What’s on the iPod: Blunderbuss by Jack White
It’s been a good two days back. Monday was spent starting a project, sending off quotes to interview subjects for another project, and organizing this week’s workload, which isn’t as small as I thought it would be. It’s good, though.
Imagine this — you go on vacation with your family, pose for a few pictures, post them on Facebook for your friends to see, then find out those photos were used to show what not to do on the Internet. Would you be embarrassed? Damn right you would. And you’d be fighting mad, if you’re anything like Chelsea Chaney.
It was her photo that allegedly ended up in a district-wide seminar presentation by her former high school administrator. Embarrassed she was. Then she got angry. Should her suit prevail, Chelsea could win a $2 million award from her school. It’s also a case that might finally put some clear parameters around fair use and the Internet.
That’s where this all applies to writers. While to most people it would make sense that what’s true in print is also true in online sources, the law isn’t quite as clearly defined in some cases. That’s led to writers taking extreme liberties with copyright and fair use to the point of theft and plagiarism, as defined by print terms.
Without challenges to the practices occurring online, some writers and even non-writers (especially non-writers) continue to think it’s okay to act unethically. In a perfect world, we would all respect the efforts and ownership of others. In actuality, this happens instead:
Rewrites of original articles. A bizarre practice that seems to happen only online, there are people who believe taking an article and rephrasing everything makes it new again. Why that’s BS — you didn’t do the research, you didn’t acquire the quotes, and you didn’t put the creative energy into it that the original author did. I was approached by a company once to rewrite articles “to 60 percent original” and when I told the woman the practice was unethical, she gave me some bogus excuse, noting something akin to “we’re not stealing: it’s mostly original content we’re asking for.” No you’re not. You’re stealing and justifying it with a quick dusting off.
Mashups. Take several articles (two or more) and mix the content together to come up with a “new” article. What do you have? Stolen content from multiple sources. This doesn’t even come close to falling under Fair Use laws, nor does it make it original. It makes it rehashed information that doesn’t need to be said, and it’s still, in my opinion, plagiarism. If I were a hiring client, I’d never hire someone who thought this was acceptable behavior.
Swiping. What blog owner hasn’t had this happen at least once? In one extreme case, the guy was swiping content from a hundred or so people, wrapping his website ads and URL around it, and thinking because your home page was showing up with your name on it, it was okay to steal your traffic. Note that he didn’t offer to share that ad revenue he was pulling in, either. Try this in print form and you’d be in front of a judge for copyright infringement and violations of the Fair Use Act.
Outright theft. Having had several of my blog posts show up on other blogs (and by self-proclaimed experts, no less) is unnerving and unsettling. To have it happen regularly shows the thief is unable to come up with ideas on his/her own. No attribution, no mention of original sources, just tweaking the thing a little (think a 30 percent rewrite at best) and thinking it’s now theirs to showcase. What that shows me and everyone else these people steal from is that they can’t come up with their own ideas because they don’t have any. If you use someone’s words, you must attribute. Seriously, are we still having this conversation?
What do you think about any of these practices? Have you seen them or used them? Thoughts? Objections to my argument?
It boggles my mind how many bloggers/business owners lack knowledge of copyright fundamentals. I had one client who had her site filled with copy and pastes of online articles. In her mind, she gave credit so there was no problem. Her line of business and the businesses she was taking the articles from were not exactly on the same page regarding beliefs. I know some of those businesses would have a real problem if they knew what she was doing. I tried to educate her, but she stood firm in her belief that she was doing nothing wrong. Almost made me want to contact those businesses.
But, when you have professionals who DO know copyright rules and choose to ignore them, that is even worse (in my humble opinion). There again, you would love to go to their clients and ask if they really want to do business with someone who does not act ethically in their business.
What do you expect from content mills and content mill writers, who are "writing" 45 articles a week at $1/pop? No one can keep up that pace, so some of them cheat and steal. And should be punished for it.
This is a huge issue, Lori; thanks for shining the spotlight on it. I've had my blog content and posts I've written for clients plagiarized more often than I can count – I think a lot of people just can't cope with the scale of it.
Cathy, your former client sounds like she's playing the lazy way out anyway. Wonder how she'd feel if someone had done the same thing to her (assuming she had any original content)?
Devon, it's not just the content mill workers, which makes this even more heinous. I've seen self-professed "gurus" doing this and promoting these types of practices. That, of course, proves they're not the gurus they think they are, but what of the people who are learning these bad habits?
Sharon, that they targeted you is of no surprise given your level of expertise, but that's little solace when you want to wring someone's neck!
I know of a self-proclaimed writing "expert" (one who has the audacity to charge people for webinars built around her supposed expertise) who proudly lists (or at least once listed) mash-ups among the type of work she excels at. I truly fear for those newbies gullible enough to believe her tripe.
It's because so many people have such little knowledge of such things. I remember years ago being baffled about why people thought they could copy something. Turns out there is a myth that if you don't make any money off it, then it isn't a problem.
Paula, THAT is scary!
Brian, that's even scarier. So what happens if they make money accidentally? Will they start worrying? LOL What strange logic, huh?
I don't think you'd be surprised if I told you the person's name, but I refuse to give her any attention, good or bad. You know who it is. (Thankfully NOT anyone who frequents this blog…unless she's looking for something to use in a mash up.)
While I totally agree with you Lori, I don't think we're going to see much change, even if that gal prevails against the school… it will make schools more careful, but most of the ripoffs we see aren't from schools.
It's just too darn easy to make a copy… from the net and we're not going to see that change.
There's also still some notion from the dot com era that information wants to be free… many people interpret that as license to copy.
I don't know the answer.
Anne, I think the answer lies in us policing our own work. If someone is caught using it without permission, shoot off warnings and follow up on them. It's not enough to say "It's happening everywhere" and us throw our hands up. We have to be proactive in helping curb the behavior.
Also, I think we should be putting copyright notices on our sites and maybe writing posts that educate our peers at least on what copyright and fair use really are.