Forum Moderators: not2easy
If I can not write an article, can I just rewrite other people's work, then create a new version?
But why would you want to?
Couldn't you do a better job writing about something that you know about? (At least enough to allow you to research the subject among multiple sources and write your own article.)
You can't get a legal opinion here, so we can only offer ethical ones.
It unethical.
This is called a 'derivative work' and all rights to derivative works remain with the author of the original work. In other words, the author of the article that you copy owns your modified copy, too.
Think about it -- Would you want someone to take your work, that you spent many hours researching and writing, and then copy it to make a profit and maybe even compete with them?
If so, send me your site's name, and I'll copy your site and just rewrite a few lines... Thanks! :)
Copyright Basics [copyright.gov]
Jim
How if I research and grasp some sentenses or ideas from three articles, then conbine them as one? It's maybe ok....
Actually, english is not my native language, there are too many words I don't know, it is time comsuming for me to write an article.
Maybe I should write down with chinese, then hire people to translate to english.
I know the right way to create content is to hire ghostwriter to write an original article. But I still should hire ghostwriter to write some cheap, rewritten articles, in order to submit them to AD.
If I have to hire a professional writer to write an original article based on a niche market, it may cost me $20+ to write only one article.
I don't have that much budges, and it's not possible to create a long term, free, targeted, huge ammount traffic to my site if I just have a few articles to submit to. It will waste my time, and I need months to track the result.
I've been an AD's owner, but I found it's time comsuming, I can have a lot of content, but really low profit I can earn from this site. Most traffic can not convert to profit.
So I think maybe the best way is let me control all the content, build a niche site, not only a site filled with articles.
(Speak about AD, how does [an article site] create huge income from site itself?)
[edited by: rogerd at 5:08 pm (utc) on Jan. 22, 2008]
[edit reason] no URLs or specifics, please [/edit]
So you can buy membership in a PLR (private label rights) article base and basically can do all sorts of things with the articles and it's perfectly legal (or shoudl be if you observe the terms of the license).
On the other hand, if you're talkin about grabbing a random article that you don't own the right for, and
- you write an article from it as your only source, you're certainly in copyright violation (barring reviews, responses, etc).
- If you use ten articles and each one is a source for one paragraph, you may or may not be violating international copyright laws depending on how you use those articles and how you synthesize, summarize and cite that information.
- If you present someone else's research as your own, no matter how much rewriting you do, it's plagiarism and would be a problem in an scholarly context but not necessarily elsewhere, depending on... lots of factors.
I am still going to agree with jtara on this one, its much easier to write a page.
I have been using this as a SEO "secret" for a long time, I am interested in finding out if anyone else thought of it?
Speak into a Mic about your KW Phrase and synonyms, have a voice recognition program type it out for you and then tweak it from there... simple right?
Articles should be written for humans to convey certain messages, then generate income on the way.
How would you feel if your articles (good or bad!) were stolen?
There's a fine line between pagiarism and theft - and I never met a college that condoned it. Taking from multiple sourceswith full references might be considered research - though most of us would call it 'review'.
And leaving the moral lecture to one side, the effort of rejigging one turgid work into another really won't be effective, even if it did 'fool' the search engines. Because a bad article will always be a bad article - and human beings would then assume you had a bad site, and leave.
Get away from the 'bums on seats' mentality, and go for quality. There's really little point in getting people under false pretexts; they'll neither stay not revisit. Nor spend, for that matter.
I know, I know. You're just being funny. I don't want to step in as the guy with no sense of humor, but as an academic and professional historian I have to beg to differ.
not citing your sources consitutes plagiarism, whether one source or many (ask Steve Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin about this).
[b]whether rewritten or not, whether attributed or not[b], lifting more content than is allowed under fair use rules is plagiarism.
It really isn't that complicated.
not citing your sources constitutes plagiarism
OK, so there's the academic view.
As far as the law goes, though, I think there is no problem if you are only giving facts. (Checked via multiple sources.)
Example: "The population of WhoVille is 23". You've checked several books about WhoVille, and they all agree, the population is 23.
If you're writing an academic paper, you probably need to cite your sources.
But from a legal standpoint, and for a general-interest of business-oriented paper - I don't think it's necessary.
"The truth is more important than the facts." ~ Frank Lloyd Wright :)
Plagiarism is different from copyright infringement. While both terms may apply to a particular act, they emphasize different aspects of the transgression. Copyright infringement is a violation of the rights of the copyright holder, when material is used without the copyright holder's consent. On the other hand, plagiarism is concerned with the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation that is achieved through false claims of authorship.
Actually, even in the academy, the population of Whoville likely does not need citation. That would fall under the "commonly available information" category (assuming Whoville is a city in a developed country with census records).
The best estimates for the change in population of Whoville as a result of the Caterdikian revolution, would require citation.
So what about three pages on the change in the population of Whoville, which basically summarize the most important work on the subject without citation? I have always considered illegal.
I would say that including a simple statement of fact is legal, but once you go beyond raw census data, you are copying someone else's interpretation, and that is not a fact.
And, I'll trump your Frank Loyd Wright with some Nietzsche:
"There are no facts, only interpretations."
I suggest a Google search for "berne convention".
I will try to keep this short. The bottom line is that Copyright is International Law. It is NOT dependent on which country you are in NOR the country of the creator of the work. Copyright Laws come under the Berne Convention. In short, if you make it, then you own it.
Copyright is AUTOMATIC in every country that is party to the Berne Convention. There is no such thing as Copyright registration. (Yes, I am aware that the U.S has a Copyright Registration Office. It has NO legal power...it is ONLY a courtesy service). This means that there is NO legal requirement to state that you own Copyright. Those Copyright notices we see, such as the one at the bottom of this Forum page is NOT needed and is ONLY a courtesy or a warning.
The stories people make up about material not being Copyright because it does not have a Copyright notice...is excatly that, stories! Regardless of whether the Copyright Owner has stated a Copyright notice or not is irrelevent. If you did not make it then you do not own it. The ONLY time you can use Copyright material (if you are not the owner) is if you have "express written permission" OR it is excempt use under Copyright Law.
To find out more about excempt use, I suggest you read your local Copyright Acts. Some excempt uses include...reporting news, education, critical comment etc.
Simply giving credit to the Copyright owner does NOT give a right of use.
In general terms ONLY the Copyright Owner can make a complaint of breach of Copyright. Also in general terms, there is NO LIMIT to what a Copyright Owner can claim in damages. Some Copyright Owners are bound by Industry Standards. For example the movie industry. We have all seen a DVD or Video with a copyright notice stating a fine of $50,000 etc. Because the Copyright Owner has subscribed to that Industry Standard then the maximum penalty would be what is stated. If you have a DVD (even by the same Owner) that does not have such a notice, then there is no limit...they could claim millions! Also, in most countries, the Copyright Owners within the movie and music etc industries have already given direct permission for local Police to act on their behalf. This means that because "permission" has already been given, there is no need for the Copyright Owner to make a complaint.
Of course, Copyright Law is very complex and I suggest that you refer to actual Copyright Law published by Government or authorised agencies for advice. Taking advice from your friends might not be the best thing to do.
I hope that my writings have been of help.
Maybe I should write down with chinese, then hire people to translate to english.Why not? In fact, why bother with translating to English?
...and this is why many non-fiction authors put in deliberate mistakes so that people who just blindly rephrase their work can be sued for copyright violation.
Map makers also do this, they'll insert deliberately incorrect parts of the map which don't exist in the real world, so anyone who just copies the information in the map without verifying it will get caught.
In other words, the author of the article that you copy owns your modified copy, too.
Not true. They own the copyright in the original work, and that copyright is controlling over the derivative work, but it is not a copyright over the derivative. Whoever makes the derivative owns the copyright in the derivative, subject to the copyright in the original.
The bottom line is that Copyright is International Law. It is NOT dependent on which country you are in NOR the country of the creator of the work. Copyright Laws come under the Berne Convention.
Incorrect. The Berne Convention actually specifies that it is not international law, but that it is a collection of national laws that meet the treaty requirements. It is national law that counts.
But you are partially correct, it is not the law of the nation where it is created that matters, it is the nation with jurisdiction over the alleged infringement that matters.
If you write something in the UK, and I copy it in the US onto a US website, and I'm not a UK citizen, and have no other connections to the UK, you have to sue me in the US under title 17 of the US Code. If you filed the lawsuit in the UK, it would be thrown out due to lack of jurisdiction, and if you filed it in the United States, citing the Berne Convention instead of USC 17, it would get tossed out until you filed it using the law that matters in the US.
Yes, I am aware that the U.S has a Copyright Registration Office. It has NO legal power...it is ONLY a courtesy service
Wrong again. While it is not required to claim copyright, it is required to file a copyright infringement lawsuit and it is required BEFORE the infringement happened to claim statutory damages.
Also in general terms, there is NO LIMIT to what a Copyright Owner can claim in damages.
In the US, Title 17 sets limits on what you can claim. I would be surprised if most other statutes around the world did not set limits as well.
[edited by: BigDave at 2:52 am (utc) on Feb. 13, 2008]
