theft. Stealing a blog post and reprinting it on a site without ads can net you a $50,000 fine and a year as Bubba’s wife as easily as reprinting onto a site with ads.
Losing Adsense eligibility will seem like a very insignificant consequence while defending against a $5 million lawsuit in a far away state.
How likely is it that someone will actually sue if his article winds up reprinted on you blog? Well, it depends on whose work you steal. A professional content site like the ones I publish will sue to protect its intellectual property–in fact, I have sued for that very reason and prevailed. Under the law, content creators/owners are obligated to aggressively protect their intellectual property, up to, and including, prosecution.
While the average content thief (a classification that includes “splogs” but also any blog or Website using content not of its own creation without permission) may steal from hundreds of other content creators and see no suit or other consequences, the difference is not the thief–it’s the content creator. Every victim of content theft has the right and obligation to go after the thief. More and more creators are learning this, which means the odds of content thieves being sued–even by the average Joe blogger–are increasing. One may steal one hundred RSS feeds with no reaction, but that one-hundred-and-first could put the thief into an orange jumpsuit and with a lein against his wages for the next fifty years.
If you use FeedWordPress, Autoblog, or any other automatic content republisher, employ it only with the permission of those who own the content you want to use. It’s a simple process: Go to the blog you like, find a contact e-mail address or form, and ask: “I have a blog at http://yoursite.com, which covers this, this, and this. I’ve been really impressed with your content and know my readers would like it, too. Could I get your permission to reprint your RSS feed content within my blog as individual posts–with links back to your blog, of course?”
As always, I am not a bar-certified lawyer, nor was I educated as an attorney. Do not believe me. Do not believe any claims about copyright or other intellectual property law you find on the Internet–from anyone. Do your own research into the subject. Google is not a research tool on copyright law and do’s and dont’s; there is so much confusion, misinformation, and, occassionally, disinformation that the truth is buried too far down in Google’s results. Go to the source for copyright law information, the United States Copyright Office. It’s free to get the information you need to protect yourself and remain legal.
If you have more specific questions about copyright, buy an hour of a intellectual property lawyer’s time; you’ll find them listed in your local Yellow Pages under the heading of “Patent & Trademark Attorneys” (copyright, trademark, and patents are all intellectual property law served by the same attorneys).
Hmm, at first you are threatening people with prison, and then mention that “Don’t believe me”. You are a strange man. ;-)
:-)
Intellectual property is a massive gray area. Pepsi vs Coke — FedEx vs UPS seen any TV lately
Ok.… So you syndicate your feeds.…. Then get upset when someone uses your feed and syndicates your content??? That’s what RSS/Atom is for fools. They don’t call it Syndication for nothing.
–Ben
[quote]
U.S. federal law allows for a fine of up to US$50,000 plus potential damages to be awarded to the victim of the theft.[/quote]
The content owners permission is given when they syndicate their content for use on other sites. Don’t want to share your content, don’t publish a syndication feed.
Mr. Yellow said:
That’s an erroneous assumption, Mr. Yellow. According to U.S. and international copyright law, the creator (or content owner) retains all rights until and unless one or more rights is explicity given away. Unless a the RSS/Atom feed specifically states that permission is granted for republication by other entities, then any such republication is a violation of copyright law.
Content owners provide RSS/Atom/whatever feeds for the convenience of human readers so that they may read the content in another medium or on a device other than a computer screen and Web browser. Regardless of how others choose to use the technology–indeed, regardless of even the original purpose of the technology–the intent of the creator/owner/publisher is the overriding legal concept in determining whether the content may be republished or if republication is unlawful. If the owner doesn’t give explicit permission either in a private agreement or via a notice accompanying the content in question, republishing the content is a violation of the creator’s/owner’s rights of copy. Ergo, up to US$50k plus damages per incident.
Well, the argument could be made that I, as the operator of some ‘aggregator blog’ simply aggregates the feed for my own use on my own blog. The fact that others might read it is not under my control. (Devils advocate.)
I think it will be tough to sue a splogger if he/she is hiding behind some corporation in some foreign country that does not have similar laws.
I dont know to much about this whole “feed” thing but I will say this: Its not right feeding off others hard work. I was shock to see this happen on a site I visit frequently, the guy had the nerve to praise the Author’s website but used her content as his own. Go to mydebtfreegoal.com and press on the most recent post and just read the comments.
boy, you really live in a fantasy land — “RSS feeds are published for individual, private consumption”
Says who? You? RSS feeds are to distribute and syndicate content. Any site aggregating that content has links back in the feed to the original site. Assuming someone just uses the first paragraph and does not republish the entire thing and leaves the links up you are nutty. Doesnt mean some fag like you wont still try to sue but just goes to show why the US is going down the shitter, you are all lawsuit-happy. If you dont want someone drawing from your feed, dont publish one.
p.s.- by your logic every website in the world has the right to sue google and all the other search engines because they are “republishing” your content eg the first few sentences of your site without your explicit permission.
As a law student who has done quite a bit of research on copyright issues, I can tell you that the person who wrote this has a bug up his ass and should seriously do some research before he tries to petrify anyone who may be republishing RSS feeds. It is truly irresponsible.
While it’s true that RSS feeds ARE copyrighted and cannot be republished without permission, there is a very strong legal argument (that has been made by dozens of top scholars in the field) that says by publishing an RSS feed, one is granting an implicit license to syndicate that content…as long as there as a link back and the whole feed isn’t used (essentially, common sense applies.)
Of course, if there is a copyright notice saying don’t republish the feed or limits the use to personal/non-commercial use, that would be a violation.
But if there is no notice saying otherwise, it makes total sense. It’s digusting to see how this guy refers to “stealing” and “thieves.” Get that bug out of your ass, if authors don’t have a notice limiting their RSS feeds, they are probably fair game.
You know, I’m just going to take you to town on this whole thing.
“In fact, Charles Johnson, the creator of FeedWordPress is in constant and frequent violation of copyright law because the apparent majority of his blog’s content is stolen without the original authors’ permission.”
Absolutely incorrect. He can only be in violation if the author has denied him permission. In fact, the fact that he’s been republishing (not stealing) this information for so long without a problem ACTUALLY means that there is an implicit license to use them. You can’t steal something that is given away with permission, Pariah. The only person breaking laws here is YOU. What you are doing is called Libel and it is written defamation.
“RSS feeds are published for individual, private consumption”
The ignorance here is palpable. RSS feeds are published for whatever reason the copyright owner wants to publish them for. If its individual, private consumption. That’s fine, but who are you to say what purpose RSS feeds are republished for??? You aren’t the copyright owner of every single RSS feed are you? That’s what I thought…
and have you simply forgotten how easy it is too put a disclaimer enxt to your RSS feeds stating that the feed is only for personal and non-commercial use? Well, if you don’t, its your fault. When the law finally comes down on this, you’re going to see that there is probably going to be an implied license unless the holder of the field gives it away. Thats why its called SYNDICATION.
Taking and republshing content—no matter how much or how little—without the original author’s permission is a violation of U.S. and international Copyright laws.
Copyright law, when it comes to RSS, is a very very gray area and for you to say anything else is, again, highly irresponsible. It’s just as reasonable to believe that (as many scholars believe) an implicit license is granted to republish feed content along the bounds of common sense and fairness. You are not a lawyer, so stop talking like one.
Please cut your hair. It looks ridiculous.
andy, thanks for setting that straight. I was worried for a second that I’d actually have to manually write all the code for my “payday loans suck” site. Now I can rest assured that I can just steal it!
Ok, I’m being facetious here, but I feel wronged whenever someone grabs my content and sticks ads around it. good to know I can put a notice around it telling them that its not consumercial syndication.
Yea this pariah guy is true to his namesake. He touts about “suing successfully” those who have infringed on his copyrights yet you see a big fat “GET MY CONTENT” and a variety of ways to syndicate. Sounds like a classic ” throw water on the floor in mcdonald’s…slip and fall…and then sue.
Well at least he does start his posts with a header…What follows is entirely my personal opinion, and the personal opinions of respondants. We could all be wrong.
“Under the law, content creators/owners are *obligated* to aggressively protect their intellectual property, up to, and including, prosecution.”
Hi. Where did you get this idea from?
Also, could you point me to any successful lawsuits that you have pursued? Thanks!
I’ve had a lot of content from my various sites used by splog sites in the past. What I’ve done is to create an explicit copyright notice explaining that for any part of my articles to be used on another site, there must be a link to my original article (showing the source URL in the link text) that clearly notes it is the true source of said article, and this link must be at the top of the syndicated article.
When I find my content has been syndicated without following these requirements I contact the site owner and ask them to adhere to my rules for using my content. I give them a few weeks and resend my email a few times.
If no action is taken I then contact the web company who is hosting the splog site. True, not all hosts will be helpful, but I’ve had great success with this approach and recommend it.
In short, send the host a list of the articles and matching source URLs from your site and explain that the splogger is infringing on your copyright. In every case where I’ve taken this action, the hosting company investigates, verifies copyright infringement and shuts down their site until they either remove my content or use my content as laid out in my copyright and syndication page.
I am surprised by the sniping comments that your well reasoned article has received. I have just added the feedwordpress plugin to one of my blogs — planning to use it to feed news info to the site (not other people’s blog content — so I am now reconsidering my decision having read your very reasonable remarks.
Are these others just content theives that don’t want their actions to be limited? I just don’t get their comments!
Anyway, much thanks from me I appreciate the info
FeedWordPress is a tool for copying hypertext from one place to another. (Specifically, hypertext stored in a handful of common machine-readable formats.) Like many other tools that can be used to copy information — such as xerox machines, optical scanners, OCR software, HTTP servers, or Bic™ ballpoint pens — FeedWordPress can be put to both legitimate and illegitimate uses. Like any other tool, it has no way of knowing whether or not the information being copied is being copied with or without the permission of the person who originally created it; the responsibility for using it appropriately (as many people do — for example, to create “planet” websites that contributors sign up to join, or to automate cross-posting, or to create “lifestreams” that aggregate all of their own online activity) lies with the user, not with the tool.
And, speaking of responsibility, in your article you write: “Charles Johnson, the creator of FeedWordPress is in constant and frequent violation of copyright law because the apparent majority of his blog’s content is stolen without the original authors’ permission.”
You then link to Feminist Blogs — a topical aggregator that I’ve run since November 2004 — as “my blog” (it’s not; my blog is at radgeek.com).
This is a serious accusation. Do you have absolutely any evidence whatsoever that any of the feeds syndicated on Feminist Blogs are syndicated without the express permission of the author or authors? If so, what evidence do you have?
Ahhh f**k. Now I am going to take his feeds and ya i can fetch all ur content even if u provide partial feeds and post it on my website with lots of ads around it. Come and sue me.
I think the real question here is more about what claims you make regarding the content your aggregate from whichever source. I for example import fail pics from different sources and share it with everyone else, but do not expressedly claim to own it as most of the content wasn’t produced by me.
I for one won’t mind people sharing my content with anyone else as long as they atleast mention that it came from one of my blogs or gives me an opportunity to contact them so they can remove it. What is wrong is someone sharing your content and then claiming it as their own.
So my opinion is this. It’s right to share someones content, as a way of adding to your user experience. It is however wrong if you use their content and claim it as your own to promote any entity, such as yourself or your blog, as the creator of such content.