Who Is Responsible When The Newbie Goes Wrong?

by tpw
30 replies
I have a question for you good folks...

First, some background...

I have been on record many times suggesting that taking content without permission or claiming someone else's written works as your own, would be a violation of copyright law and a practice that people should avoid.

But, were you aware that no one can get a copyright on article titles, book titles, etc.? Or, pen names?

From the U.S. Copyright Office website:

Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. -- Source

If I were to suggest to someone that they could copy a title or create a title that is very similar to the first, then I would not be doing anything wrong.

This morning, someone suggested that if I tell "newbies" that they can use an existing title for their written works and/or use a similar pen name to an existing author, that I could be potentially responsible for causing the "newbie" to get in trouble, if that newbie also copies the contents of an article or book...

I responded by saying this:

Newbies or not, people know it is wrong to steal content. People also know it is wrong to copy someone else's work and take credit for it.

I believe that most people are honest and will do the right thing.

Those who are dishonest will do the wrong thing, no matter what you and I tell them they should do or not do.

I received this response:

When newbies see someone who professes to be an expert, the newbies unfortunately believe that the method recommended is a valid method. And if guys like you and others endorse the methods, then who will stop the newbie from making the mistakes in the first place?

If we're all adults and we know it's wrong to steal content, I don't see how it makes it acceptable for you to promote a method that advises others to steal content?

I re-read the document in question.

The document DID NOT advise that it was okay to steal someone's content, but it did suggest that writers could model a new title on a previous title and use a pen name similar to that of another author.

Again, the U.S. Copyright Office says that names and titles are not copyrightable.

So, my question...

If it is suggested that a newbie writer can use an existing title and pen name for their products, then that newbie runs off and copies the entire product, who is responsible for that happening? The teacher, or the student?
#newbie #responsible #wrong
  • Profile picture of the author nextgeneration
    the teacher wouldn't be in trouble because you did not commit the crime the student did. The only way I could possibly see you getting in trouble is if you were to give legal advice which is illegal to do unless your a lawyer. Now I don't know the law but I could possibility see that if they were paying you for advice you could get in trouble for telling them to do something illegal but I think that would be civil court NOT criminal court.

    I dont see why this is even a question as if I tell somebody to download a song they don't have to pirate it for example. As your not forcing them to do anything.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6967342].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dan Grossman
      Originally Posted by nextgeneration View Post

      the teacher wouldn't be in trouble because you did not commit the crime the student did. The only way I could possibly see you getting in trouble is if you were to give legal advice which is illegal to do unless your a lawyer.
      This isn't actually true when it comes to trademarks, patents and copyright. It's hard to keep up with the law, I know.

      In the United States, you can be convicted for inducing copyright, trademark or patent infringement, under various codified statutes and previous legal precedents. If you are directly responsible for, or materially contribute to, the infringement carried out by another party, you too are liable for that act.

      This wiki page is a good starting point for learning more about the relevant concepts:

      Secondary liability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      For example, this is the reason Limewire was found liable and permanently enjoined from running that service in Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC. They were found to have induced the copyright infringement of their users, even though the company did not commit infringement itself.
      Signature
      Improvely: Built to track, test and optimize your marketing.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6967360].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author kenzik
        Let's play out this thought experiment by scaling to mortal consequences.

        You visit a small town not found on a map. You meet a gentlemen who tells you that you are free to shoot anyone in town without repercussion.

        You do so. As it turns out your new acquaintance was incorrect and it is actually against the law to do so.

        Who is responsible?

        I think will find that the discussion starts to revolve around this fundamental question: At which point should you trust, but verify, before taking action?

        How do you know what that point is?

        If someone tells you its OK to take an extra napkin at the sandwich shop, you probably don't give it a second though. If someone tells you it's OK to get a refill, maybe you ponder that one a little. If someone tells you it's OK to borrow a book from the bookstore as long as you bring it back...

        And the real question... does it matter? Is the responsibility always on the newbie to do their own homework?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6967399].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author David Keith
      Originally Posted by nextgeneration View Post

      The only way I could possibly see you getting in trouble is if you were to give legal advice which is illegal to do unless your a lawyer.
      not exactly true... anyone can give legal advice. They just cant say they are a lawyer and accept money from another person for their non-expert legal advise. Well, in truth thats not even accurate. If i disclose I am not a lawyer and you still offer to pay me for my legal opinion then thats ok too. Deception or lack thereof by the person giving advise is the key.

      As far as not being liable for giving any other types of advice. There are hundreds of examples where consultants have many laws to consider before giving advice. Not the least of which is the financial service industry.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6967395].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David Keith
    well, from a practical standpoint almost all copywriters use a "swipe file" of titles and other existing sales copy to help them get ideas. This practice has been well established for many decades long before the advent of "article marketing" as we now call it online.

    So for anyone to suggest that someone else use pre-existing successful works as a platform and basis for ideas is absolutely acceptable. If a person then goes on to steal anthers work rather than use an existing work purely for inspiration thats on them.

    of course how similar can something be before its theft is very much a matter of interpretation.

    as far as the legal side of things and any liability there. That will depend on many factors. One of the primary factors involved in that will be was this advice paid for and does the person giving advice claim to be an expert or are they just seen by some people as being knowledgeable about a topic.

    when a person takes money from someone under the guise of being an expert then their legal liability goes up exponentially in most cases.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6967368].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      of course how similar can something be before its theft is very much a matter of interpretation.
      Yep. Brian Kindsvater suggested that spun articles constitute derivative works, for example.

      There's also the question of similarity of pen names. If someone uses a name that is too close to an established person's, with the intent of profiting from confusion among potential customers, there is some real potential for liability.

      This stuff can get pretty murky, pretty quickly.


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

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6967402].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mary Green
    I would say it isn't your fault if they go and copy the whole source, it sounds like this other person thinks you are misleading the newbie to think that it's ok to copy their work, and that if you tell them they can use the name or title, it's the same as saying it's ok to copy the whole thing. It is similar to people who think we need more laws to protect everyone, because no one is responsible for their own actions.

    I do understand what they mean in that newbies are looking to you as an expert, but if you clearly didn't tell them to copy the whole work, it certainly isn't your fault.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6967394].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DianaHeuser
    Bill,

    I agree that using other people's titles as inspiration is not theft, but I have a small problem with using the same pen name.

    The person is just riding on the coat tails of a successful writer in an attempt to get more exposure to their own writing. To me it is is unethical behaviour even though it may be legal.

    Also I think people lose credibility when they do that. For instance I might decide on a pen name J.C. Rooling and produce a series of fantasy books. I may claim that they are original works but everyone would know that I am nothing more than a cheap copycat. Even if the work was excellent.

    It may take longer to establish yourself as a writer with your real name but in the long run it is more sustainable.

    We are all ultimately responsible for our own actions. In a case like this, both the expert and the newbie will be held accountable. Everyone knows when they are doing something that is unethical. You have to trust your gut.

    Di
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6967433].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Yep. Brian Kindsvater suggested that spun articles constitute derivative works, for example.

      There's also the question of similarity of pen names. If someone uses a name that is too close to an established person's, with the intent of profiting from confusion among potential customers, there is some real potential for liability.

      This stuff can get pretty murky, pretty quickly.


      Paul
      Originally Posted by DianaHeuser View Post

      Bill,

      I agree that using other people's titles as inspiration is not theft, but I have a small problem with using the same pen name.

      The person is just riding on the coat tails of a successful writer in an attempt to get more exposure to their own writing. To me it is is unethical behaviour even though it may be legal.

      Also I think people lose credibility when they do that. For instance I might decide on a pen name J.C. Rooling and produce a series of fantasy books. I may claim that they are original works but everyone would know that I am nothing more than a cheap copycat. Even if the work was excellent.

      It may take longer to establish yourself as a writer with your real name but in the long run it is more sustainable.

      Di

      I have never used a pen name similar to another. My pen names are selected based on their uniqueness and small Google footprint.

      Paul makes an excellent point about using pen names, in that if the pen name is used to create confusion in the marketplace, that very well could be a problem.

      I did not personally recommend the similar pen name, but I have recommended many times using similar titles.

      I have recommended structuring titles like an existing title and even well-known phrases. I have even recommended matching the cadence in an article title to a melody that is well known to certain communities.

      When I was doing article marketing full-time, both of the previous led to some of my most successful article titles of all-time.

      As for the content within an article or a book, we shouldn't even need to have a conversation about that, as that can create all kinds of problems for the person who copies or spins the content.

      Copy writers use swipe files all the time. They use them for titles, headlines, bullet points, and sentences on a page. But, it is not so much the actual sentences that copy writers use, but rather the structure of the sentence or the choice of certain words to get across the ideas that they want their readers to experience.

      I am not, nor have I ever, endorsed copyright infringement.

      But it seems that a lot of people want to believe that if I discuss titles in this way, that I am in fact pushing the newbie down the slippery slope to disaster.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6967500].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author BIG Mike
        Banned
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6999742].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author venkateshk
          Originally Posted by BIG Mike View Post

          The problem isn't you Bill, but rather this endemic mindset that suggests newbies (or anyone for that matter), shouldn't be held accountable for his or her own actions.

          I am constantly amazed at the number of people who go down that slippery slope, blindly following what they read and hear without making any effort to validate it, end up in trouble and then seek to blame someone else for their own poor judgement.

          What you stated was factually correct - in no way are you responsible for someone who decides that your statement extends to content. While there are other issues, i.e.; trademarks, related to your statement, the onus is still on the individual to ensure that he or she may legally use the name or title.

          And there's the rub - far too many people jump into IM without any consideration for what it actually means to be in business in terms of liability.

          I've frequently said that it's important to listen to what others have to say, but to then research and evaluate whatever it is in the context of their own business activities. For those who don't, well shame on them - it's their fault, not yours.

          There are a lot of people on the WF I respect, but I would never arbitrarily follow their advice, without carefully weighing the risks/liabilities instead of just the benefits.
          Very well said. I may yet have just one thing to add here. There are a few innocent newbies (if I can call them so), who, even after some kind of research and evaluation cannot come to a proper conclusion and that is when they sometimes start to blindly follow what the people, they believe in, say....hoping for a revival in their IM career. Its a really thin line that serves as a differentiator. Sometimes morally we become accountable for the actions we do, even without our own knowledge.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7010821].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author BIG Mike
            Banned
            [DELETED]
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7011045].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author venkateshk
              Originally Posted by BIG Mike View Post

              Presupposing of course, that someone is not intentionally giving out malicious advice, I can't agree with what you're suggesting.

              We cannot control the actions of others, what they choose to read into what we advise or how prudent their decision making process is, and therefore cannot be responsible, morally or otherwise for their results.

              Bill's OP is a prime example of this - he makes a clear, factual statement - "...no one can get a copyright on article titles, book titles, etc.? Or, pen names?".

              He then receives this reply, "I don't see how it makes it acceptable for you to promote a method that advises others to steal content?"

              At no point did Bill suggest that his statement extended to the actual content, but the person responding decided he had. In this respect, Bill can't be responsible for someone who is unwilling to accurately comprehend exactly what he wrote or for the conclusions this person arrives at.

              There's really no thin line here - people need to be accountable for their own actions instead of constantly blaming others for their errors in judgement.
              I can only partially agree with what you have said....that people should be accountable for what they are doing instead of blaming others. And I agree that we cannot and do not have control on others' action.

              But, I would like to stress that there are factors that might influence someone's decision....which is why I said that people have a moral responsibility in what they do and that includes both the person who actually performs an action like giving giving away a piece of advice and the person who receives it and acts on it. Everyone learns new things from others and make decisions based on what is learnt. We all play both these roles continuously in our lives and no one is an exemption to it. If you ask me 'Have both analyzed the situation 100% before giving or taking something?' my answer would be a big 'No'...and who is accountable for what then becomes a larger question.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7017409].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    I'm betting you could get away with the pen name JC Crawling, and a book titled "Hairy Pothead and the Philosopher Stoner." As long as it was a humorous riff on the phenomenon.

    But I'm not a lawyer, so if you do that and Rowling sues, you're on your own.


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

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6967489].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      I'm betting you could get away with the pen name JC Crawling, and a book titled "Hairy Pothead and the Philosopher Stoner." As long as it was a humorous riff on the phenomenon.

      But I'm not a lawyer, so if you do that and Rowling sues, you're on your own.


      Paul

      I wouldn't mess with Rowling. She is a mean one. :p

      There was a site that was a reference guide to "all things Harry Potter". The site was even recommended by J.K. Rowling to others, as the winner of the J. K. Rowling's Fan Site Award.

      The owner of the site wanted to catalog the Harry Potter Online Reference to be released as a print version.

      Rowling warned against him doing so... The site owner should have taken the hint, and when he didn't, Rowling sued:

      The Consumerist ยป J.K. Rowling Sues To Stop Publication Of Fan-Written Potter Reference Book

      In September of 2008, Rowling's won her Copyright Infringement lawsuit.

      Later in 2009, the owner of the fan site received permission to publish a smaller lexicon of Harry Potter -- this time with Rowling's approval.

      The Harry Potter Lexicon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      Don't mess with JKR!! LOL
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6967558].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author WraithSarko
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      I'm betting you could get away with the pen name JC Crawling, and a book titled "Hairy Pothead and the Philosopher Stoner." As long as it was a humorous riff on the phenomenon.

      But I'm not a lawyer, so if you do that and Rowling sues, you're on your own.


      Paul
      Parodies usually fall under fair use and have a lot of precedent behind it
      Signature
      SuperExpensiveNUKE...SubmitterEnvyNUKE...SENukeXCRaptastic
      I've spent the last 59 months building 412 MFA sites. Each site averages 8 cents per day...I said average, some make up to 17 cents per day, PASSIVE INCOME! This income allows me to live comfortably and buy ANY flavor Jolly Rancher or Skittles I desire. Don't give in to fear, it CAN be done!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6968255].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author fin
        As the teacher, if you don't tell someone to search websites are recognize patterns in the popular headings then you shouldn't be a teacher. Unless you're a swimming teacher.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6968379].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author George Wright
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      I'm betting you could get away with the pen name JC Crawling, and a book titled "Hairy Pothead and the Philosopher Stoner." As long as it was a humorous riff on the phenomenon.

      But I'm not a lawyer, so if you do that and Rowling sues, you're on your own.


      Paul
      So, Paul,

      I've been thinking about the pen name, Sir Paw Mires for my new report, why Johnny can't smell. Is that OK?

      George Wright
      Signature
      "The first chapter sells the book; the last chapter sells the next book." Mickey Spillane
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6968925].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dan Curtis
    Originally Posted by tpw View Post


    I have been on record many times suggesting that taking content without permission or claiming someone else's written works as your own, would be a violation of copyright law and a practice that people should avoid.

    But, were you aware that no one can get a copyright on article titles, book titles, etc.? Or, pen names?

    From the U.S. Copyright Office website:
    Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks.


    If I were to suggest to someone that they could copy a title or create a title that is very similar to the first, then I would not be doing anything wrong.

    Again, the U.S. Copyright Office says that names and titles are not copyrightable.
    There are two aspects to this:

    One, I think if someone takes an action and gets into trouble, they are responsible for their own condition. It's easy to blame others. But it is their action that got them into trouble.

    Two, it looks to me that the difference between copyright and trademark is not entirely clear. As you noted, the U. S. Copyright office states that names and titles are not subject to copyright law. That is true.

    But it is not true that they might not be protected. As you also noted, the copyright office states that they might be subject to trademark. In the US that is administered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

    Most titles, though, cannot be trademarked. For example, where would we be if you couldn't use the name "My Girl" for a song. The world would run out of love songs.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6967564].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Black Hat Cat
    Banned
    Originally Posted by tpw View Post

    [B]But, were you aware that no one can get a copyright on article titles, book titles, etc.? Or, pen names?
    Yup. I've posted that info here before.

    If it is suggested that a newbie writer can use an existing title and pen name for their products, then that newbie runs off and copies the entire product, who is responsible for that happening? The teacher, or the student?
    The student is. Not sure what the debate is. If you tell someone they can get change at the 7-11, that doesn't mean you're to blame if they steal the cash register.

    You visit a small town not found on a map. You meet a gentlemen who tells you that you are free to shoot anyone in town without repercussion.

    You do so. As it turns out your new acquaintance was incorrect and it is actually against the law to do so.

    Who is responsible?
    The person who pulled the trigger. But that analogy has nothing to do with the one TPW made.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6967571].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Walter Parrish
    Originally Posted by tpw View Post

    I have a question for you good folks...

    First, some background...

    I have been on record many times suggesting that taking content without permission or claiming someone else's written works as your own, would be a violation of copyright law and a practice that people should avoid.

    But, were you aware that no one can get a copyright on article titles, book titles, etc.? Or, pen names?

    From the U.S. Copyright Office website:




    If I were to suggest to someone that they could copy a title or create a title that is very similar to the first, then I would not be doing anything wrong.

    This morning, someone suggested that if I tell "newbies" that they can use an existing title for their written works and/or use a similar pen name to an existing author, that I could be potentially responsible for causing the "newbie" to get in trouble, if that newbie also copies the contents of an article or book...

    I responded by saying this:




    I received this response:




    I re-read the document in question.

    The document DID NOT advise that it was okay to steal someone's content, but it did suggest that writers could model a new title on a previous title and use a pen name similar to that of another author.

    Again, the U.S. Copyright Office says that names and titles are not copyrightable.

    So, my question...

    If it is suggested that a newbie writer can use an existing title and pen name for their products, then that newbie runs off and copies the entire product, who is responsible for that happening? The teacher, or the student?
    The newbie gets fined and goes to jail

    If I write a book on how to kill someone and tell you it's wrong to kill and you go out and kill someone. Then you are responsible, not me.
    Signature
    Use Feeder Sites, Articles, And Social Media Sites To Generate Unstoppable Traffic, FREE! Click Here Now To Get It For FREE
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6967577].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Yep. Brian Kindsvater suggested that spun articles constitute derivative works, for example.

      There's also the question of similarity of pen names. If someone uses a name that is too close to an established person's, with the intent of profiting from confusion among potential customers, there is some real potential for liability.

      This stuff can get pretty murky, pretty quickly.


      Paul
      Yep, clear as mud.

      While the issue of copyright might come off the table pretty quickly, there's still fraud and interference with the right to publicity to consider. It would be up to a judge to determine if there was intent to deceive. Even if you won, the legal bills could put you in the poor house...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6967703].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WraithSarko
    copyright and trademarks are 2 different beasts
    phrases, titles, names usually cant be covered wit a copyright but they can be with a trademark

    a newbie is a newbie cause he doesn't know jack sh*t, then you have the knowledgeable guy telling him he can do something that is either flat out illegal or falls into the grey area..ultimately I think each man is supposed to do his own research but asking gurus or the successful knowledgeable guys IS research for a newbie
    Signature
    SuperExpensiveNUKE...SubmitterEnvyNUKE...SENukeXCRaptastic
    I've spent the last 59 months building 412 MFA sites. Each site averages 8 cents per day...I said average, some make up to 17 cents per day, PASSIVE INCOME! This income allows me to live comfortably and buy ANY flavor Jolly Rancher or Skittles I desire. Don't give in to fear, it CAN be done!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6968242].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author venkateshk
    WOW, so many useful points for newbies like me to take from so many experienced WF members. BTW, is there a free tool on the internet for me to check plagiarism for my articles that I get outsourced?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6968667].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nairapal
    i just love this site....
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6968873].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Coby
    The person who you were talking to must assume that newbies take all the advice they were given and use it...

    ...If I had a dollar for everytime I gave out "free" advice to a newbie (or any marketer actually)...

    who then went and done the exact opposite...

    I'd have more than a "few" extra dollars...

    Just Sayin
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6968958].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jeffery
    My past companies Legal Eagles advised to never answer the question. Rather point all questions to the companies legal staff.

    You would be surprised at how easy it is for a lawyer to stop people from making accusations!

    Jeffery 100% :-)
    Signature
    In the minute it took me to write this post.. someone died of Covid 19. RIP.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6969095].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sean Erickson
    Hmm... Nice n Interesting question.
    First off, Titles are not copyrighted as stated in the document.
    One can read the title and create something similar because Ideas cannot be copyrighted
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6969368].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author venkateshk
    From a newbie perspective (or even someone who copies content), can someone explain what this all boils down to? I hate copying content too and in one way it is good that the SEs penalise them. People should know to trigger their thought and put them into words, whatever they are, but should be their own.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6998749].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Fredbou
      Originally Posted by venkateshk View Post

      From a newbie perspective (or even someone who copies content), can someone explain what this all boils down to? I hate copying content too and in one way it is good that the SEs penalise them. People should know to trigger their thought and put them into words, whatever they are, but should be their own.
      I love this answer. Surely if someone has the brains to want to do this thing they can come up with original thoughts and writings.

      Copying what someone else has had the nouse to do sucks big time and go ahead, Google, penalise them!
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6998911].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DevEdge
    In my opinion, the student is wrong. We all have free will and we can all do what we choose to do. Just because somebody tells us it's the right thing to do, doesn't mean we should go ahead and do it because "he said it's ok".

    The student should do his/her own research on it before making such a decision.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6998828].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sarlat
    Sorry too many threads to read on this point so apologies if this has been dealt with.

    You CANNOT use a name which is similiar to some one else if there is the potential fo confusion in the eyes of the customer. This is called Passing Off. Passing off - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    For example I could not call myself PotPieWoman. That would no doubt upset PotPieGirl as that is her trading name.

    Also I would be in serious trouble if I called myself "Alex J Jeffries". He also trades under his brand and it would be obvious I would only be using that name to exploit his goodwill and trading brand by trying to steal his customers.

    The same goes for using "strap" lines. You cant copy these etiher as they may be passing off.

    Simple rule - don't brandable material!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6998993].message }}

Trending Topics