Is Curation Legal? The Law Says...

by Harlan
59 replies
Every day I get another email about some Internet Marketing guru who has determined that curation is not legal.

The crashing sound you hear is the sound of Ariana Huffington pulling the plug on Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post, Matt Drudge taking down thedrudgereport.com, and Pete Cashmore deciding http://mashable is illegal.

The truth is, this is not about some gurus opinion or my opinion.

This is about what the courts have decided.

First, the courts have recently ruled that citing an ENTIRE ARTICLE is legal.

Not an excerpt - an entire article.

Order Dismissing Righthaven's Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

This decision was given by a Nevada court and later affirmed by a Colorado court.

Colorado Court Order Dismissing Righthaven's Lawsuit Against Leland Wolf

So the whole "curation is illegal" is just pure bunk.

I've heard statements as absurd as "Google is going to go after The Huffington Post".

In a pig's eye as my Grandmother used to say.

Curation is legal.

Curation is ethical.

Curation is Google friendly and Panda LOVES it.

So the next time you hear someone say Curation is illegal, just smile.

Because they have shown they don't know what they are talking about.

So folks, with apologies to John Travolta - "Grease" is not the word; "Curation" is.

Peace.
#curation #law #legal
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    Don't have an opinion on whether or not curation is legal. I have curated sites myself, but using any Righthaven cases as an example is not a good example of law that would pertain to curation. Righthaven "purchased" rights to sue for copyright infringement from several newspapers and then got a big can of whoop a** from the courts. Most of the decisions said that the copyright holder can sue ... not someone suing because they purchased suing rights to the articles. Righthaven is a just a copyright troll and is now about out of business.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483165].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
    I've never heard of anyone saying curation is illegal. That's ridiculous.
    Signature

    :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483179].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author marcuslim
    Thanks. Along with Peter Spaepen, you are the expert authority on the subject. I recently attended a webinar with you and Jason Fladlien and was blown away by how fast you got a post to rank high on google.
    Signature

    Please read the forum rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483185].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Harlan
      Originally Posted by marcuslim View Post

      Thanks. Along with Peter Spaepen, you are the expert authority on the subject. I recently attended a webinar with you and Jason Fladlien and was blown away by how fast you got a post to rank high on google.
      Actually, since the December Google update it has slowed.

      It now takes about an hour.

      We had been doing it in about a minute and a half to two minutes.

      But Google added an algo check to see which site had the content first.
      Signature

      Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
      Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
      http://overnight-copy.com
      Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
      Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483205].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Harlan,
    First, the courts have recently ruled that citing an ENTIRE ARTICLE is legal.
    The first document you pointed us to is very interesting, as it may affect some folks who could become targets of Rightshaven, and will possibly reduce their ability to play with the courts. It does not, however, say anything that I can even make sound like what you've said it does.

    The second one speaks on the same principle.

    Are you sure you didn't just link to the wrong documents?


    Paul

    PS: I deleted the link to your dog site...
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483221].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Harlan
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Harlan,The first document you pointed us to is very interesting, as it may affect some folks who could become targets of Rightshaven, and will possibly reduce their ability to play with the courts. It does not, however, say anything that I can even make sound like what you've said it does.

      The second one speaks on the same principle.

      Are you sure you didn't just link to the wrong documents?


      Paul

      PS: I deleted the link to your dog site...
      There are lots of articles on the principle that emerged from Righthaven - who is now bankrupt.

      Check out this one as well http://www.businessinsider.com/our-e...-policy-2009-3

      And Paul, what's the problem with linking to a site that doesn't sell anything?

      Just curious.
      Signature

      Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
      Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
      http://overnight-copy.com
      Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
      Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483260].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Harlan,
    There are lots of articles on the principle that emerged from Righthaven - who is now bankrupt.
    That is welcome news. But it doesn't support your claim that the courts have ruled that quoting an entire article is legal. Do you have any cites to support the original claim?

    The Business Insider piece is just their statement of how they want other people to quote them, and how they'll quote others. Fair enough, but not really relevant to the original point.
    what's the problem with linking to a site that doesn't sell anything?
    Same problem as with any other such linking within posts: It's self-promotional, and that expands to fill exactly the space available. In a forum, that's a pretty huge space.


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483301].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tim Franklin
    Venue is probably one of the most important things to consider here, as well the over all case law is something to consider one adjunct, in one district does not a consensus make, consider this,

    What’s the law around aggregating news online? A Harvard Law report on the risks and the best practices » Nieman Journalism Lab

    I find this an interesting topic, one that I am certain will be effectively adjuciated in the future, for now, I think the best thing is to follow the best practices of publishers for say the last 40 years, which is much different than the opinion expressed.

    Legal or not, ok or not ethical, morality, does not really matter if someone with more money and more lawyers, than you have gets sand in their craw over usage issues, it could come back to bite you in the butt,

    I trust Harvard Law, over a few obscure, references any day.
    Signature
    Software Development | Applications | OSX | iOS | Android | Cloud Software Engineering |
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483529].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
    Harlan, I don't think your post has as much to do with curation as it does have to do with the legality of quoting large blocks of text.

    Curation doesn't necessarily involve quoting large blocks of text.

    As far as the legality of quoting entire articles, I think a person who plans to do that should be prepared for some future legal friction. I don't think quoting an entire article from say The Wall Street Journal falls under fair use. You can't quote a chapter of a book on your web site either.

    Edit: Looking at the dog site in your sig, I see what you're doing with respect to your original post.

    On this page, you've quoted an entire article from Fredericksburg.com, whose usage policy states:

    Can I post an entire story from your Web site or newspaper on my Web site or another Web site?
    No. All of our content is copyrighted. However, we do give permission to anyone to post our headlines and the first sentence from any story on any Web site AS LONG AS you also post a link back to fredericksburg.com for the entire story. You also must credit the writer and the source (either fredericksburg.com or The Free Lance-Star). Are there exceptions? Yes. We do occasionally grant permission to a nonprofit/charitable group to post an entire story on its Web site, but those decisions are made on a case-by-case basis.
    Whether or not what you're doing is legal, one thing's for sure, you're going to piss some people off. You're quoting way more than is necessary.

    Again, this has little to do with the nature of curation itself, and wrapping an entire article in quotation marks and providing a link back does not magically make any usage of an article legal.
    Signature

    :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483623].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
      Harlan, please leave the legal proclamations to attorneys.

      The courts in the Righthaven cases did NOT rule that wholesale taking of articles, with a cite, is lawful.

      The courts found that Righthaven did not have standing to sue as it never acquired the copyrights it was suing over. Additionally, Righthaven concealed this important fact from numerous courts and filed false papers with the courts. It, and its attorneys, are in deep doo-doo.

      Your first link was a voluntary dismissal. The second a ruling on the standing issue.

      While some of the hundreds sued by Righthaven could also argue "fair use" for their particular factual circumstance, it is critically wrong to issue a self-serving thread proclaiming the Righthaven cases ruled that your project is legal.

      They did not.

      I would be surprised if the word "curation" even appeared in the hundreds of Righthaven cases.

      On the other hand, I am not opining that curation is illegal.

      I am only addressing an over-the-top post to ensure that you and other Warriors do not get themselves in trouble.

      .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483706].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author E. Brian Rose
    "Blog Curation" is a new buzz word and one that you will not likely see in court documents. If you really want to know how the courts feel about copying other people's articles, then you should look for cases that involve fair use. In these cases, courts will consider four factors:
    • the purpose and character of your use
    • the nature of the copyrighted work
    • the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
    • the effect of the use upon the potential market.
    A blanket statement that blog curation is legal or not legal is not recommended.

    I suggest anybody that is interested in using this tactic ask a lawyer. Chat forums are good for business advice, but when it comes to legal matters, stick with the legal gurus. Many IM gurus will give you an answer that is most likely geared to benefit them somehow.
    Signature
    My New Video Series is Free (for now)
    Crazy good marketing tips from the founder of JVZoo.
    Get EBR 365 Now!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483684].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Harlan
      Originally Posted by E. Brian Rose View Post

      "Blog Curation" is a new buzz word and one that you will not likely see in court documents. If you really want to know how the courts feel about copying other people's articles, then you should look for cases that involve fair use. In these cases, courts will consider four factors:
      • the purpose and character of your use
      • the nature of the copyrighted work
      • the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
      • the effect of the use upon the potential market.
      A blanket statement that blog curation is legal or not legal is not recommended.

      I suggest anybody that is interested in using this tactic ask a lawyer. Chat forums are good for business advice, but when it comes to legal matters, stick with the legal gurus. Many IM gurus will give you an answer that is most likely geared to benefit them somehow.
      As was pointed out earlier, curation does not always involve large chunks of articles.

      But even a large chunk of an article is permitted under fair use doctrine.

      On some rare instances, people ask us to remove an article - we do so.

      In more instances, people report increased traffic and ask if they can write more articles for us.
      Signature

      Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
      Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
      http://overnight-copy.com
      Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
      Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5484798].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author jacktackett
        Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

        ...
        But even a large chunk of an article is permitted under fair use doctrine.
        1st question- are you an intellectual property lawyer?

        2nd question - really? in the US my understanding (IANAL either) is the only person that can rule on what is fair use is a judge - not the author nor the person using the material...perhaps a real lawyer can enlighten us....

        what is it with non-lawyers giving legal advice? :rolleyes:

        --Jack "sharpening my irony skills" Tackett.
        Signature
        Let's get Tim the kidney he needs!HELP Tim
        Mega Monster WSO for KimW http://ow.ly/4JdHm


        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6602704].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
    Let me add, when talking about taking and using content from someone else, the nature of the material, the amount used, the purpose, and overall context are extremely important.

    For example, a very small snippet taken from one site could lead to a copyright violation. Yet, a much larger copying from another site is fine.

    Two people using identical content taken from a another could face different legal rulings.

    For instance, an attorney could get in trouble for taking parts of one of my articles and putting it on their site to promote their legal services (just sent a C&D to a Los Angeles firm for this very issue).

    But Google could take the same material and not have an issue because it is being used for a new and entirely different purpose (search: the finding of information).

    The basic legal principles of copyright are easy to understand, but yet the complexities of copyright law can be mind-numbing - especially since so much can turn on the particular facts and circumstances of each case.

    .
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483742].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Black Hat Cat
      Banned
      Even if curation was illegal, it wouldn't affect Matt Drudge, because he doesn't take content from anyone. All he does is link to other sites via headlines he(staff) writes.

      If you get a chance, Harlan, you might want to let Keith Baxter know his workout curation site that was supposedly making him so much money has been down for over a month. You'd think he would notice something like that if it was doing so well.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483833].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Harlan
        Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat View Post

        Even if curation was illegal, it wouldn't affect Matt Drudge, because he doesn't take content from anyone. All he does is link to other sites via headlines he(staff) writes.

        If you get a chance, Harlan, you might want to let Keith Baxter know his workout curation site that was supposedly making him so much money has been down for over a month. You'd think he would notice something like that if it was doing so well.
        Keith Baxter is one of the smartest internet marketers out there. I'm sure he's aware of it and I suspect has got something up his sleeve.
        Signature

        Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
        Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
        http://overnight-copy.com
        Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
        Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5484803].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Black Hat Cat
      Banned
      Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

      For instance, an attorney could get in trouble for taking parts of one of my articles and putting it on their site to promote their legal services (just sent a C&D to a Los Angeles firm for this very issue).

      .
      Ironic, considering you said earlier to leave the legal proclamations to the attorneys, lol.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483859].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author E. Brian Rose
        Originally Posted by kindsvater
        For instance, an attorney could get in trouble for taking parts of one of my articles and putting it on their site to promote their legal services (just sent a C&D to a Los Angeles firm for this very issue).
        Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat View Post

        Ironic, considering you said earlier to leave the legal proclamations to the attorneys, lol.
        Kindsvater is an attorney.
        Signature
        My New Video Series is Free (for now)
        Crazy good marketing tips from the founder of JVZoo.
        Get EBR 365 Now!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483888].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
          Originally Posted by E. Brian Rose View Post

          Kindsvater is an attorney.
          But I would never lay a claim to outwitting BHC on the forum.

          I should have excluded L.A. The courts there have a special dress code, and need one. Only court I've been in where street walkers wear more clothes than some of the attorneys.

          .
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483944].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author E. Brian Rose
            Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

            I should have excluded L.A. The courts there have a special dress code, and need one. Only court I've been in where street walkers wear more clothes than some of the attorneys.

            .
            You're just an old fashioned prude. Gams help persuade jurors.
            Signature
            My New Video Series is Free (for now)
            Crazy good marketing tips from the founder of JVZoo.
            Get EBR 365 Now!
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483982].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
          Originally Posted by E. Brian Rose View Post

          Kindsvater is an attorney.
          He knows that. He was, I believe, referring to the irony of pointing out a serious legal faux pas, by an attorney, in the same area in which he was suggesting leaving the proclamations to attorneys.

          Your sense of irony is getting dulled, sir.


          Paul
          Signature
          .
          Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483946].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kirk Ward
        Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat View Post

        Ironic, considering you said earlier to leave the legal proclamations to the attorneys, lol.
        LOL your own self. Kindsvater IS an attorney.

        (Did I just violate E. Brian Rose's copyrights?)
        Signature
        "We are not here to sell a parcel of boilers and vats, but the potentiality of growing rich beyond the dreams of avarice."

        Dr. Samuel Johnson (Presiding at the sale of Thrales brewery, London, 1781)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483954].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    This was a very good article and goes into the issues in a lot of detail. In regards to how much of an article that could be used, it says this

    The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. In evaluating this factor, courts look at the amount of the copyrighted work that is reproduced both quantitatively and qualitatively. Looked at from a quantitative perspective, most news aggregators use only a small portion of the original work — usually just the headline, and sometimes a few sentences from the lede. This would weigh in favor of finding fair use. Many content originators argue, however, that the portion of a story reproduced by news aggregators is much more significant when looked at from a qualitative perspective. This is because, they argue, the headline and lede often contain the most important parts of the story — in other words, they constitute the “heart” of the article. The Supreme Court, as well as a number of lower courts, has found that the reproduction of even a short excerpt can weigh against a finding of fair use if the excerpt reproduces the “heart” of the work. Given the factual nature of this inquiry, it is not possible to say definitively how courts would view all news aggregators. In some instances, the first few sentences may contain the heart of the work. In other instances this will not be the case.
    The section on whether or not the use is "transformative" is also interesting. Good read.

    What’s the law around aggregating news online? A Harvard Law report on the risks and the best practices » Nieman Journalism Lab
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483766].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Hill
    The Drudgereport.com is still up and running...

    PS. Who cares about curation
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5483867].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    It sounds like "content aggregation" is the name more commonly used for this practice. But if this practice, whatever it's called, is deemed illegal, where will they draw the line? Wouldn't that imply that you couldn't even put a link in a blog post without permission?
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5484056].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author hustlinsmoke
    My take on this is, I don't think so......(Curation is Google friendly and Panda LOVES it.)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5484806].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Harlan
      Originally Posted by hustlinsmoke View Post

      My take on this is, I don't think so......(Curation is Google friendly and Panda LOVES it.)
      Thanks for your expertise. Tell that to Ariana Huffington.
      Signature

      Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
      Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
      http://overnight-copy.com
      Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
      Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5484829].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Harlan
        Signature

        Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
        Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
        http://overnight-copy.com
        Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
        Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5484834].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
          Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

          Here's another view of Fair Use:
          And you can find a hundred other cases ruling in someone's favor on the issue of fair use.

          Then you can find a hundred more cases ruling against a fair use defense.

          This thread is sort of like saying Harry won his sexual harassment case so sexual harassment is legal.

          .
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5485028].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Harlan
            Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

            And you can find a hundred other cases ruling in someone's favor on the issue of fair use.

            Then you can find a hundred more cases ruling against a fair use defense.

            This thread is sort of like saying Harry won his sexual harassment case so sexual harassment is legal.

            .
            Methinks Huffington Post and other curated sites are on safe grounds.

            Send them your list.
            Signature

            Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
            Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
            http://overnight-copy.com
            Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
            Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5485050].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
              Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

              Methinks Huffington Post and other curated sites are on safe grounds.

              Send them your list.
              Where are some examples of the Huffington Post copying entire articles from other web sites? I've been looking around their site and I just don't see any instances of HuffPo copying entire articles from, for instance, The New York Times.
              Signature

              :)

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5485231].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Harlan
                Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

                Where are some examples of the Huffington Post copying entire articles from other web sites? I've been looking around their site and I just don't see any instances of HuffPo copying entire articles from, for instance, The New York Times.
                The Huffington Post has done that and continues to do that on occasion.

                There are dozens of methods of curation and we will be moving to some of the many others which are - in fact - easier to use.
                Signature

                Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
                Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
                http://overnight-copy.com
                Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
                Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5486856].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author agc
                  Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

                  The Huffington Post has done that and continues to do that on occasion.
                  So when asked for specific examples, you reply with the same assertion, still sans substantiation?
                  Signature

                  One man's terrorist is another man's patriot

                  Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground - Frederick Douglas

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5486986].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
                    Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

                    It sounds like "content aggregation" is the name more commonly used for this practice. But if this practice, whatever it's called, is deemed illegal, where will they draw the line? Wouldn't that imply that you couldn't even put a link in a blog post without permission?
                    Actually, this has been thrashed out in the past. In the late 90's, if memory serves, there was a rash of lawsuits against websites that deep-linked to content within other sites, bypassing the front page. The argument was that by enabling visitors to go directly to content within the site, the company was losing ad revenue gained from several layers of ads between the home page and the content.

                    As I recall, the upshot from those suits was that if a company did not want people linking to their content they should take steps to prevent it.

                    Obviously, deep linking still exists today. News aggregators and curated sites link directly to articles rather than home pages.

                    One obvious exception would be to post a link to the download page of someone's paid product, should the person be unsophisticated enough to leave said page available to the public. But that would fall more into a piracy problem than fair use, I would think.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5487463].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author hustlinsmoke
    What's the phone number.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5484836].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Hill
    Here's a little tidbit about Righthaven:

    On September 7, 2011, Legal Wings Inc., a process server used by Righthaven between May and October 2010, filed a lawsuit against Righthaven in Las Vegas Township Justice Court for unpaid bills valued at $5,670.[20]

    On September 8, 2011, the MediaNews Group, which is the publisher of a number of newspapers including the Denver Post, announced it was terminating its deal with Righthaven at the end of the month, and called it a "dumb idea". The new CEO of the company, John Paton, said he would not have entered into such a deal, had he been CEO at the time of the decision.[21]

    On October 26, 2011, Righthaven was ordered to pay $119,488 in attorney's fees and court costs in the case of Righthaven v Thomas DiBiase.[22]

    On October 29, 2011 the defendant from Righthaven v Wayne Hoehn asked a Nevada court to award the seizure of the company's bank accounts and property to provide for the payment of the $34,045.50 fee from the August 2011 ruling. The company had previously delayed the payment to avoid bankruptcy.[23][24][19]

    On November 1, the Nevada court authorized the US Marshals Service to use reasonable force to seize the debt in cash and assets from the company. The total amount of outstanding debt had ballooned to over $63,000, with the additional costs and fees from the delay.[6] When it was discovered that the company bank account held less than $1,000, the court issued an order for Righthaven to turn over its intellectual property to a court-appointed receiver to be sold at auction. Righthaven did not comply by the December 19 deadline, and filed an emergency appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to stop the auction from going forward,[25][26] a motion which was rejected on January 10, 2012.[27]

    On December 21, the righthaven.com domain name was transferred to the receiver for auction.[28] On January 6, 2012, the righthaven.com domain name sold for $3,300 to a Switzerland-based hosting service with the stated goal of protecting clients against "frivolous or overly aggressive take-down tactics".[7][29]

    There are many other class action lawsuits pending against Righthaven.

    Source: Righthaven - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5485065].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Pamellalovely
    Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

    Every day I get another email about some Internet Marketing guru who has determined that curation is not legal.

    The crashing sound you hear is the sound of Ariana Huffington pulling the plug on Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post, Matt Drudge taking down thedrudgereport.com, and Pete Cashmore deciding http://mashable is illegal.

    The truth is, this is not about some gurus opinion or my opinion.

    This is about what the courts have decided.

    First, the courts have recently ruled that citing an ENTIRE ARTICLE is legal.

    Not an excerpt - an entire article.

    Order Dismissing Righthaven's Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

    This decision was given by a Nevada court and later affirmed by a Colorado court.

    Colorado Court Order Dismissing Righthaven's Lawsuit Against Leland Wolf

    So the whole "curation is illegal" is just pure bunk.

    I've heard statements as absurd as "Google is going to go after The Huffington Post".

    In a pig's eye as my Grandmother used to say.

    Curation is legal.

    Curation is ethical.

    Curation is Google friendly and Panda LOVES it.

    So the next time you hear someone say Curation is illegal, just smile.

    Because they have shown they don't know what they are talking about.

    So folks, with apologies to John Travolta - "Grease" is not the word; "Curation" is.

    Peace.
    Yes, curation is legal and i never hear anyone about curation is illegal...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5485181].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BIG Mike
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5485706].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Harlan
      Originally Posted by BIG Mike View Post

      There's also a very simple and obvious workaround - obtain permission to reprint content, paying licensing or reprint fees, etc., to work with the sources rather than against them.

      Now there's a novel idea...
      Now why would you need (or want) to do this if you don't have to.

      If you were a publisher and the Huffington Post picked up your article, the first thing you would do would be to jump for joy and pray for the day she did it again.

      If you are using a constant source - such as Reuters or AP as HuffPo does, than you need to license.

      But if you look for relevant content on small blogs, government sites, etc, this is a non-issue.
      Signature

      Harlan D. Kilstein Ed.D.
      Free NLP Communications Course at http://www.nlpcopywriting.com
      http://overnight-copy.com
      Get Fit In Four Minuteshttp://just4minutes.com
      Learn how to build a Super Site Without SEO http://supersiteformula.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5486850].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by BIG Mike View Post

    The problem with making blanket statements like, "The Law Says Curation is Legal", is that a lot of people will look upon it as a license to steal.
    Exactly so.

    Given how much time we spend here urging people not to take or to offer legal advice in the forum (I'm not talking about Brian, obviously!), I find it pretty alarming that Harlan, who has himself a financial interest in promoting "curation", but isn't a qualified lawyer, should even be allowed to start off threads about it, here, under titles like "the law says", and making statements like "the courts have recently ruled that citing an entire article is legal".

    In fact, to be honest, I find some of this thread worse than just "alarming": I can think of another four or five much stronger adjectives that could go into that space, too.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5487564].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author agc
    It gets better... I just took a look at "his dog site" and what I found was, well, appalling.

    The use he is making of other people's articles is ANYTHING BUT FAIR OR REASONABLE (to my judgment, the courts will get their chance to weigh in soon enough).

    First, the entire article is wrapped, not even an effort at abstracting or truncating it... Second the supposed "link" to the source is tiny and way at the bottom. Third... I could go on and on, but really, the only thing that makes this "fair use" in his mind is that he hasn't been slapped with a big lawsuit / judgement.

    YET. Because it's only a matter of time.

    If I were the owner of ANY of those articles, the blizzard of DMCA notices would be immediate. In fact, in his case, DMCA may not go far enough... he may just serve as the "test case" for a suitably motivated lawyer to sue for damages due to the willful nature of his infringement. I suspect it's only a matter of time.

    Were I a lawyer looking to make a test case, I might be contacting the owners of these articles and offering to pursue damages on contingency. 15-20 plaintiffs at a 5 grand a pop goes a long way towards making a point. Particularly when he shamelessly flaunts his infringement as being "legal".

    Hope those huge brass ones work out for you. Well, actually, as someone who sometimes produces content, no, I hope they don't.
    Signature

    One man's terrorist is another man's patriot

    Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground - Frederick Douglas

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5487999].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jon Patrick
    Any issues with the OP aside, I fail to see how curation could possibly be illegal. Quoting a reasonable segment of another site's article, along with credit and a link to said site, in the course of discussing the same subject in one's own words, seems like a textbook example of fair use.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5488054].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author madison_avenue
    This site is one of the biggest Politics sites in the UK, the blogger Guido Fawks is famous. And it's a great example of how to do Curation properly. He takes a salient pargraph or two from a source, then adds his own comments and interpretation to it, and gives a link back to the source. He adds value, this is how to do Curation properly:

    Guy Fawkes' blog of parliamentary plots, rumours and conspiracy
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5488143].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    One thing to keep in mind about issues like this is that even lawyers and the government are not yet clear about it. It's all relatively new territory. So we're a long way from being able to make any blanket statements about what's legal or not. It could be interpreted differently by different judges, and it could all change next week.

    Personally, I'm not worried (yet) about using the "curation" model, meaning links to other sites (not using entire articles without permission). But it makes sense to pay attention to which way the wind blows on this matter.
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5488213].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    Looking at that dog site, this doesn't even look like curation in the way that I understand curation. It looks like ripping other sites articles in full or nearly in full.

    I understand curation to be:
    The curated site adding a significant amount of context, followed by excerpt and link to supporting site.

    This is the way my curated site is. Some paragraphs of my own text, followed by a couple of paragraphs with link back to supporting site.

    You are copying full articles. You think that's ok, but I doubt it seriously.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5489067].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post



      I understand curation to be:
      The curated site adding a significant amount of context, followed by excerpt and link to supporting site.
      But a curated site does not necessarily need to include excerpts from other sites. Some curation sites do that, but it's not in any way an essential characteristic of a curated site.

      Here's an example of a curation site that doesn't include much (if any) quotations from other sites:

      Open Directory - Kids and Teens: School Time

      Here's another curation site that doesn't hinge upon cited text:

      Apps News, Videos, Reviews and Gossip - Lifehacker

      Somehow though, in internet marketing circles, a curated site has come to mean a type of site that almost always involves taking excerpts (often long ones) from the site(s) being "curated".

      Then there's the extreme example which we've seen in this thread of taking the entire article, slapping quotation marks around it, and considering such usage to be legally and ethically justifiable in the name of "curation".

      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      You are copying full articles. You think that's ok, but I doubt it seriously.
      I doubt it too. I feel that the amount of text "cited" from outside links is unreasonable and makes up the bulk of that sites content. I don't think this is an okay practice and I don't think the people who involuntarily supplied the content would think it's okay either.



      Harlan, I'm still interested in seeing examples of how HuffPo engages in this practice of quoting entire articles from other sites on the Huffington Post.
      Signature

      :)

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5489740].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

        But a curated site does not necessarily need to include excerpts from other sites. Some curation sites do that, but it's not in any way an essential characteristic of a curated site.

        Here's an example of a curation site that doesn't include much (if any) quotations from other sites:

        Open Directory - Kids and Teens: School Time
        That's interesting. Just links. That site looks like the very old Yahoo.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5489774].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
          Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

          That's interesting. Just links. That site looks like the very old Yahoo.
          And it also looks like the very current Yahoo! Directory.

          And there's not just links, but also short descriptions. But what you don't see are many quotations from the sites that are linked to. The descriptions could be longer too, but I was just trying to demonstrate that a curation site does not require quoted text from other sites.

          Still, sites like DMOZ are indeed curation sites. They have curators (that's what they call them) who carefully choose sites to be included in their section of the directory. The links are categorized as well.

          The result is (hopefully) a reputable source where a person can find a well maintained set of links related to a topic.
          Signature

          :)

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5489827].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
            Banned
            Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

            And it also looks like the very current Yahoo! Directory.

            And there's not just links, but also short descriptions. But what you don't see are many quotations from the sites that are linked to. The descriptions could be longer too, but I was just trying to demonstrate that a curation site does not require quoted text from other sites.

            Still, sites like DMOZ are indeed curation sites. They have curators (that's what they call them) who carefully choose sites to be included in their section of the directory. The links are categorized as well.

            The result is (hopefully) a reputable source where a person can find a well maintained set of links related to a topic.

            This sounds closer to my understanding of curated sites (with short excerpts). I read the book "Curation Nation". Good book. Might dust it off and do a re-read.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5493070].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author j0b0123
    Most of the internet is built this way. without such sites most information would not be disseminated. There are no sites that are popular enough that everyone goes to, barring perhaps facebook, twitter and google.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5490757].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Martyfl
    I was under the impression that the Fair Use doctrine said something about not for profit.

    So, if I take an excerpt from an article (long or short excerpt) and put in on a curation website that is earning revenue (banner, cpa, adwords, whatever), have I run afoul of the intent of the law? Am I using this content, even though it might be a small excerpt with generous original commenting, for profit?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5924556].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trnz
    Originally Posted by Harlan View Post

    orado Court Order Dismissing Righthaven's Lawsuit Against Leland Wolf[/URL]

    Curation is Google friendly and Panda LOVES it.

    Peace.
    A few people here and on other threads have said that Google likes Curated sites. What exactly does it like about them? Knowing this would enable bloggers to maximise the fact ? Does anybody know or is this an urban legend? LOL I, for one would really like to know. Anybody?
    Signature

    Make the world a better place! Spread some Love, Peace and Happiness! Join The Happy People!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6601647].message }}

Trending Topics