Credit where credit is due
p2pnet.net News View:- Every now and I get an email along these lines:
You publish articles in full from people or sites that are nothing to do with p2pnet. Or you take clips from stories on other sites. That’s not fair and you’ll eventually get nailed for copyright infringement or something.
I now have a standard reply, and it says:
p2pnet never re-publishes anything in full unless the author has specifically contacted us to tell us about the article in the first place, unless we’ve asked for, and received, permission to re-publish, or unless the item is covered by a Creative Commons license (and even then 9.9 times out of 10, we still ask for permission).
On quoting from another story, we take pains to refer to the source throughout our piece, we always include a link to the original in the body of the story, and another link with the original headline at the bottom.
Is it fair to use a story developed by another publication? Sure. It’s standard practice. On- and offline publications check other news outlets for interesting items and then do their own versions or follow-ups, or they come up with something completely different.
As far as p2pnet is concerned, it’s published under a Creative Commons license and I encourage people to use our material in any that way suits them, although it`s nice if they link back to the original and give credit where credit is due.
Sometimes that happens, sometimes it doesn’t. But either way, I don’t lose sleep over it. I’m not jealous of content. In fact, I WANT it to get out there. I want the story to be picked up and circulated. That’s why p2pnet exists. Nor do I care if I’m first or dead last. Scoops don’t matter online. The message is what’s important.
And sometimes, material I developed shows up on Google as a lightly remixed and unattributed version in another publication. But again, although it wrankles, no serious worries for the reasons stated above.
‘Simply copying others’ content’
Last week, we mentioned how Google News was prominently displaying articles from another site that was simply copying Techdirt’s content (with attribution in a tiny font), writes Mike in Techdirt, going on:
“While this is exactly the kind of thing that others have threatened to sue over, I don’t think it’s that big of a deal (though, it would be nice if the attribution was a bit clearer). If anything, it shows that someone has found our content valuable enough to re-publish.”
The problem, Techdirt continues, was Google News, “seemed to be displaying this content with a link to that site instead of ours,” even it was originally from Techdirt, “and our version isn’t smothered with ads as this other site is”.
“In my message to the Google News team I said I had no problem with what this other site was doing, but thought it would be more appropriate to show the Techdirt page,” says Mike.
“It seems only fair that if they must show this other site, they should at least show our site as well, since that’s where the content is from. Google has now responded, saying they ‘are unable to manually alter the position or ranking of individual stories found in Google News,’ but telling me that I should file a DMCA complaint against this other site – at which point Google will take action and (supposedly) remove their site from the index. That’s a pretty extreme response. I don’t want their site to be taken out of Google’s index. I simply think that Google News should be able to recognize that our content belongs in the same results, since it’s content we created in the first place.
“Shouldn’t there be some sort of middle ground, where Google notices a site is simply copying others’ content and works to make sure the original source is linked, either instead of, or alongside, the copycats?”
That’d be nice, Mike. But it’ll never happen.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
Techdirt – Google Tells Us To File DMCA Complaint, July 20, 2005
July 20th, 2005 at 10:13 pm
Honestly, this who ‘attribution’ and ‘copyright’ shit has gone out of control.
True, if it was some precious trade secret for the cure for some serious disease, or some state security matter that affects millions of people, then of course these should be kept secret — and attributed to the owners.
But when you move to public domain, and in more than 10 people (often thousands and millions of people) know about it — then it’s no longer copyright. That’s right, think about it folks. All of this hoopla about music is just total bullshit! How “original” is a piece of composition, or a song, or a performance. Each have borrowed 99.99999% from previous works, whether in music or an outside inspiration. Songs about love, trivial matter, are not unique — Does any composer seriously believe they are the first and only person to ever experience a heart-break AND write about it?! And it doesn’t stop there — how they express themselves in words are not unique either. You just have to look a school kids’ diary, and you’ll see the same writting. There’s only so many ways of expressing that you’re sad or in love!
And as a final note, as the author of p2pnet.net pointed out. The main purpose of putting stuff on the web is to share it will the WHOLE world, so that as many people as possible can benifit from the information. The sole point is not about getting credit or getting a “scoop”, but to express oneself. Heck, I was honored that one of the comments I made, was reposted as a headline article on p2pnet.net. They didn’t ask me, NOR did I care. I was happy they took value in what I said!
In closing, don’t have a cow man. You’re not the first person, and you’ll won’t be the last person to have that knowledge/idea/information expressed in words/music/film/print/video/etc.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:28 pm
Fox(TM) is going to sue you out of existence! That is a copyright AND trademarked Bart Simson(TM) slogan!
Oh yeah, the post was anonymous. heh heh
July 21st, 2005 at 1:04 am
“you’re fired.” (anonymous)
July 21st, 2005 at 10:11 am
“Where’s the beef?”
July 21st, 2005 at 1:34 pm
Canada has C-60 to be worried about. Other countries eithor have or will soon have copyright and other related bills in their governments. Write to your elected representatives and let them know how you feel pre-emptively.
Report back to the sites such as this one so people can coordinate. If Canadian, please join http://digital-copyright.ca ’s public discussion forum.