Copying And Pasting Other People's Articles On Sites

by amuro
41 replies
Despite what internet gurus say, I do not believe in copying and pasting other people's articles on your sites even with their resource boxes intact.

No matter what, those articles are still other people content. My firm belief is furtherly reinforced by Google Panda and Penguin updates recently.

Think of it this way. If tens of thousands of marketers do that, there will be multiple sites with duplicate content. In contrary to what gurus preach, this is NOT and will NEVER be in Google guidelines of ranking sites.

I have a passion and talent for writing articles so I have no problems writing in my own words even without article spinners. But for those who do not have that, you might either outsource or take up some article marketing courses.

You might or might not agree with me. But if you really want a long-term sustainable business online, that is what you should do.

Watched Greg Jacobs' recorded past webinar of his WP Mage where he says it is okay to have duplicate content so long as it makes him money. I am afraid I have to disagree after watching this video of what Google really wants and expects for now and in the future.


#articles #copying #pasting #people #sites
  • Profile picture of the author JudyKarmann
    Originally Posted by amuro View Post

    Despite what internet gurus say, I do not believe in copying and pasting other people's articles on your sites even with their resource boxes intact.
    I don't believe in this either, this is still duplicate content and hence one will never achieve serious rankings with this tactics.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6337250].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Sohel Parvez
      Originally Posted by JudyKarmann View Post

      I don't believe in this either, this is still duplicate content and hence one will never achieve serious rankings with this tactics.
      I am Totally agree with JudyKarmann. You must should update your website by fresh content if you want to achieve search engine ranking specially for Google
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6337803].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by amuro View Post

    Despite what internet gurus say, I do not believe in copying and pasting other people's articles on your sites even with their resource boxes intact.

    Your lack of "belief" in it doesn't change the fact that that's the purpose of article directories, and that by submitting our articles to them, authors are inviting people to syndicate them.

    That's why we put them there.

    Originally Posted by amuro View Post

    My firm belief is furtherly reinforced by Google Panda and Penguin updates recently.

    Then you've misunderstood the purposes and effects of those updates. I suspect you may have confused "duplicate content" with "syndicated content", as so many people do.

    The difference is explained here: Article Marketers – Lay the Duplicate Content Myth To Rest Once and For All - Internet Marketing and Publishing

    Originally Posted by amuro View Post

    If tens of thousands of marketers do that, there will be multiple sites with duplicate content.

    Ah ... you have misunderstood what "duplicate content" means.

    Think of all the world's leading international news websites, which syndicate most of their content from Reuters and Associated Press - doesn't seem to be a problem for them, does it?

    http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5286678

    http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5273419

    Originally Posted by amuro View Post

    You might or might not agree with me.

    I disagree. So does Google.

    Originally Posted by JudyKarmann View Post

    I don't believe in this either, this is still duplicate content
    No, that's wrong, Judy: it isn't duplicate content.

    Originally Posted by JudyKarmann View Post

    one will never achieve serious rankings with this tactics.
    That part's correct.

    But not very relevant, because people who syndicate content are not doing so for SEO purposes! They're doing it because they want to share the content with their visitors/readers/subscribers/viewers.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6337257].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Samabadil
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6337384].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Samabadil View Post

      it's not unique and hence is very hard to rank for.
      Nobody's questioning that. But people who syndicate others' content are not doing so for its SEO potential - they're doing so because it's content they want to share with their visitors/readers/subscribers. That's the underlying basis of "article marketing".
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6337420].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Luissy
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        Nobody's questioning that. But people who syndicate others' content are not doing so for its SEO potential - they're doing so because it's content they want to share with their visitors/readers/subscribers. That's the underlying basis of "article marketing".
        Not eveyone uses synd. content with that purpose, and people who do - they still have to drive traffic to their sites somehow to read this content, and seo is a long term solution for this. But non-unique content makes it hard to succeed.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6337562].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author amuro
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        Nobody's questioning that. But people who syndicate others' content are not doing so for its SEO potential - they're doing so because it's content they want to share with their visitors/readers/subscribers. That's the underlying basis of "article marketing".


        I am sorry you think that way.

        My belief is not just based on my own but what I learnt from Adam Short as his student and member of his Niche Profit Classroom 2.0.

        I have a passion for writing articles so I have no issues rewriting into my own words and am earning money from it consistently though the whole process takes longer time and more effort than leveraging on other people's articles.

        But if your content syndication also does the same and earns you hundreds and even thousands of dollars consistently, I have nothing to say but simply compliment and tell you to keep up the great work.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6337633].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mindreaderwriter
    Banned
    Alexa, good job for shedding some good light on the misconception between "article duplication" and "article syndication." It's just so ironic that many SEO and article writing providers do not understand the difference.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6337494].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JOSourcing
      Banned
      Originally Posted by mindreaderwriter View Post

      Alexa, good job for shedding some good light on the misconception between "article duplication" and "article syndication." It's just so ironic that many SEO and article writing providers do not understand the difference.
      So ironic? Many SEO and article writing providers? I think some people would take offense at that considering those who work in SEO are smart enough to keep up with Google's changing requirements and updated explanations. Like this one, for example, where Matt Cutts purposely makes no distinction between syndicated content and duplicated content (because there isn't one):

      If I report the same news story as someone else, is that duplicate content? - YouTube

      Whatever it is people "don't understand," I'm sure they can find a helpful and friendly explanation from the source (that would be Google, MSN, etc.).
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6337542].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author mindreaderwriter
        Banned
        Well, those who will react in an offense mode are the guilty ones. Even in court, in most cases, the guilty ones are the most determined to prove themselves innocent than the innocent ones.

        Peace to everyone. I have no intention to pin anyone.

        Originally Posted by JOSourcing View Post

        So ironic? Many SEO and article writing providers? I think some people would take offense at that considering those who work in SEO are smart enough to keep up with Google's changing requirements and updated explanations. Like this one, for example, where Matt Cutts purposely makes no distinction between syndicated content and duplicated content (because there isn't one):

        If I report the same news story as someone else, is that duplicate content? - YouTube

        Whatever it is people "don't understand," I'm sure they can find a helpful and friendly explanation from the source (that would be Google, MSN, etc.).
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6337619].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author JOSourcing
          Banned
          Originally Posted by mindreaderwriter View Post

          Well, those who will react in an offense mode are the guilty ones. Even in court, in most cases, the guilty ones are the most determined to prove themselves innocent than the innocent ones.

          Peace to everyone. I have no intention to pin anyone.
          Sorry, I'm not clear about what they'd be guilty of. Can you explain that part?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6337931].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6338057].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
        When I saw the title on this thread, I knew you would be on it, Alexa.

        The thing that is so mind boggling to me, is that still, people are so confused on the difference between duplicate content and syndication. This particular subject was a hotly debated topic way back when I was new on the scene.

        I am completely baffled as to why that nasty rumor is still alive and running rampant. I have began to liken the duplicate content myth to a blood sucking vampire and whenever I see the misinformation on duplicate content, I find myself thinking, "Oh boy, where is my garlic, holy water, silver cross and wooden stake. But most importantly, I wait for it to finally see the (sun) light.

        Terra
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6338150].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

          The thing that is so mind boggling to me, is that still, people are so confused on the difference between duplicate content and syndication.
          The specific thing that was mind-boggling to me, in this thread, was that when I offered three purely objective, factual, irrefutable statements ...
          • "people who syndicate others' content are not doing so for its SEO potential"
          • "they're doing so because it's content they want to share with their visitors/readers/subscribers"
          • "that's the underlying basis of "article marketing" ...
          ... the response I got was "I am sorry you think that way".

          The best that can be said for this is that, admittedly in a pretty macabre way, it has a very funny side (as if, in some other, perhaps parallel universe, there were some other "way to think"?!)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6338203].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author shivam7
    We are not suppose to do this!!!!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6337649].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by shivam7 View Post

      We are not suppose to do this!!!!
      Why do you imagine article directories exist, then?! Why do you imagine the most successful article marketers are trying to have their work syndicated as widely as possible?!

      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5068872

      Originally Posted by mindreaderwriter View Post

      It's just so ironic that many SEO and article writing providers do not understand the difference.
      Indeed. Exactly so. Sometimes it's even a little hard to tell whether people have simply totally missed the point of the lengths to which Google goes to differentiate between syndicated and duplicate content, and how repeatedly they clarify and publicise that, or whether some are even deliberately propagating and perpetuating misinformation.

      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5286678

      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5273419


      The quotation from Google's WebMaster Central Blog in this article is also relevant: Article Marketers – Lay the Duplicate Content Myth To Rest Once and For All - Internet Marketing and Publishing
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6338022].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AnniePot
        Let me illustrate article syndication with this example, if I may.

        Last Christmas, a neighbor lost her job of almost twenty years due to "downsizing". She knew I was an internet marketer / writer and asked me for advice and guidance.

        Over the past five months, she's set up two highly focused, niche websites (Wordpress blogs). Continually writing content doesn't come easy to her, so she works on writing one article per week for each blog, and for the remaining days she publishes syndicated content.

        In the beginning she pulled articles from Ezine Articles, then she tracked the original authors of articles she particularly liked and asked them to send new content to her directly before they posted on EZA.

        Her two blogs, are each made up of syndicated content in the ratio of 6 to 1, and both are pulling in ever increasing visitor numbers each month.

        She's set up an AWeber account, bought a couple of PLR ebooks and is slowly building a list.

        She hasn't built her blogs looking for Google rankings, but she's nevertheless achieved them.

        So far this month one of her blogs has earned $150 and the other $90.

        She eventually plans to write more of her content herself, and begin participating in true "article marketing" herself.

        But for the time being, I think she is a shining example of using SYNDICATED CONTENT to great effect.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6338210].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author adrianabalboni
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6338239].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Originally Posted by adrianabalboni View Post

      I read your answers and I am a bit confused... I agree that we can paraphrase/rewrite an article and post it, I also believe as I wrote before that quoting is not something that can hurt the original article writer. I got confused on what Alexa Smith wrote, I know there are article directories online but I though there were for article submitting only and not article re-publishing.
      Copy-Paste is illegal isn't it?
      If you strip the links and don't include the resource box, claiming it as your own. Then it is copyright infringement and indeed is illegal.

      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6338271].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by adrianabalboni View Post

      I know there are article directories online but I though there were for article submitting only and not article re-publishing.
      Their purpose is to serve as a stepping-stone for republication of the articles in other places. That's why they exist. That's the function they serve. So that authors can get their work more widely published (and gain traffic from it), and ezine publishers and webmasters can get their content needs met (free).

      Originally Posted by adrianabalboni View Post

      Copy-Paste is illegal isn't it?
      Articles in article directories have been placed there by their authors in order to be syndicated elsewhere. (Under the terms of service of the directory concerned, of course - which may vary a little but will always require the article to be taken in its entirety, not edited or amended or re-written, and for the resource-box to be published with it). That's what they're there for. That's what an article directory is.

      http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5068872

      Originally Posted by adrianabalboni View Post

      I agree that we can paraphrase/rewrite an article and post it
      Not so - that's actually one of the things you're not allowed to do (though many people do). That comes under the heading of "derivative works" and would be a breach of the author's copyright.

      Originally Posted by adrianabalboni View Post

      I got confused on what Alexa Smith wrote
      I think that's partly because you've been thinking of an article directory as a place you can put your article to try to attract traffic and/or for a backlink? That's a popular misconception - you're by no means alone, there - but that isn't what an article directory is, and it isn't how they work. And perhaps partly because you've been thinking it's ok to take articles from them and "just re-write them in your own words"? And that really isn't ok.

      Really - this thread will help you a lot: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5068872
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6338272].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kim Standerline
      No You cant paraphrase or rewrite an article you read, there is a name for that and its plagerism.

      I find it disturbing that you believe this whilst offering a writing service ,

      Anyone offering to write for others MUST be aware of the implications for both themselves and their customers if they dont write from scratch

      Sorry if that comes across as a bit pompous

      Kim

      Originally Posted by adrianabalboni View Post

      I read your answers and I am a bit confused... I agree that we can paraphrase/rewrite an article and post it, I also believe as I wrote before that quoting is not something that can hurt the original article writer. I got confused on what Alexa Smith wrote, I know there are article directories online but I though there were for article submitting only and not article re-publishing.
      Copy-Paste is illegal isn't it?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6343970].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author amuro
    Syndication or duplication, it is still copying people's content.

    If Google were to make another update this time next year which I believe it will, you will not be saying that. It is now very stringent and particularly concerned the way marketers promote in order to ensure the information people search for is relevant and original.

    I still believe in writing articles into your own words.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6341612].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JDBradley
      Originally Posted by amuro View Post

      Syndication or duplication, it is still copying people's content.

      If Google were to make another update this time next year which I believe it will, you will not be saying that. It is now very stringent and particularly concerned the way marketers promote in order to ensure the information people search for is relevant and original.

      I still believe in writing articles into your own words.
      Alexa - do you feel like you are having a conversation with a brickwall sometimes?
      Signature
      1st Class Content Marketing for Your Website | Underground Music News - Submit Your Music News Story - Free Promotion
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6343177].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author BudaBrit
      Originally Posted by amuro View Post

      Syndication or duplication, it is still copying people's content.

      If Google were to make another update this time next year which I believe it will, you will not be saying that. It is now very stringent and particularly concerned the way marketers promote in order to ensure the information people search for is relevant and original.

      I still believe in writing articles into your own words.
      Amuro, I would like to try here.

      Let's take this post on article marketing as an example: Direct Traffic is Better Than Google Traffic | Practical eCommerce

      Now, this is talking about how direct traffic is worth more. Now, if this article got really popular (you can see it's not, and I have no idea how I found it :p), then people would be sharing it. It would be an article of value. If a webmaster sees this article, and feels that it will be valuable, then he will want it on his site. So he takes it and puts it on his site.

      The article goes viral. He gets traffic. He is happy. People are being engaged by informative content that they feel are useful. Google are happy. The writer gets both a high quality backlink from this site and direct traffic, driving his sales. He is happy.

      In other words, because the webmaster syndicated this content, he not only made himself happy, not only made the author happy, not only made Google happy, but also made thousands of readers happy - otherwise they would not read it.


      It is the same principle as a viral YouTube video. If Google did not like Syndicated content, they would not provide embed links on YouTube videos. And they do. Because that drives traffic to Youtube, making them happy. It drives traffic to the syndicator, making him happy, and it provides enjoyment for the viewers, making them happy.



      We are not talking about taking an article on sock colours, an article that is written poorly, and syndicating that. If it is poor quality, then people won't read it and won't be happy about it clogging up search results. Google won't be happy, as it is poor quality, uninformative content, and the syndicator and author will not receive the hits they desire.

      Simple.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6343253].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JOSourcing
        Banned
        Originally Posted by BudaBrit View Post

        If a webmaster sees this article, and feels that it will be valuable, then he will want it on his site. So he takes it and puts it on his site.
        Takes it?!?!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6343295].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author BudaBrit
          Originally Posted by JOSourcing View Post

          Takes it?!?!
          Was trying to be simple :p

          Syndicates it, or whatever you want. Just gets hold of it with the resource box.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6343305].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author JOSourcing
            Banned
            Originally Posted by BudaBrit View Post

            Was trying to be simple :p

            Syndicates it, or whatever you want. Just gets hold of it with the resource box.
            What resource box? I don't see anything on the article that indicates it's available for republication.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6343349].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author BudaBrit
              Originally Posted by JOSourcing View Post

              What resource box? I don't see anything on the article that indicates it's available for republication.
              Well, bad example, it was just the first relevant topic to hand. The syndicator would be able to contact the author, and I'm sure he would happily provide the article with resource box. He may also have submitted it elsewhere, yet as his own website was the first to be indexed, it is the one that appears in google search.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6343362].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Prashant_W
      You're missing the point. Those who "copy-paste" as you would say are doing it because:

      1) They're too lazy to write
      2) They don't want to pay someone to write
      3) They need fresh content for their already established list/followers/readership

      In other words, Google's updates do not concern them.

      Originally Posted by amuro View Post

      Syndication or duplication, it is still copying people's content.

      If Google were to make another update this time next year which I believe it will, you will not be saying that. It is now very stringent and particularly concerned the way marketers promote in order to ensure the information people search for is relevant and original.

      I still believe in writing articles into your own words.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6344652].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author NicolaTewhare
    I publish an online magazine and I republish articles. I couldn't give a toss about SEO. My main function is to provide my readers with the best content available on the net. I get to choose who I publish and why. There are a million reasons why you should not rely on search engines for traffic as people have found out in recent algorithm changes. There are many more ways to market.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6343242].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jennymath2
      Google panda algorithm penalize the website who has copied content and low quality content.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6343357].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CashExpert
    Google is fully aware that content are copied and syndicated online .I don't think that this is new to them . However , I must that if ranking a site is your goal , then copying peoples content is not going to help .
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6343284].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author adrianabalboni
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6343415].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by adrianabalboni View Post

      Thank you so much Terra and Alexa Smith. So paraphrasing is illegal? Even if I add the original author? E.g. As Alexa Smith wrote the purpose of an article directory is...
      I'm no lawyer, but I believe that that sort of thing's allowed, in practice, for "short passages for quotation, criticism, comparison, analysis ..." or something like that. But don't take my word for that - and it may vary from country to country, too.

      I admit, if you did that from one of my articles, I'd be extremely unhappy about it, because it would strike me as a way of re-using "the fruits of my labors" without taking the article in accordance with the terms on which I've made it available (which are, by definition, those of the directory in which I've made it available), and depriving me of the opportunity to gain traffic from it (which is, of course, my purpose in making it available in the first place - that's the "quid pro quo").

      There's just no need to do this, when you can take the entire article as intended.

      As an author, I don't like having my name attached to things that "other people have re-written". I feel that I'm normally a better writer than they are, and that represents me unfairly, because they're unlikely to have "improved" it. Authors can be quite opinionated about this sort of thing. Very many of us feel that way!

      Like other article marketers, I'm putting my articles in Ezine Articles specifically for people to republish (that having always been the purpose of an "article directory"), but on specific terms - which are easy enough to comply with?

      What nobody can object to, with an article directory copy, is for people to take the entire article, unamended, with the resource-box and in compliance with the terms of service.

      Anything else is really "derivative works", which just isn't allowed.

      Good luck!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6343902].message }}
  • It's obvious to say that there's a great deal of confusion here.

    -Copy and pasting someone else's article and saying it's yours - that's plagiarism.

    -Paraphrasing someone else's article and saying it's yours - that's sorta plagiarism.

    -Paraphrasing someone else's article and adding your own content, views, experiences and ideas into the mix - that's shadow writing (whether this falls under plagiarism or not, I'm not too sure)

    -Copy and pasting someone else's article without tampering with it and including everything that came with it - in order to provide value for your readers in exchange for traffic to the author you borrowed it from - That's content syndication.

    In a way, all of them are 'copying' people's content. One is stealing, the other is 'borrowing' (yes, as silly as this sounds).

    Again, the age-old classic misconception with this topic is that people view Article Marketing as a means to gain SEO backlinks. I'm sure the pro article marketers out there won't lose any sleep no matter what updates Google wants to do. We don't write articles to be found on the search engines (even though we sometimes do get found that way).

    I'm no SEO expert, nor article marketing expert, but I can say that I have been getting traffic (as well as leads, and yes, sales too) from my articles that haven't been picked up by search engines.

    Needless to say, I'm actually happy that those who spam their spun content for backlinks get penalized. It gives us marketers a bit of an advantage
    Signature

    Blogging With Attitude - Michaelangelo Flores Official Blog

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6344174].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JOSourcing
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Michaelangelo Flores View Post

      -Copy and pasting someone else's article without tampering with it and including everything that came with it - in order to provide value for your readers in exchange for traffic to the author you borrowed it from - That's content syndication.
      That's "content syndication" only if the author grants permission to "syndicate" it. Whether one attributes credit (or not) is moot without that permission. The way it's describe above, is copyright violation (theft).

      Of course, this entire thread only demonstrates some of the major problems with "content syndication" -- everyone has their own interpretation of what it is, what it's for, and how it's done!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6344451].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
        Originally Posted by JOSourcing View Post

        That's "content syndication" only if the author grants permission to "syndicate" it. Whether one attributes credit (or not) is moot without that permission. The way it's describe above, is copyright violation (theft).

        Of course, this entire thread only demonstrates some of the major problems with "content syndication" -- everyone has their own interpretation of what it is, what it's for, and how it's done!
        That is not true, sorry!

        When that piece is located on an article directory with the TOS of said directory allowing usage per the terms of said directory, the author's permission is included already the moment they posted their content on the directory.

        Yet another reason knowing the TOS is important.

        Terra
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6344581].message }}
      • Originally Posted by JOSourcing View Post

        That's "content syndication" only if the author grants permission to "syndicate" it. Whether one attributes credit (or not) is moot without that permission. The way it's describe above, is copyright violation (theft).

        Of course, this entire thread only demonstrates some of the major problems with "content syndication" -- everyone has their own interpretation of what it is, what it's for, and how it's done!
        Oh my bad. I didn't clarify that I was thinking on the basis if they copied and pasted it from an article directory.

        Submitting content to a directory is granting permission to syndicate it, is it not?

        Anyway, sorry I wasn't clear enough.
        Signature

        Blogging With Attitude - Michaelangelo Flores Official Blog

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6344598].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author JOSourcing
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Michaelangelo Flores View Post

          Oh my bad. I didn't clarify that I was thinking on the basis if they copied and pasted it from an article directory.

          Submitting content to a directory is granting permission to syndicate it, is it not?

          Anyway, sorry I wasn't clear enough.
          Of course distributing through an article directory is granting permission. I tend to think of article directories, in fact, as desktop recycling bins.

          But since there are a few people in the thread who've raised my content-theft antenna, I might be a bit over-sensitive to copyright issues today. So I should apologize to you.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6344651].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          There is no "sort of plagiarism".

          Rewriting someone's article - rearranging it - adding to it - are creating derivative copies and constitute copyright violation.

          It's fine to use articles from article directories - that's the purpose and as long as you provide the resource box with a live link, it's fine and a good way to add relevant content.

          If you ask and receive permission to reprint an article from another site, that's fine, too. It's not ok to just take or quote or use what you want without proper permissions.

          It's not a difficult concept - it's complicated because people try to justify what they do...instead of doing the right thing.

          kay
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

          I'm going to work on being less condescending
          (Condescending means to talk down to people)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6344656].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Adrianna,

      I commend you for diligently seeking the correct way for writing articles and the rules/laws of usage of others' work as many just do as they wish regardless.

      I cannot add to what has been answered for you as they have covered the issues at hand quite nicely.

      The one thing that I will reiterate is that you must read the TOS or terms of service of a directory before you decide to "use" an authors work. Trust me, the authors know them well.

      I had an incident where someone copy/pasted one of my pieces from an article directory, stripped all links from it, taking just the content and posted it on their own site. At the bottom of the piece they had this:

      resource-(name of article directory)


      Even that had no link to my piece or even to the directory which would not have been sufficient, either anyway. My point was there were no links period.

      I sent them a DMCA notice stating I saw that they liked my work and had put it on their site, albeit with all links stripped, I would be happy to have them publish my work on their site if they put the links back in, otherwise to please remove it. The correspondence I received back said, I've done nothing wrong, I resourced the directory.

      I could have at that point gone directly to their hosting, however I was feeling charitable so I sent them the TOS of the directory with the terms of author's work highlighted and did have to say that my next line of action would be contacting their hosting.

      The culprit then succumbed and not very nicely I might add.

      I shared that incident with you as to save you from any trouble down the line if you aren't aware of the legalities involved in your work and I wish you much success in your endeavors.

      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6344557].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
    Banned
    From the Urban Dictionary

    Circle Talk:
    A conversation that never ends. Yes it goes on and on my friends. Some people started discussing it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue discussing it forever just because there's no conclusion.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6345551].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author danr62
      Originally Posted by Joe Robinson View Post

      From the Urban Dictionary

      Circle Talk: A conversation that never ends. Yes it goes on and on my friends. Some people started discussing it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue discussing it forever just because there's no conclusion.
      GoshdarnitJoe! Now I'm going to have that song stuck in my head all day!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6345769].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
        Banned
        Originally Posted by danr62 View Post

        GoshdarnitJoe! Now I'm going to have that song stuck in my head all day!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6345819].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author bengirwb
          If I find a good blog article on "Our 2003 Trip To India" or similar
          blog read only by the writer's relatives, I ask the writer for permission to use it on my blog.

          I have yet to be refused since the writer is getting a bigger audience.

          Isn't this the meaning of "going viral"

          A major problem to me is the aggregator site that pulls videos and "news" into themes (funniest videos, crash videos, hollywood news, etc) and gets featured on the search engines with advertising that is not shared with the original creators.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6346042].message }}

Trending Topics