1. It sounds like plagiarism, all right, but that doesn't mean it's copyright infringement, which is what counts in a situation like this. Plagiarism is an academic offense--using someone else's work or writing without given proper credit. Copyright infringement is copying or substantially reusing with minor alterations copyrighted material.

2. No, since it's paraphrased.

3. I'd seek legal counsel before doing something like this. For one thing, is it possible that both you and the other site base your information on the same source, which would explain why your content is similar? Even if you are convinced that's not what happened, could the other site plausibly argue that? For another, posting screenshots and such might open you up to being sued.

I would slow down a bit and take a breath.

I started studying this new authority site and have discovered that much of it is a paraphrasing of our content.

Little in the world is truly 'unique', and that likely includes your wife's fine work, no matter how good. That's just the way it is - how many 'unique' ways are there to say anything?

I've tried the Google quoted search and cannot turn anything up, but on manual searches of this and our site, there is not doubt they have copied our stuff.

Careful here. If even your best turned out sentences and phrases are not coming up on a scan or search, then they have either done their own work, perhaps in a similar style, or are adequately protected by 'fair use'. That's a question for your lawyers. There is the question of 'derivative' works, a murky, grey area at best - and that is definitely a question for your lawyer.

Life took a detour and for the past year and a half, we've pretty much let the site run on autopilot (have not added any new content or product or kept up with the industry).

We've recently begun working on the site again. An authority site has sprung up in our industry and is beating us in Google.

What was important to you then, has been important to them in the meantime - and they have been investing time, money, resources..... No such thing as time off, however valid the reason - develop or die.

1) Based on the information presented, I would say no. (But that is what lawyers are paid for.)

2) There are services that can track content, but unless you've got a lot of content there may be no need. Most people that rip good content can't bring themselves to adequately rewrite excellent copy, and searches are usually pretty easy to run yourself. I keep a file of the best turned phrases in all of my 'original' content. Every by-and-by I run a search. When I catch somebody, out goes a C&D and the take it down long enough to rewrite to meet 'fair use'. That's pretty much the best that one can ask or hope for; just enough to protect the very best of my writing.

3) Maybe you've been plagiarized, maybe not. I'm not convinced based upon "quoted search and cannot turn anything up". Similar content and style does not necessarily mean stolen. How unique is the niche? The narrower the niche, and the less content available within the niche, the stronger your position for at least a C&D - but if the writing or 'rewriting' is adequately unique, they may not be moved.

discredit them

Lawyer time. If you discredit them publicly, you may wind up the defendant.

We've recently begun working on the site again.

Roll up your sleeves and get back your authority status.

Little in the world is truly 'unique', and that likely includes your wife's fine work, no matter how good. That's just the way it is - how many 'unique' ways are there to say anything?

This is just a remark on my part, not an accusation, but the above is a tired old line often repeated by those who want to rationalize the taking of content created by others. Repeating the line just emboldens the thieves.

As long as there have been speaking humans on earth, unique content has been created, and that will continue as long as there are speaking humans on earth.

...perhaps in a similar style, or are adequately protected by 'fair use'.

This is not a "Fair Use" issue.

jlander: If this is important to you, pursue a remedy. In most states, attorneys belong to a trade group or association referral service based in the state capitol. Contact that office and they can tell you which attorneys in your area practice copyright law, and hopefully some that are also Internet savvy.

Call some of those offices and ask if they have experience dealing web site content copyright issues. You want experience, not someone who wants to learn with you footing the bill.

And don't walk into any attorney's office thinking that just because he or she is an attorney makes him or her the ultimate authority. Shop around until you find someone you like and want to work on your behalf.

FarmBoy

Note: copyright does not lie in information, only the form of its presentation.

Thus, if someone else has repeated the same information as you, but with significantly different phrasing/presentation from you, and that information is not protected in some other way, you don't have a (legal) leg to stand on AFAIK, but *IANAL*.

Rgds

Damon

On the issue of paraphrasing, I Am Not a Lawyer, but I have read of cases in which paraphrasing someone else's content was seen as infringing its copyright. If the structure and flow of the material is not altered, and if there is no other source, the new material can be found to be infringing. The issue, of course, is where the dividing line is--but paraphrasing someone else's unique content is NOT, by itself, enough to protect oneself from being judged to have infringed. Nor should it be....

purplecape's first point is very important, plagiarism is an academic term, not the same as copyright infringement.

You can still win a copyright infringement case if everything was paraphrased, sentence by sentence, so the structure of a large document, like a book, is virtually identical. But if you are saying that the information on one of their pages, is the same as information on one of your pages, but they rewrote everything into their own words, then what they did is known as research.

[edited by: BigDave at 4:34 pm (utc) on May 19, 2008]

My weasel word above was 'significantly', and that is what it might take a lawyer or three to determine of course...

%-<

Rgds

Damon

[edited by: DamonHD at 4:52 pm (utc) on May 19, 2008]

We have done a lot of research and my wife has written a lot of unique content

Sounds like you yourself might have paraphrased your unique content. Little in this world is unique anymore; everything is derived from something else.

[edited by: tedster at 3:48 am (utc) on May 20, 2008]

You're right, Damon, "significantly" covers the point I made--I posted because that's a word that can be interpreted in several ways, and I wanted to say what I thought it might mean in this context.

--But if you are saying that the information on one of their pages, is the same as information on one of your pages, but they rewrote everything into their own words, then what they did is known as research.--

If they read someone's piece, rephrased it, added stuff from another piece, integrated it into a greater whole using other sources too, then that would be research.

If they read someone's piece, rephrased it, but conveyed absolutely identical information, with an identical structure and identical (or absent) footnotes, then that would be plagiarism.

Of course it wouldn't be easy to do anything about this in legal terms because the law is fuzzy on things like structure rather than content.

However, as has been mentioned above this would be seen as plagiarism in academic circles and a source of disgrace.

First of all, welcome to the club! Second, try to take it as a compliment. They are showing their respect by copying you.

If you go to any of the freelance sites, you'll find countless ads courting/advertising cheap (usually, Indian) writers who are able to rephrase content for a few dollars per page. What kind of work do you think they're doing? They are doing EXACTLY what was done to you. Anybody whose site comes up in popular searches on Google is very likely to be a target of those folks.

I don't think it's worth your time and money to fight them in court. Your best bet is to try to turn your site into a real destination - for example, by adding more features to your site. I do not think a few well-written pages are going to cut it anymore.

You could always just ask for a link as the source of the data from the offending site....if they agree, no headaches, no expensive lawyers and your rank is back.

Could lead to more opportunities for you two as you are in the same arena.

there is not doubt they have copied our stuff

Another "not lawyer" here, but if it is demonstrable that the other site could only have arrived at the text it has by copying your work and merely changing a few words here and there, then you could easily have a case, especially if they are using this for commercial purposes.

I would also suggest that you get legal advice.

I frankly disagree with many of the comments about nothing being unique - it's very unlikely that even five or six words in sequence have been used in that exact same order on the internet or anywhere else, unless you are looking at popular sayings or common idioms.

Try searching in quotes for six words from any post in this thread on Google, and you'll likely find this is the only result.

But if you are saying that the information on one of their pages, is the same as information on one of your pages, but they rewrote everything into their own words, then what they did is known as research.

Here's how you can make a lot of money off that practice. Go to a site like the NYTimes and find an article on mesothelioma. Rewrite the article into your own words and publish it alongside AdSense ads. Then sit back and rake in the cash. When the NYTimes reports you to Google (and their attorney sends you a nice letter), just politely inform Google and the attorney the content on your site is research and that you have done nothing wrong.

They won't take any action. Trust me. Really.

/sarcasm

"Research" is yet another method people try and use to justify content theft.

I've been successful twice just in the last 30 days at getting "researched" content removed from search listings and the hosting shut down.

In the words of Mr. Eastwood, "Go ahead, make my day"
(Or maybe it was "Go ahead punk..." I forget)

FarmBoy

I frankly disagree with many of the comments about nothing being unique...

I agree.

There is a story about the manager of the U.S. Patent Office in the late 1800's or so claiming that everything that could be invented had been done. It was of course an absurd observation.

Claiming nothing unique is being created in a world of billions of people is equally absurd. New software, new music lyrics, new novels, new medical research findings, new thoughts, new humor, etc. are published basically daily.

I guess the one good thing about people thinking nothing unique/new is being created is they obviously don't realize all the opportunities and possibilities that exist - thus leaving those open to those who do.

FarmBoy

First, I’d like to thank you for all of your input. In my original post I pasted an excerpt from my site and the way it was re-written on their site. Tedster removed it and I agree with his reasons. I tried to change it by removing the main keywords but it totally lost its meaning and any similarity so I posted it as is.

The portion I posted was so similar that there is no doubt that it was copied from my site. They used the same measurements and the same dollar amounts as we used and the thoughts were in exactly in the same order. If you scan up a few paragraphs on the page, and do the same on his, his thoughts are in exactly the same order. There are no measurement or dollar amounts, so it is not as obvious; however, he does use the same exact exceptions as we do. Also, this is not the only occurrence. He has taken the best of our content and mad it his own.

This site is out of Thailand and I believe it is unrealistic that anything legal can be done about it. We created most of the site by ourselves and will try to handle this by ourselves.

Their site looks so much like an authority site and is being treated like one by Google it is a thinly disguised commercial site.

[edited by: tedster at 3:46 am (utc) on May 20, 2008]

BigDave, what you said reminds me....

To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism, to steal from many is research.

Of course, I always thought that was some sort of joke.

Sounds like you think paraphrasing is OK.

I'm perfectly fine with paraphrasing...usually a rewrite decreases the quality of the article to avoid plagarising. If he's plagarising ,however, then fight back.

jlander, it sounds like you can get this site removed from Google, and that by itself is probably more effective than legal action for copyright infringement.

Good luck!

I've tried the Google quoted search and cannot turn anything up.

Scrapers or copiers these days often break up copied content into short enough sections that a passage is hard to find with a quoted search.

An excellent tool for displaying patterns of word matches on pages that have been copied this way is Copyscape.com.

You simply enter the url of the page you are checking in the search window and Copyscape will return pages with matching strings of text highlighted. It won't work, of course, if they have substantially changed most wording, but "paraphrasers" often get lazy, and, if they have in this case, it's likely you will find a great many matches. If you do, I suggest that screenshots of every Copyscape cache might be very persuasive in settling a dispute.

Also, if they used data that is unique to your site, that too would be extremely convincing as evidence.

That said, it's not a small step to get all this material lined up and file a complaint.

The portion I posted was so similar that there is no doubt that it was copied from my site.

Yes, I will confirm that. Any teacher seeing the two would know that one was plagiarized. However, as noted above, plagiarism is not the same thing as copyright violation.

We're talking about borderline territory. Do this in a doctoral dissertation and no degree for you, that's for sure. There are academic standards for referencing sources in a derivative work, and this site did not do that at all.

IANAL, but I'd guess that in court, this one might go either way. There were definitely many common phrases that could bring up both urls in the SERPs. Not honorable, not ethical - but a decent chance that it wouldn't be ruled illegal, even under the US DMCA.

I don't think there's a lot you can do about this kind of abuse. Odds are that anyone paraphrasing this closely will also be looking for the easy way out in their business altogether. You can win the race by simply being a better business.

Given the fact that even REAL copyright infringements seem to face hard battles in courts (think Viacom vs. Youtube), I think you will find it even harder to get a verdict on a plagiarism case. I know it hurts, but I would not get too upset.

I'd be very cautious with discrediting your competitor. This could backfire in ways you can not imagine. Thus, consulting a legal counsel is highly recommended.

Plagiarism is an academic offense, a bad one too. It can easily be avoided by properly referencing the original.
No laws that I know of will help you however. His academic career could be over if he had one, but let's assume he hasn't one.

Copyright protects your expression, the "art" (to be considered rather liberal). Copyright will not protect ideas. E.g. any novel out there is protected by copyright from the moment the author put his pen onto the page, but there's no problem writing yet another detective where the butler did it.

Copying the way his site looks, the exact words etc. and posting it publicly *IS* a copyright violation long before you know it (and making fun of people in writing in public might be a bad idea too).

The thing you could do is contact the sites that link to the one plagiarizing you and ask them to link to the original instead. But be careful how you formulate it, you might be talking to a friend of your copycat (or him/herself).

I'm not a lawyer.

Copyright laws to protect the work in such a way that this could be a case, again, only if the content is similar enough. Fair Use isn't the argument in this case, since this clearly does not fall under fair use (seeing as the competitor is profiting from it).

It again becomes an argument of structure, and does the derivative work resemble the original enough to say that it undoubtedly came from the original? Based on what Tedster and jlander said, I'd say that there is a case for this, but it needs to be obvious enough that the judge can ascertain that one came from the other.

I would say take some legal counsel (like everyone else), but go for it if he thinks you might have a case. If the competitor haphazardly copied your content and slightly rewrote it, then he's profiting off of your hard work, and that's just not right.

swa66 said:

The thing you could do is contact the sites that link to the one plagiarizing you and ask them to link to the original instead. But be careful how you formulate it, you might be talking to a friend of your copycat (or him/herself).

I like that idea. I'll have to look into it.

I'm not interested in a legal battle. I'm looking for other alternatives. I will probably file a DMCA Notice of Copyright Infringement, then contact Google, Yahoo, and MSN. They display a copyright notice and belong to some sort of organization that grants a fare use license. I may contact them. I like swa66's idea.

If all else fails, I still like the idea about posting screenshots, but will probably not do that. I'm having the plagiarism documented now. Once I know exactly how bad it is, if it is copyright infringement, I'll decide on my options. I'd be interested in any other ideas anyone may have.

Unfortunately content is still king, even if that king is an impostor.

Your best bet is to report abuse to Google and hope that, in their eyes, it is deemed similar enough to be removed. Even though IANAL, I would think that pursuing a legal route will end up costing you more time and money than it is really worth, especially when there is no way for sure to determine your chances of really winning (which, as you said yourself, are much much less considering the foreign base of the website).

I'm not interested in a legal battle.

Note that talking to a lawyer is not the same as pursuing a legal battle - you can often just pay for one-off advice, which will give you an idea of whether or not there is a legal case worth pursuing, and if not what would be a good alternative. I doubt that there's a great deal of comment in this thread from lawyers experienced in this area.

If it was me, and it was a financially or otherwise significant issue, I'd at least get such an opinion before taking any action, even if I had no intention of taking it further.

Some of us believe Google and other search engines give an edge to web sites who are "working it." It would be easy (for Google) to determine who is keeping their site fresh and useful and it would keep their results "fresh" to users.

Autopilot doesn't do it anymore.