Copyright Infringement - Graphics License Violation

[Bayou]

It has come to my attention that a package of illegal derivative works of my graphics has been produced, and they are being sold bundled with other graphics with Master Resale Rights.

I am pleased to say that having contacted the person concerned they have cooperated 100% by taking down their sales page and by replacing the five sites in question with an alternative product, and I have also received an apology. This person has also emailed his list, letting them know that they cannot resell these sites and that he will be replacing them with an alternative product, one which has already been produced.

Unfortunately there are still people selling these sites. Here is one of them [link now removed]

I have sent in a support ticket and marked it urgent but that was 12 hours ago and I have not had a reply.

The five sites in question are as follows:

Going Green
Identity Theft
Healthy Eating
Real Estate
Wine

and as you can see, they have been made into Adsense sites. This is a copyright infringement not just on my product but on the stock photograph license that I purchased.

I still work full time in the day job and it has taken me 18 months to build my membership site Creative Niche Graphics. It takes me 2 whole days to create one Niche Site and I provide 3 each month. I work all the hours I can just to make ends meet and I have worked extremely hard on my product.

All of this is extremely damaging to my business and to the businesses of my members, not to mention my affiliates too. Goodness knows how much money I have lost through this. I have bills to pay too and I only have one wage coming in plus what I earn from my membership site. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

If you are still selling these sites, you must take out the five niche Adsense sites as mentioned above. You must also contact the person who sold them to you.

If you need any more information please contact me.

Thank you.

[dean_holland]

Hi ,

This is a terrible thing to happen !!

You have my deepest sympathy... I know all too well what it is like to be trying to build a solid online business whilst still having to maintain a full time job.

Just of interest how did this whole nightmare begin ? Am I right to assume a customer of yours then began to resell the product they had purchased from you ?

Should you not take action against them and put the ball in their cours to take all nessessary action to resolve the damage ? They must have details of all the people they sold to...

I feel it majorly unfair that not only they should get away with this as you must of clearly stated they must not resell and also that you should then have the pain staking task of tracking down the new sellers yourself.

Best of luck in whatever you choose, Im sorry this has happened to you !

Dean

[ShayRockhold]

While I sympathize, naming names on this forum is a violation of Rule #1.

[Bayou]

Hi Dean,

Thank you.

I give Limited MRR to my Niche Sites over at Creative Niche. My members are allowed to resell them and give resale rights to their customers. Their customers in turn may resell for personal use only.

My members are doing okay - it's the resellers that seem to take advantage. It was a reseller who made the derivative work but I must stress that the reseller in question has given me an apology and has rectified the situation. However, there are still his buyers (not all of them) that are still selling these Adsense sites which is the derivative work.

All of my Niche Sites contain Licenses and I have covered everything that people need to know.

[Bayou]

Hi ShayRockhold,

Unfortunately that is nothing compared to the violation and copyright infringement on my graphics and to that of the stock photographs that I purchased.

If people keep selling these sites as Adsense sites, they could get into trouble.

I am doing everyone a favour and protecting my business as well as that of others.

[Pat Ordenes]

nothing worse that getting graphics stolen...
i feel your pain. been there.
All the best

[ShayRockhold]

Originally Posted by Bayou

Hi ShayRockhold,

Unfortunately that is nothing compared to the violation and copyright infringement on my graphics and to that of the stock photographs that I purchased.

If people keep selling these sites as Adsense sites, they could get into trouble.

I am doing everyone a favour and protecting my business as well as that of others.

I understand that, but if you violate the rule:

"The main overriding rule for this forum is this:

If you have a problem with another Warrior, a Guru, or God, take it up with them directly. Not here. No exceptions."

then you run the risk of having the thread nuked, which will not help you, either.

[Aritra Basu]

Hey Bayou,

I agree with Shay. Remove Willie's name from the post above. You can email him or send him a PM.
I am sure there's some misunderstanding- because it's very unlikely of Willie to do this.
So before the post gets nuked , you just go to the edit option and remove his name. That way, you can have the post running and help the others.

Just my 2 cents.

God bless and hopefully things get sorted soon.

Thanks

[Bayou]

Ok - sorry - his name has been removed now. I need to show you what the sites look like so that the people who are selling them know.

I have sent him a support ticket over 12 hours ago - I don't know how else to contact him. I know he would remove them.

[johnedgley]

I do not think that the overriding point of this post is a problem with another warrior, the problem is with the ongoing availability of copyright material - I for one, whilst not condoning the naming of individuals unnecessarily, wholeheartedly support the principles of truth, honesty, and free speech - and appreciate the need for this type of discussion.

As I understand it the individual responsible for the initial infringement has done what they can to make amends, and the offer is no longer available at their site, and they have not been named.

@ Bayou - my recommendation is to take out the individuals name and leave the link!

[Bayou]

Thanks John - that is exactly right and I have removed the name and left in the link.

I have no argument with individuals because the original problem has been rectified.

[Taylor French]

Your rights are a little confusing.

You do not have Private Label Rights to these NicheSites. You may repackage the NicheSites with other NicheSites from Creative Niche Graphics.com, Private Label Content that you have the license to resell as PLR, or content that you have written yourself, thereby creating a brand new product.

You say you don't have Private Label Rights, but you say they can be packaged with PLR you have a license to sell, content you've written yourself, etc. Maybe this person felt that by creating the Adsense sites with them, they were packaging it with content they'd written themselves? Did they change the graphics themselves before distributing them? If not, I would have thought this was legal, too, after reading your terms. It seems like it could be a misunderstanding.

[Bayou]

Hi Taylor,

My license clearly states that a derivative product cannot be made from my product and then resold. If buyers want to use the sites as Adsense sites for their own personal use then they can but they cannot change the product to resell.

[Bayou]

Just to say thank you to those who have PM'd me. Unfortunately I cannot PM you back because I do not have enough posts so thank you.

[mikemcmillan]

Bayou, I had copyright issue yesterday and put up a post on it (I didn't mention the name) but it was for an article not a graphic. Still, I know how it makes you grind your teeth at night. There are all kinds of annoying parasites out there doing such things, so do what you can but don't let it get the best of you!

By the way, Willie is a great and honorable man--there must have been a misunderstanding somewhere.

My sympathies for your problem!

[Bayou]

Hi Mike,

Thank you.

Yes, he is - I have the greatest respect for him and I know that once he realizes, then he will change the page.

I am not pointing the finger at anyone in particular here. People need to know what these sites look like so that they stop selling them. The original marketer has rectified the situation so everyone who has purchased should have started getting the replacement sites.

[johnedgley]

@Taylor French - I think we all know how hard it is to cover all eventualities in our licenses (well - most of us anyway), but I think your quote from Bayou's license is relatively clear - "You do not have Private Label Rights to these NicheSites".

It goes on to say that "You may repackage the NicheSites with.... ....thereby creating a brand new product." which seems to me to indicate quite clearly that a new package can be created, but it does not in any way give or even imply permission to change the sites and resell them, whether as part of a package or not.

That aside, due diligence is always called for in these matters, and if you, I or any other person seeks clarification on copyright and license terminology we must ask - after all, peoples livelihoods are at stake - including fellow Warriors.

[Taylor French]

Originally Posted by Bayou

Hi Taylor,

My license clearly states that a derivative product cannot be made from my product and then resold. If buyers want to use the sites as Adsense sites for their own personal use then they can but they cannot change the product to resell.

But did they change the actual graphics? Because if not, then it's not really a derivative work, is it? If they're using the graphics as they are, perhaps they thought they were following the rule by packaging the graphics with something they wrote, which would have been allowed.

[johnedgley]

@Taylor French; It seems to me that your comments are the main cause of confusion in this matter. Looking at the screenshots, it seems to me quite clear that they didn't package them with something they wrote, they changed the templates to resell, and they also packaged them in a manner that was not allowed, and therefore absolutely irrespective of the graphics, they violated the license terms.

Why you are so hung up on the graphics I don't know, but if you are a lawyer and can enlighten us as to why that would make a difference then please do so, for it certainly seems to me that you are simply fudging the issue - lol - perhaps you are a lawyer at that.... or maybe a politician....

Either way I'm not sure I'd want to sell anything to someone who can wriggle like that!

[Taylor French]

Originally Posted by johnedgley

@Taylor French; It seems to me that your comments are the main cause of confusion in this matter. Looking at the screenshots, it seems to me quite clear that they didn't package them with something they wrote, they changed the templates to resell, and they also packaged them in a manner that was not allowed, and therefore absolutely irrespective of the graphics, they violated the license terms.

Why you are so hung up on the graphics I don't know, but if you are a lawyer and can enlighten us as to why that would make a difference then please do so, for it certainly seems to me that you are simply fudging the issue - lol - perhaps you are a lawyer at that.... or maybe a politician....

Either way I'm not sure I'd want to sell anything to someone who can wriggle like that!

Because her license specificially states:

You may repackage the NicheSites with other NicheSites from Creative Niche Graphics.com, Private Label Content that you have the license to resell as PLR, or content that you have written yourself, thereby creating a brand new product.

I don't know how much more clear I can be. Her license COULD BE confusing to some people.

[gxd5]

I just posted this in another thread, but hit this ISPs with a DMCA takedown notice.

[Bayou]

Just to let you know that all parties that I am aware of have now taken their sales pages down for which I thank them.

I would also like to thank everyone for their support.

[Dennis Gaskill]

Looks like Willie or his people took down the site. It's now a Oops page with an apology and a free ebook for the inconvenience to his visitors.

[johnedgley]

Originally Posted by Taylor French

Because her license specificially states:

You may repackage the NicheSites with other NicheSites from Creative Niche Graphics.com, Private Label Content that you have the license to resell as PLR, or content that you have written yourself, thereby creating a brand new product.

I don't know how much more clear I can be. Her license COULD BE confusing to some people.

lol - I rest my case!

(emphasis on "with" is mine)

[Bayou]

I have just received this email - here is a copy and paste:

hi Julie

I do have 5 replacement packages ready to go - nothing to match your graphics skill - but clean nevertheless.

Feel free to edit your Warrior post to include my support desk and the display (not sales) page:

DanBCauthron.net

7opp.com/nichesitekits/5-replacements.html

You can also post this statement from me:

Anyone who will present a receipt (in a support ticket - of course) to show purchase of the illegal files will receive my replacements at no cost, no opt in, and no obligation whatever.

I quit the Warrior forum years ago due to abusive personalities. I hope the atmosphere there is better these days.

Thank you for your patience.

Wishing all the best
Dan B Cauthron

---------------------

Thanks again to everyone.

[johnedgley]

Kudos to Dan - that seems to clear things up and hopefully close the matter.

[elitesystem]

It really sux when your work gets stolen and produced.. it is also tough to locate the culprit, however its not impossible! anyways Dan did the job! cheers!

[Taylor French]

Originally Posted by johnedgley

lol - I rest my case!

(emphasis on "with" is mine)

Sorry, dude, you just rested my case!

You may repackage the NicheSites with other NicheSites from Creative Niche Graphics.com, Private Label Content that you have the license to resell as PLR, or content that you have written yourself, thereby creating a brand new product.

With:

• Other NicheSites from Creative Niche Graphics.com
• Private Label Content that you have the license to resell as PLR
• Or content that you have written yourself, thereby creating a brand new product

But thanks a lot for making my case more clear, man. Helps a bunch. In this case, the graphics were packaged with the Adsense sites/articles/whatever. The question is, were the graphics themselves changed? If not, as I said before, some people COULD interpret this as being allowed.

Anyway, glad it's been sorted.

[Thomas Belknap]

From what was posted on this thread in regards to rights, I would agree with Taylor's remarks.

It isn't very straightforward in my opinion.

[edhan]

Originally Posted by Bayou

The five sites in question are as follows:

Going Green
Identity Theft
Healthy Eating
Real Estate
Wine

and as you can see, they have been made into Adsense sites. This is a copyright infringement not just on my product but on the stock photograph license that I purchased.

All of this is extremely damaging to my business and to the businesses of my members, not to mention my affiliates too. Goodness knows how much money I have lost through this. I have bills to pay too and I only have one wage coming in plus what I earn from my membership site. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

If you are still selling these sites, you must take out the five niche Adsense sites as mentioned above. You must also contact the person who sold them to you.

If you need any more information please contact me.

Thank you.

How does one verify that they are getting from your affiliate members that is legal? If possible, is there a website where I can view those images so I can check to see if I am having them and finding out who I have been from to confirm it?

Thanks! I wouldn't want to infringe any copyright issue when these images are rightfully yours. But at the same time, I want to confirm if I have them and got it from the right source.

[Francis Chan]

Originally Posted by Taylor French

With:

• Other NicheSites from Creative Niche Graphics.com
• Private Label Content that you have the license to resell as PLR
• Or content that you have written yourself, thereby creating a brand new product

I agree with Taylor about the possibility fo confusion arising from such license terms.

It says one can repackage "thereby creating a brand new product". Someone takes that as approval to take the header and use that for use with an Adsense site. I haven't seen the derivative product so I do not know whether it was simply repackaged or the header graphics been altered in any way.

I am sure Dan or Willie have no intention to infringe on Julie's or others copyrights.

BTW, I like your minisites Julie.
All the best.

[dndoseller]

Man, with all the copyright infringement problem posts I am seeing lately on WF I have to question the underlying model of being in a business where part of your process becomes fretting and worrying about theft on the Internet. Regardless of the interpretation of the license you are dealing with a large majority of the Web population that can not even read English! Seems a more solid premise to base a business on that reality. This must be how the record industry feels, and why it is failing.

[johnedgley]

Much as I would like to drop this, the implications of previous posts have educated me into realising that this is actually even more serious, and even more of an uphill battle than I had at first realised.

I had always taken infringements seriously, and realised that a number of factors can lead to them occurring, but now have to re-assess my licensing strategy such that it allows for the ability of supposedly educated people to read whatever they wish to see into "terms and conditions", viz;

"You may repackage the NicheSites with" - def. "with" - a function word to indicate combination, accompaniment, or addition...

Now whilst there are undoubtedly other definitions (mine is Websters), this to me clearly states that the "Niche Sites" (the product that has been purchased or otherwise obtained) may be repackaged as an accompaniment to (or in combination with, or as an addition to) other material.

It in no way says that they may be disassembled, deconstructed, or altered - e.g. by extracting the graphics and combining them with other material.

The apparently serious contention of Taylor French that "some people COULD interpret this as being allowed", is a salutary lesson to me (and possibly to others out there) that I should not assume even moderate levels of education and understanding in our "native speakers", let alone the non native speakers (which, by the way, I have considerable insight into as a native English speaker functioning daily, for nearly ten years, in Spanish)

Perhaps the scariest part is the manner in which he attempts to justify his view, i.e. by saying that "In this case, the graphics were packaged with the Adsense sites/articles/whatever. " (emphasis mine). This so completely ignores the explicit wording of the license, not to mention the spirit of the message therein, that it almost beggars belief.

Using "logic" such as his, it would be ok to buy a book and rip out the introduction (or maybe the first few chapters) to create a new book that he would call his own (oh - and the last few too).

Or buy a music cd and use the first track on his album and call it his own (oh - and the last one too).

In short, even if the license were ambiguous or unclear in its wording of what one can do with the package (which in my opinion it is not), it certainly does not give permission to extract the graphics from the package for any purpose - whether they be altered or not.

Thus "the question" is not "were the graphics themselves changed" but rather "was the package changed" - and the answer is a clear "yes".

His statement that "some people COULD interpret this as being allowed" is pointless; we "could" do lots of things in life, but it doesn't make them right.

[aylafrance]

Hi Bayou - thank you for some fantastic graphics. Not blaming anyone just joined your club - that seemed the most sensible thing to do as they are probably the best graphics I have seen on the web. I want more on a regular basis.

I have the three for this month but would like to purchase the missing ones that Mr X used. It is possible for me to purchase back editions please? I am not allowed to write to you off list as like you I am in the baby pen even though I was a member of the previous site for years. Seems that did not count.

I am a co-owner of a membership site and someone stole the name and rearranged the 5 letters, then stole the whole membership site, names and addresses etc. Nominet nor anyone else was willing to help so being a minor host I read their Terms and Conditions and went after her host reseller. I got my site back but it created a bad atmosphere in a small well known niche.

I also think that the reason I don't have enough posts to be let out of the baby pen is because now WF think more of their rules than their members. If you have been ripped off we need to know by whom otherwise we have no idea of who is doing the ripping off.

Thanks again for fabulous graphics and sets, your jungle set is about to be bought also - way out .

Something good has come out of something bad, I discovered you and have become your long term customer. Hope Kent is OK, we ran away to France some years ago as the treadmill got us down.

Thank you again for all your hard work.

Aylafrance - the fool on the hill - who did not moan but bought into the club - which should be $67 a month and not the pittance it is - get in NOW, Bayou deserves it. Not an add but a statement of fact.

[goalpower]

Did you officially get your graphics copywritten? Is that a requirement? And are they altering what you've created and tweaked them? Don't know about the law, but I know website design firms do this all the time and as long as they're altering the original content they seem to not be in violation of copywrite laws for graphics.

I'm NOT CONDONING this practice - but I don't think you'd have a leg to stand on in court if you don't officially get your work copywritten. Just because someon adds the copyright symbol to a work doesn't make it official in the eyes of the courts in the US. That's what an attorney told me once.

Check with an attorney to make sure.

Sorry this happened to you.

[johnedgley]

@ aylafrance - "I also think that the reason I don't have enough posts to be let out of the baby pen is because now WF think more of their rules than their members. If you have been ripped off we need to know by whom otherwise we have no idea of who is doing the ripping off." Hear hear - on this and other salient points.

@ goalpower; First off, I am not a lawyer - just had a lot of dealings in these matters over the years (nearly forty!). That said, and without intending this to be construed as legal advice, copyright is automatic and inherent in an original work at creation, it does not have to be registered in either the UK or US to exist. I further acknowledge that Wikipedia isn't always correct, though the UK quote comes via the official UK Copyright Service.

1)source: Copyright - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office"

2)source: P-01: UK Copyright Law fact sheet
"When rights occur; Copyright is an automatic right and arises whenever an individual or company creates a work."

"Don't know about the law, but I know website design firms do this all the time and as long as they're altering the original content they seem to not be in violation of copywrite laws for graphics.".

That depends almost entirely upon origin and licensing of the said graphics, but they often are in violation.

"Just because someon adds the copyright symbol to a work doesn't make it official in the eyes of the courts in the US. That's what an attorney told me once."

True - the attachment of the symbol is near meaningless, the point is that the work has to be original - otherwise you could copy anyones work, put the copyright symbol on it and claim it as your own.

The issue of proving the originality is at the core of this, which very often means providing proof of the date of first publishing - something which registration can achieve, though not necessarily. There is also the concept of "Poor man's copyright". Back to Wikipedia for this one;

source: Copyright - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Because of the cost associated with copyright registration some creators, particularly musicians, have attempted to establish evidence of ownership and creation of a work by mailing it to themselves. In the US this non-statutory practice became known as "poor man's copyright." Today the US Copyright Office makes it clear that the technique is no substitute for actual copyright registration, although the practice may be accepted as proof of creation in a number of national jurisdictions, such as the UK and the Netherlands. "Poor man's copyright" may also include depositing a copy of the work with a bank or attorney."

That said, it is undisputed that in this case Bayou is the original creator, though it is somewhat sad that it so often comes down to this issue - I guess dndoseller (above) has a point... add in the problems of the devaluation of one's work when people start putting it out as part of a massive package for $4.95 and it could make one wonder...

[Thomas Belknap]

Originally Posted by johnedgley

@ aylafrance - "I also think that the reason I don't have enough posts to be let out of the baby pen is because now WF think more of their rules than their members.

Or the rules are put in place for valid reasons. Reasons you would have known have you been here longer. It seems that you like to make comments on things you know nothing about.

[johnedgley]

Oh my - how incredibly presumptuous!

a) The OP was aylafrance (note the quotation marks - "") though I did agree and offered a "hear hear"
b) I have been in and around this forum since soon after its inception, and though I regularly take a break, and am now using my real name, it piques my attention from time to time... rather like the gory interest one could take in a road accident.... or perhaps I'm like the "bad penny" - I just can't resist turning up from time to time....

Reasons schmeasons - seems I'm not the only one spouting about things I know nothing about... I think I'll go join a "Secret Society"... I wonder if the masons will let me in... probably not...

[aylafrance]

I have been around the Warrior Forum for many years - probably at least 5. I like many others don't wander in very often as we get out head bitten off.

I DO know about copyright issues and websites.

If you want to know what has happened to some of the WF members with manners, we congregate on a paid site run by a person who knows how to run a forum so there is no need for answers such as the one to my last post.

Gosh, you pop your head in and it gets bitten off, what length of teeth do you need to become a real member or is rudeness not compulsory (sorry to those with manners but we all know the ups and downs of the WF).

Retiring once again to sanity, shame as I miss buying WSO's

Diane Chapman - Aylafrance.

[Taylor French]

Originally Posted by johnedgley

Much as I would like to drop this, the implications of previous posts have educated me into realising that this is actually even more serious, and even more of an uphill battle than I had at first realised.

I had always taken infringements seriously, and realised that a number of factors can lead to them occurring, but now have to re-assess my licensing strategy such that it allows for the ability of supposedly educated people to read whatever they wish to see into "terms and conditions", viz;

"You may repackage the NicheSites with" - def. "with" - a function word to indicate combination, accompaniment, or addition...

Now whilst there are undoubtedly other definitions (mine is Websters), this to me clearly states that the "Niche Sites" (the product that has been purchased or otherwise obtained) may be repackaged as an accompaniment to (or in combination with, or as an addition to) other material.

It in no way says that they may be disassembled, deconstructed, or altered - e.g. by extracting the graphics and combining them with other material.

The apparently serious contention of Taylor French that "some people COULD interpret this as being allowed", is a salutary lesson to me (and possibly to others out there) that I should not assume even moderate levels of education and understanding in our "native speakers", let alone the non native speakers (which, by the way, I have considerable insight into as a native English speaker functioning daily, for nearly ten years, in Spanish)

Perhaps the scariest part is the manner in which he attempts to justify his view, i.e. by saying that "In this case, the graphics were packaged with the Adsense sites/articles/whatever. " (emphasis mine). This so completely ignores the explicit wording of the license, not to mention the spirit of the message therein, that it almost beggars belief.

Using "logic" such as his, it would be ok to buy a book and rip out the introduction (or maybe the first few chapters) to create a new book that he would call his own (oh - and the last few too).

Or buy a music cd and use the first track on his album and call it his own (oh - and the last one too).

In short, even if the license were ambiguous or unclear in its wording of what one can do with the package (which in my opinion it is not), it certainly does not give permission to extract the graphics from the package for any purpose - whether they be altered or not.

Thus "the question" is not "were the graphics themselves changed" but rather "was the package changed" - and the answer is a clear "yes".

His statement that "some people COULD interpret this as being allowed" is pointless; we "could" do lots of things in life, but it doesn't make them right.

I think you are missing one VERY major part there. You're twisting the words around by emphasizing with, while you should be noticing this little part:

Or content that you have written yourself, thereby creating a brand new product

Theperson committing the alleged infringement has indeed used the graphics with something they have potentially written themselves or potentially have the right to distribute thereby creating a brand new product.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't take a Stephen Hawking to understand this. It's a very elementary use of the English language. For you to be insulting Warrior Forum members by insinuating some of them may have a lack of intelligence for simply seeing the holes in the terms of a license is a bit presumptuous, not to mention arrogant. Perhaps it is you who has issues, since others can see it and you cannot. Not everything is as black and white as you might believe it to be.

The fact is, some people WOULD see this is a allowable. Others might not. How you and I would interpret it personally is a moot point. We are not the ones distributing the file, as far as I know. The point is, the license would appear to some individuals to allow this use.

[Taylor French]

I think the largest issue here, perhaps, is that the op has created minisites graphics that she expected to be distributed as minisites, specifically. From the wording of her license, it appears that she expected people to package the graphics with ebooks, either PLR or written by the person distributing the package. I don't think she expected Adsense sites to be made with them. The fact is, this usage was not specifically prohibited, and from the wording of the license it does appear that this usage could be allowable.

They don't have private label rights to what she created, yet they are allowed to package what she created with something they created, thereby creating a brand new product. So what does that mean exactly?

They could have packaged the articles and the websites with her graphics, but not specifically put those graphics on the websites, instead giving instructions for the buyer to put the graphics onto the website. How is that any different from just putting the graphics on the websites they were distributing in the first place? Aside from making the buyer annoyed and confused, it's really no different.

While the op has the right to have the terms she wishes for her products, and certainly has the right to defend those terms, I believe in this case the terms were not clear enough to cover the majority of individuals.

[johnedgley]

@ Taylor French; [quote]"I think you are missing one VERY major part there. You're twisting the words around by emphasizing with, while you should be noticing this little part:

Or content that you have written yourself, thereby creating a brand new product" [end quote]

I do not believe I am missing anything, in fact, on the contrary, it appears that it is you who hasn't realised that this package is not a graphics package, it is a niche site package, and the sites may not be dissected, nor may the graphics be extracted, for any other use.

I have cleared the following statement with Bayou to ensure accuracy.

Bayous product, each month, is a package of three niche sites - a complete set of sites with headers, footers, testimonial boxes, affiliate banners, wordpress themes, related ebooks, sales pages, order buttons etc. - pretty much three "businesses in a box" - ready to be uploaded for personal use, e.g. to sell the accompanying ebook or some other use such as adsense - but only for personal use.

Each package comes from her with Limited Master Resale Rights - i.e. her members can resell the package(s) in their entirety, unaltered, with Basic Resell rights. They may also rebundle them as allowed and resell, but they may not alter them in any way and resell them.

I hope this clears the matter up for all concerned, and would like to take this opportunity to point out that I did not intend to "insult Warrior members", and I apologise if that was how it came across - I will try to be more careful with my insults in future!

[Noah Fleming]

I purchased these with MRR from Willie Crawford. What's the scoop here? Is there an issue with these or no?

[Bayou]

Hi Noah,

If you go here:

7opp.com/nichesitekits/5-replacements.html

These are the replacement sites - if you have these, you are okay.

My post above gives details.

Thank you.