Due diligence is essential to avoid copyright infringment

[Josh Anderson]

For anyone buying resale rights or master resale rights this thread is a must read.

In fact it may be one of the most valuable you ever read. It will show you how to avoid embarrassment and legal liabilities.

I will post the principle right here:

If you cannot verify your rights direct from the original copyright owner/creator of a work then do not resell it.

This includes derivative works that may contain copyrighted components compiled by someone selling plr, resale, or master resale rights to a package.

If you do not do due diligence and keep a record of it you are exposing your self and anyone you sell to to unnecessary legal liability for copyright infringement.

---

Now here are a few stark examples why...

1. Below is a case involving attorney Bob Silber played out in pubic in the warrior forum.

The Warrior Forum - A Top Marketer's Worst Viral Legal Nightmare



2. It is also common for inexperienced warriors to offer improperly licensed stock images or templates with resale rights.

I have acquaintances who have been sued for thousands of dollars by the legal departments of stock image agencies because they hired some designer who did not properly license an image in the graphics they created for them.

You can read of one such experience here:

The Warrior Forum - UPDATE - copyright infinging tempates from Gurus


3. And here is likely the most embarrassing situation of all forcing many resellers to notify and refund their own buyers and causing a warrior great embarrassment in his wso thread when it was discovered he was offering resale rights to improperly licensed materials:

★ Only 5 PLR Packages Left - Super High Quality Mini-Site Templates, Come Get 'em Now!

The good news is that Dylan did make good and do exactly what he said he would do. A great sign of integrity and I happened to be one of the buyers but luckily had not resold the templates pending verification of copyright. When Dylan made it up to us he over delivered for which I am appreciative.


4. Something similar happened with a package of Joel Comm and Eric Holmlund templates sold with resale rights.

I contacted Eric to do my due dilligence and he informed me that they had not verified the stock images that they used were properly licensed. On further investigation by asking his designer to verify the license Eric found that by distributing the templates with resale rights he had violated the license and was causing his resellers to violate copyright.

He had to issue a letter and email to resellers, may of whom were already reselling illegally, that they should not resell the templates but should delete them immediately and that they would reissue templates with legally licensed images.

For this reason you cannot rely on the due diligence of others and must always seek out and require they supply you with the contact info or identity of the original copyright holder or the original license explaining the rights they and you have.


5. Here is probably the most prevalent case of copyright infringement committed among warriors and other well known internet marketers in the past few years:

The Warrior Forum - Illegal 1600 image graphics pack - Beware

Unfortunately there are many people still selling master resale rights to that illegal package to this day.


It is my hope that by sharing these concrete examples that both buyers and sellers of plr, resale rights, and master resale rights understand the importance of doing due diligence on your purchases and productions.

This includes but it not limited to even the various components of derivative works including images, photos, text, music, audio recordings, animations, video clips etc.

Unfortunately copyright infringement is not uncommon among template and plr package content here in the warrior forum.

Don't be embarrassed or afraid to ask the tough questions before buying. Do your due diligence. It will benefit you, the seller, and other buyers if you do.

If anyone tries to ridicule you for asking and cannot produce the proper licenses or contacts for the original copyright owners of content that they are selling or that they used to create what they are selling you then it is a good sign you should not buy.

Its one thing to buy and sell for consumption risking copyright violation your self... but if you put others at risk by selling them rights you have not verified you are displaying a certain amount of disregard for your customers. You are also opening your self up to even deeper potential liability.

I too committed this error once when I was sold master resale rights to a product by one of the biggest names in internet marketing at the time (many years ago).

I was contacted by the copyright owner and notified that my license was invalid and that the big name internet marketer who had sold me the rights had no license to do so.

To compound the problem I had just sold $7000 worth of resale rights licenses to others.

Lucky for me I was able to purchase the correct license from the copyright owner and resolve the issue without having to notify my resellers. It cost me over $1000.

The guru who had illegally sold me the resale rights was forced to refund me the $400 I paid him. He was also faced with a legal case from the copyright owner. To compound it he lost my trust and I had spend thousands on products from him previously.

No one is immune to this risk unless all they every publish online is plain text that they write 100% original.

Do your due diligence and do not apologize for doing so.

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Ditto for PLR materials too. That's the main reason I stopped using PLR materials last fall, and took down about a dozen websites I had built around PLR. My attorney is the one that clued me in.

I still have some PLR subscriptions, but only where I trust I'm getting them straight from the author. And, even there, I mainly use them for ideas and "getting started" research. I have only one site using such PLR currently, and even there I feel a bit uneasy and may take it down.

But, the biggest problem is when you buy PLR that's been passed around and around. You don't even know the original source for the materials. And, when PLR gets bundled with other PLR and so forth, it gets to be a mess, and a big potential legal liability. I've seen PLR with articles containing copyright notices, and you have to wonder whether it was legitimate PLR or scraped from an article directory or website and sold as PLR at some point.

And, when you get those big PLR bundles, from membership sites or from special offers, I'm sure the seller probably hasn't checked those articles--he or she is likely just reselling PLR obtained elsewhere. And so on.

If the seller cannot answer "yes" to the question "Did you, or someone you hired, write this article as an original work?" then avoid it like a hot potato! You don't know where it has been, where it has come from, or if you are getting the rights you are supposedly getting, or if it was even ever authorized to be sold as PLR.

As a publisher, you are legally liable for what you publish. That's true whether you are selling the articles or using them as content. If you publish a stolen article, or sell stolen materials, you will be the one to get sued. You could then turn around and try to sue the person who sold you the materials, but good luck with that!

[Josh Anderson]

If the seller cannot answer "yes" to the question "Did you, or someone you hired, write this article as an original work?" then avoid it like a hot potato! You don't know where it has been, where it has come from, or if you are getting the rights you are supposedly getting, or if it was even ever authorized to be sold as PLR.

That really is the key.

If you cannot get in direct contact with the original author or copyright holder and verify your license then do not under any circumstance sell it.

Otherwise if it is a registered work you risk as much as $150k in punitive damages per infringement. If it is not registered then you still are liable for actual damages if found to be infringing.

Its not worth the risk.

Also, spend the money to copyright any ebooks you write so that if you find someone else selling or offering them, you have a legal basis by which to sue them.

The minute you publish something you own the copyright and have the legal standing to sue if someone is infringing. You do not have to pay anything. You own the copyright from the moment the work is fixed. You can sue for actual damages.

However, if you register a work with the US copyright office you establish a verifiable history of the work and also make your self eligible for other financial awards beyond actual damages should a case be decided in your favor.

[shinmenx]

Originally Posted by Josh Anderson

The minute you publish something you own the copyright and have the legal standing to sue if someone is infringing. You do not have to pay anything. You own the copyright from the moment the work is fixed. You can sue for actual damages.

I am under the impression that it's much easier if you have a physical copyright rather than having to go to court and say "look I have the files dated from years ago on my computer." Similarly, I've heard the "poor man's copyright" (mailing yourself your product and not opening it) does not hold up in court.

Perhaps that was propaganda, tho.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by shinmenx

Similarly, I've heard the "poor man's copyright" (mailing yourself your product and not opening it) does not hold up in court

You are correct. It does not.

[Vcanoki]

Thanks Josh, for the insightful information on copyright infringment. Big Dogs have all the infrastructure - staff writers and designers to churn great articles and have nothing to worry about. Many beginners and intermediate publishers do not even know correctly what actually copyright infringment is. Anyone publishing anything online is supposed to keep him/herself educated about copyright regulations. In simple terms, if following points are kept in mind, copyright infringment would never be an headache:

1. Always write your articles, even if takes lot of time;

2 If you use others' articles, take permission or quote the
real source of article, it does not make you any harm and
gives little more pub to the original writer;

3. Use your own graphics by paying little fee to designer or buy them
from subscription sites;

4. Don't copy chunks of text on 'as is' basis but use them as an idea
and rewrite or get it rewritten giving your own spin.

5. Precautions to be used while buying PLR and MRR has already been
addressed adequately and need no repetition.

This process slows down the pace of publishing and excitement. But it is always to be always safe and careful online when it comes to cpyright.

Thanks.

[Mark Dulisse]

I ran into this last week.

I got my hands on a list of video sharing lists, bookmarking sites, free keyword tools, etc. Can't even remember where I got the html page. To the best of my memory, it was a freebie to a optin.

I used it for my own use and put it on a subfolder.

Last week, there was a thread of someone wanting help with keyword tools.

I answered, and said, "here is a list, it is outdated, but has free online resources."

Well, it turned out the Warrior cops where on my arse..and in 5 minutes time, I was accused of copyright infringement because it was someone else's html, threatened legal action, and was put on a smear campaign in the thread by hyper active warriors and called every name in the book (in my opinion of course). All it was was a large list of freebie sites.

And the thing was, I was just trying to be helpful. It was a freebie to me, and I was put it on a thread as a freebie to others to be helpful.

While there are tricksters who do break copyright law, there are also innocent incidents that don't need to be over magnified by zeolous warriors (again my opinion) too.

I think a rule of thumb is that if someone has a beef about copyright infringement, they need to prove that it is their work, and go through proper channels with a cease and desist, and not grandstand. There are innocent incidents, and not everyone is out to get you (although some are).

Also, if you do mess up, it is important to acknowledge it, apologize, ask for forgiveness, and offer the person all proceeds of the sales if you profited from it. That is my take.

Mark

[George Wright]

Josh,

And anyone else knowledgeable on these matters.

Here is an email I sent to a well known stock photo seller. I'm printing my questions to the photo seller in blue and their answer in blue bold.

Hi,

If I use a photo from you to make a minisite with a header and the picture is in the header and I offer resell rights to the eBook that the minisite was made for can I give the minisite to my reseller? In other words cases where "ebook comes with resell rights and sales page."

Thanks,

George Wright

Here is the answer I received.

Hello George,


Thanks for contacting us. You may use the images within e-books and e-book covers up to a 500,000 print run under the Standard Agreement. I have provided you with a link to our Content License Agreement for your reference.
Then I replied with....

Thanks,

But I'm primarily concerned with headers of minisites where I sell the package. Can my customer use the header on the minisite to sell the ebook. I'm not selling templates just the right to use the header to sell the ebook.

Thanks.

I received this back,

Hi George,

This should be fine as long as they do not have access to the original file.


Regards,

Do you think I Am safe? Are my resellers safe? I know you aren't a lawyer but you do seem knowledgeable, Just your opinion based on your OP please.

Thanks much,

George Wright

[Michael Oksa]

Great conversation so far.

Too many people have the attitude that if it's online, it always falls under some sort of fair use policy.

I just wanted to add the following...

Asking at the Warrior Forum DOES NOT COUNT AS DUE DILIGENCE.

Sorry about yelling, but to be honest, I don't it can be yelled loud enough.

Thanks Josh, for getting mre people to take note of an important issue.

All the best,
Michael

[George Wright]

Michael,

If you are yelling at me (george turns red) I was asking if the emails I exchanged with photo company looked OK. Just an opinion wanted.

George Wright, P.S. (if you weren't yelling at me or if you were you of course are correct either way, just askin) GW

Originally Posted by Michael Oksa

Great conversation so far.

Too many people have the attitude that if it's online, it always falls under some sort of fair use policy.

I just wanted to add the following...

Asking at the Warrior Forum DOES NOT COUNT AS DUE DILIGENCE.

Sorry about yelling, but to be honest, I don't it can be yelled loud enough.

Thanks Josh, for getting mre people to take note of an important issue.

All the best,
Michael

[Michael Oksa]

Originally Posted by George Wright

Michael,

If you are yelling at me (george turns red) I was asking if the emails I exchanged with photo company looked OK. Just an opinion wanted.

George Wright, P.S. (if you weren't yelling at me or if you were you of course are correct either way, just askin) GW

LOL

I didn't have you in mind at all when I wrote that.

I was referring to people who come in here and ask about whether or not something would violate a copyright, BUT then they discount everyone who disagrees with them.

You don't fall into that category.

Also, you demonstrated what I would call true due diligence - you asked someone who you thought could give you an answer. Whereas too many people will ask Warriors about something, when, in fact, they should be asking the very person who holds the copyright.

Hope that clears it up.

All the best,
Michael

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by Michael Oksa

Whereas too many people will ask Warriors about something, when, in fact, they should be asking the very person who holds the copyright.

As an addendum to that, when asking a copyright holder about usage, people should be as clear as possible about their intended use too. Give or show examples where possible. Because, even with an answer, if you weren’t clear on what you want to do, that answer may be incorrect.

And, that can go either way. You may think your use is okay, but it's really not because you didn't describe it properly. Or, your use is okay, but, because of the way you described it, you get "no" answer back. So, then you have a paper trail of the copyright holder denying your usage, even though your usage might otherwise have been fine!

For example, on some digital assets I am licensed to use, my use costs me an average of $50, one-time. If I don't explain it clearly, some licensers want me to pay something like $1,000 per use. That may even be annually as well; I don't remember. Without getting into details, it is basically the difference between "I want to use your product on my website" and "I want to use your product for my website."

The bottom line is that it's important to be clear about what you're doing. Realize, too, that some people may have a completely different mindset. The word "eBook" doesn't register in some people's minds; they see "book" and they think of print runs, for example. Be clear, be straightforward, and don't be afraid to ask multiple questions to clear things up if you don't think they're understanding what you are asking. Better to look stupid than to be in the wrong!

[Josh Anderson]

too many people will ask Warriors about something, when, in fact, they should be asking the very person who holds the copyright.

Yep that's the point.

Too many times I ask the marketer if they are the original copyright owner or creator of the work and they tell me no and when I ask them to provide me the original license and contact info for the copyright owner for various parts of a work like images, audio text etc they say they do not no...

I even had one refuse to tell me.

If that is the case the only safe thing is to assume that the work or components of work is not properly licensed and you should not distribute it.

The examples in the OP above should make it very obvious why you must verify not just who is the creator of the work or product but also who is the copyright owner of components or parts of the work including text, images, audio, video etc.