Copyright infringement still ticks me off, especially when requests for removal are ignored

Copyright doesn’t mean that people have a right to copy. To to use a synonym that will help those who still think it’s okay to go to Websites and copy content without any attribution, it’s just simple plagiarism.

I have to first state that I have no problem with credible business sites aggregating my content, because they give full credit.

It’s the others that have me concerned.

AGGREGATION: There are lots of sites that lift bloggers’ work, for example, with little insight that the work comes from another source… People who have decided that they’ll get rich quickly by having ads on their sites, and not have any real contributors. They just aggregate, with no thought in mind other than making easy money. Frankly, if they think Google ads are easy money, I can tell you that the first year I ran Google ads, it took about 15 months to get $100. I gave it to an employee, who thought that Google ads might help to compensate my writing. I guess if you live in a third world country, that could feed your family for a bit, so there you are and an insight into who’s finding it lucrative.

TAKING CONTENT AND/OR IMAGES: I recently had a site where I found an image that I’d taken, because it fit the contributor’s theme… Bottles all lined up on my dining room table. It probably took me a half hour to shoot and process, and then I found it somewhere else, with absolutely no credit… like this person had taken that shot. The only hint that it came from my site, was the following at the very bottom of the page, as a side thought.

If you’d like to read up on the wines, there are some descriptions written here.

The “written here” part was a link to my blog. The way it’s written, though, has a reader expect that it’s going somewhere else on that site; but, it came to mine. It also suggests that the organizer took the time to review the wines and wrote about them… But, that’s not the case. It just went to my site, and my 10-12 hour investment in that story, like I’m part of that person’s process.

I asked to have my images removed within 24 hours. That didn’t work, so I went to the site’s own rules and regulations and found some very credible people behind the concept of all copyrights are reserved. I let the site’s Webmaster know about the use, and discovered that it was a naive contributor. So, I solved it over a few days’ time, but not time I felt like spending that way.

My website has, “Wine Blog Copyright © 2011 All Rights Reserved.” at the very bottom of the page. Additionally, under the “Contact/Use” tab, I lay it all out. I’m willing to share, but one must first be respectful that it’s my work.

It seems that more and more people are becoming not only aware, but they’re also quite upset with this modern day plagiarism.

Quoting from a story that I read on Reuters Website this past week regarding this issue, called Business Insider, over-aggregation, and the mad grab for traffic, by Ryan McCarthy:

“…So why does Business Insider risk undermining all that highly original, distinctive content for what appear to be roughly 18,000 article views? When media companies are asked to grow at a meteoric pace — and Comscore indicates that Business Insider’s unique visitors have nearly doubled this year — the line between original content and borderline theft gets awful blurry. The editorial mission quickly transforms from ‘What can I link to?’ to ‘How much can I take?’”

“To be fair, Business Insider’s more prominent pieces are often its most original. But journalists and readers should be very worried when fast-growth media companies determine the standards for distinguishing between citation and theft.

“One would hope readers and advertisers would eventually catch on to the kind of lazy lifting that would earn middle school students an F. But that hasn’t happened yet.”

It’s the wild west all over again, cowboys and cowgirls.

Enhanced by Zemanta

6 Responses to “Copyright infringement still ticks me off, especially when requests for removal are ignored”

  1. Wine Harlots says:

    Warning! Snark-attack looming!

    Not to dismiss your post, as any writer on the web has had their work co-opted by others, and it’s something we need to be conscious of every time we post if we are properly attributing sources and if we have clearance for the images we use.


    The photo you are using to illustrate the article (a hooded and gloved burglar hovering over a computer) appears to be a commercial image, but it doesn’t have any attribution or photo credit listed in the article. Even the most diligent slip once in awhile!

    All the best,

    Nannette Eaton

  2. Jo Diaz says:

    Beg to differ… I purchased that image, with a use permit. It allows for me to use it as I see fit, with no attribution… The power of having paid my dues.

    Whenever I use something from someone else, like on another person’s site, I attribute it to that person.

    I pay a good amount of money each year for images, and on my disclosure page I have the following:

    PHOTOGRAPHY: The images contained on this wine blog are the property of the following:

    Jo Diaz, the primary source (assumed)
    Jose Diaz, in shared travels and choice of best image; noted when they belong to Jose Diaz
    I-Stock Photography, purchased because it fits
    Wikipedia is through Wikipedia code and offerings
    When borrowed from other Websites, it’s so noted

  3. Hog Smith says:

    I definitely prefer organic wines and tend to be steering more and more towards them these days.

  4. Jo Diaz says:

    Hog, One-by-one, the enlightened…

  5. Marius says:

    Copyright infringement really is the worst on the web! The hard thing is to discover them, though. I don’t have the time to control the whole world wide web for any violations of my private content. Oh well, I guess that’s the price you have to pay.

  6. […] I enjoyed Jo Diaz’s piece yesterday: Copyright infringement still ticks me off, especially when requests for removal are ignored. […]

Leave a Reply