Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Expect fireworks Thursday in Viacom vs. Google

First off this morning, today is expected to be a big day in the Google/Viacom lawsuit as the two sides have filed for a summary judgement and it appears that “embarrassing” secrets revealed during discovery may be released, potentially humiliating both sides. Though speculation about what that may be is rampant, definitely keep an eye open for tomorrow’s 3 Count for more details.

2: Canada’s $75 iPod Levy Returns (and Might Legalize P2P)

Next up today, Canadian MP Charlie Angus has proposed a $75 levy on iPods and other MP3 players in exchanged for the guaranteed right to format shift content, including taking content from CDs and placing it on an MP3 player. There is some speculation that this rule could legalize P2P file sharing in the country but that is a position the content industries have strongly denied.

3: Copyright Conviction Raises Privacy Concerns

Finally today, Gérémi Adam is the first man in Canadian history to be tried and convicted for copyright infringement under a new law. He was sentenced to two and a half months for camming a movie, this after he was arrested for sharing files online. Many privacy experts, on the other hand, have expressed concern over the conviction wondering how monitoring of illegal downloads is going toi be possible without monitoring all Internet traffic.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

jonb1324cdr

Though there are many Web sites where one can find free, legal and high-quality images for their own use, stock.xchng (SXC) is easily one of my favorites.

SXC is a free stock photography site where users find images for use in blogs, presentations and more. The images are free to use and, typically, do not require attribution or notice. The standard restrictions pretty much opens up the images for all non-pornographic use that isn’t going to be sold directly or, in the case of photos with people, used to endorse a product.

However, if you surf the site long enough, you’ll eventually find copyright notices like the one below. Where the user has selected that they want additional restrictions on the work, including in many cases attribution and to be notified before any public use is made.

While these are perfectly reasonable requests, they are being asked on a site where such requests are seldom made. Furthermore, given the location of the terms below the image, most users likely miss the special restrictions altogether and use the image in violation of the license.

With so much deliberate infringement taking place on the Web, there is nothing gained by setting oneself up to be infringed like this. After all, the first step to protecting your work is sensible copyright licensing and part of that is making sure that your terms are clear and easily understood.

Doing otherwise not only invites those who intentionally infringe, but also those who simply make a simple mistake and that only creates headaches for everyone.

The Problem with Special Licensing

The problem with the cases like the ones on SXC is that they are exceptions to the rule. If one goes to SXC, they generally expect free stock photos and don’t even look for additional licensing information. After all, the standard restrictions are called “standard” for a reason.

When one licenses their content under different terms, they are changing the default rules and, if the user doesn’t notice the change or, even worse, know to look for them, they can infringe the copyright without intending to.

As copyright holders, part of our responsibility is to clearly state our licensing terms. Whether they are all rights reserved, Creative Commons or even a public domain dedication, it is important to always be clear about our rules and make sure that our readers/viewers understand them.

Making sure those terms are understood also includes being consistent with them. When people visit a site expecting one set of rules but get another, it often creates a problem.

Though I am picking on SXC in this article, somewhat unfairly, bloggers and other artists often do something similar on their own sites by either:

1. Having a different license for some of the content on their site. This can include either having a difference license for a few of your works or licensing a few individual items under a different set of terms.
2. Changing their license.

These are two very common problems that people who use Creative Commons and similar licenses often face.

The problem is pretty simple. A Creative Commons logo on a site does not always mean all of the content on the site is under that license. It could be just that one article, just the text, just the images or some combination of elements. It all depends on what the blogger has licensed.

It can be very difficult for an average visitor to tell what is licensed under which set of terms and, as copyright holders, that creates a very severe problem for us. We turn from dealing with spammers, plagiarists and intentional infringers to everyday people who simply made a mistake.

How to Avoid Problems

If you’re a publisher on the Web, obviously you want to keep the total amount of unlicensed use to a minimum, especially accidental misuse. With that in mind, here are four tips to ensure you don’t give people the wrong impression.

1. One Site, One License: Make sure that all of the work on your site is under the same license. If you must have an exception, make it extremely clear and only do so if it is absolutely necessary. In general though, it is best to make sure that your site has one license for everything posted to it. If you want to have some content under a difference license, set up a either an exclusive section or, even better, a different domain.
2. Be Consistent with the Norms: If you post your works to another site, such as SXC, make sure you license your work in a manner consistent with the norms of said site. Some sites, such as Flickr, have a lot of variance, others, such as SmugMug, focus more on all rights reserved, still others, like SXC, focus more on free use. Understand the community you are posting to and either follow their norms or choose a different site.
3. Use Clear Licensing Terms: Trying to draft your own copyright notice usually ends in disaster. Use either all rights reserved, a Creative Commons License, a GPL license or another license that was both professionally written and well-understood. CC licenses also have the benefit of being machine-searchable, making them useful for those actively seeking content to use.
4. Make Licenses Prominent: Finally, whatever terms you chose, place your licenses prominently on your site and in a place where people would expect to find such information. An inclusion in the footer is a must, but another inclusion in the sidebar is also a good idea. Licenses at the end of the text itself or below the image, on the other hand, is easily overlooked.

While there is no sure-fire way to prevent people from making mistakes with your license, especially with the misunderstandings many people have on matters of copyright, taking a few simple steps and thinking about licensing from the user perspective will do a great deal to keep those misunderstandings to a minimum.

Bottom Line

Perhaps it is time to look at licensing from a customer/store model. If a person walks into a store and tries to walk out with the merchandise without paying, there is no question the person is a shoplifter and needs to be treated as such.

However, if a customers routinely try to purchase a product and end up paying too much or too little for it because of confusion surrounding the price, the store has to take at least some of the responsibility.

As content creators, we owe it to our audience to try and be clear about our terms. Though mistakes will always happen, we should do everything we can minimize those cases.

Doing so not only saves us a lot of work on enforcement, but also prevents unneeded conflict and headache on the part of our readers.

Have a copyright question? Need some advice? Visit CopyByte.com for information on how we can help you.

jonb1324cdr

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Digital Economy Bill approved by House of Lords

First off today, the House of Lords in the UK has approved the Digital Economy Bill, paving the way for a “three strikes” system in the country and also for the blocking of Web sites that contain large amounts of infringing material. The House did drop a controversial amendment that would have allowed ministers to edit copyright law without Parliament’s review. However, many of the details, including some of the more controversial ones, will need to be handled by the House of Commons when they take up the bill shortly, including how Web sites can challenge a block in the country.

2: Brazil Details Retaliation on U.S. Copyright, Patents

Next up today, a dispute over cotton farming may spill over to the copyright arena as Brazil, with blessing from the World Trade Organization, may increase fees and tighten regulation on U.S.-based copyright holders in the music and audiovisual industry. The dispute stems from a U.S. subsidizing cotton farmers in the country, who export their crops to Brazil at extremely low rates.

3: Japan and China Sign Copyright Deal

Finally today, Japan and China have signed a copyright memo which calls for a series of meetings to hash out copyright issues and, according to Japan, will hopefully make it easier for their entertainment industries to market to China, where they have historically faced very high piracy rates.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

jonb1324cdr

Note: EmbedArticle is enabled on this content when viewing it on the site itself. If you are viewing this article in the RSS feed and wish to see EmbedArticle in action, please click through to the site.

For copyright holders and content creators. one of the most difficult they face is finding ways to share their content while encouraging a symbiotic relationship with those who use it.

The problems with sharing content are legion. Content that’s reused too widely becomes duplicate content and that can hurt the original site in the search engines. This is especially true if Attribution is removed or applied inadequately, another common problem. Finally, many simply do not know how to properly attribute content or do so in a way that the original author does not approve of.

To that end, Kristofer Minkstein, CEO and founder of EmbedArticle.com hopes to fix that problem. For inspiration he turned to sites like YouTube that offer easy embeds of multimedia content, and devised a solution that he thinks will help content creators and those who wish to use their creations work together.

The question, however, is whether the system will be adopted by publishers and if those copying content will be willing to put up with what it requires of them.

How it Works

EmbedArticle works by having the publisher either install a snippet of JavaScript code into their template or use a WordPress Plugin that embeds it for them. The code then sits idle on the site until a user attempts to copy and paste a modest portion of content (anything greater than about 10 words) or clicks one of the buttons (if used).

When a user makes a copy, either via keyboard press or right click, they are greeted with an overlay on the site, similar to the “Lightbox” effect for images, that asks if they are copying the text for use in a site or blog. If so, they are given the option of copying a snippet of JavaScript code for easy embedding.

The embed code contains four different elements, the first is an “in the clear” link to the source page, the second is the actual copied content, the third is an advertisement and the fourth is another link back to the source. The first item is outside the JavaScript embed, meaning it can be viewed by search engines. The other three are parts of the embed are all contained within the Javascript and are not visible to search engines and can not be altered.

To be clear, this code does not actually prevent people from copying content on your site and it is not DRM. If the user closes the popup notice, the content is on their clipboard as is and can be pasted anywhere it would be available normally. If the user doesn’t choose to copy the new code, then it will not be used.

That being said, EmbedArticle does feature a “kill switch” that lets the content creator disable any embed that they do not want. Publishers can also set a word limit for the maximum amount of content they want to allow to be embedded (though they can not set the minimum). The system also provides tracking and statistics for embeds that pass through its system.

However, perhaps best of all for publishers seeking to turn embeds into money, they get a 50% share of the advertising that is displayed along with their work. This allows publishers to earn at least some revenue off of sites that reuse their content.

Sample Embed (Screenshot)

The Good

The process of installing and using EmbedArticle is pretty simple from both sides. If you’re a content creator, all you have to do is either install the WordPress plugin or add a single line of code within your body tags. Even the “Advanced” setup, which adds badges to your site, is trivial to do manually but can also be implemented with the WordPress plugin.

The process is equally simple for the user. They can either click the buttons, if available, or the tool will be automatically triggered by the action of them copying the content. It works equally well in Mac and Windows (I haven’t had a chance to test Linux) and across all the browsers I tried (Firefox, Chrome, Safari and IE).

The prompt is friendly and non-accusatory. It simply asks, as you can see in the screenshots above, if you are using the copy for a site or blog and asks you to use the code below if you are. If not, you’re invited to close the prompt out.

Everything is simple and transparent, there is no trickery, no hidden elements and everything seems to be out in the open. The influence from YouTube is clear as EmbedArticle clearly tries to make the process of embedding text content as much like embedding video as possible.

Still, there are a few limitations to the service that need to be acknowledged.

The Bad

My biggest gripe with EmbedArticle is the ad. Though I have no problem with the fact that there is an ad, the only size that’s available is the 300×250. This ad size takes up about half the width of the content area of Plagiarism Today and is often out of proportion for a lot of content that will be copied.

While that size might be reasonable for a full article that’s copied, it also shows up when you copy just a paragraph or two, as with my example. The ad, in those cases, literally takes up more screen real estate than the copied text. Though the JavaScript won’t be triggered unless the user attempts to copy more than ten words or so, there are still plenty of cases where the ad size is out of proportion with the amount of content used.

This could be fixed easily by adjusting the ad size displayed based on the number of words copied but that is not the case right now. Update: This is something that is being worked on and may be available shortly.

Of course, the system appears to be geared in nearly every regard for copying whole articles. For example, clicking the button embeds the entire article into the site (up to the user-defined word count limit) and that seems to largely be the goal. However, the prompt appears after any copying that is longer than the minimum required, including many that would likely be a fair use.

Another problem is that the longer the quote copied, the more unwieldy the use of JavaScript becomes. Though EmbedArticle uses the original formatting when copying, including links, it always looks a bit out of place when its brought into the site, in my case it’s because the border around the image (ad) is off and there is no way to adjust it.

Still, the system does work overall though there are sill lingering questions to if it will be used.

My Thoughts

My biggest concern has less to do with the system itself and more with if and how it will be used. If someone comes to my site to copy a quote, I don’t see them being pleased about the popup or the request to run an ad along a short snippet of text. The need to set a minimum for activation is clear. Update: Minkstein says that this feature has already been implemented for some sites they work with and may be expanded to all if the demand is great enough.

But more to the point, I’m not sure why someone copying content would prefer this over just pasting the work as normal. Though it adds attribution, it also hides the text from the search engines, forces an ad and the layout can’t be changed. It is easy for the user, but that doesn’t make it a great deal for them.

A good example of this problem is with EmbedArticle’s nearest competitor, Tynt. Though the two products have different goals, Tynt is more about tracking what is being copied and where it appears rather than embedding content, both work by altering the copy/paste functionality of users and asking them to include additional code.

Most, it seems, do not.

I, when copying headlines for my 3 Count columns, have to routinely cut out Tynt-added content because I want to add my own link to the headline. Others I’ve talked to have similar experiences.

This isn’t to say that this technology is useless, even if only a percentage of users actually participate it can do some good. But the question is whether the annoyance it bestows upon users is worth the benefit? For that I have no easy answer.

Bottom Line

Even though this service has several limitations compared to Tynt, the biggest being that it doesn’t work with images EmbedArticle does work with images but only if they are selected along with the text and the publisher approved the use, I actually find myself liking EmbedArticle better.

The main reason is that it is out in the open and transparent. The system, rather than altering your copy/paste functionality without warning, as with Tynt (at least for users that enable that option), EmbedArticle gives users the option to participate or continue as is.

However, if you’re using Tynt solely to see what is being copied and not to track where the content ends up, that is a different matter and Tynt is fine, but it also gives it a very different purpose, namely analytics as to what text on your site was copied. For tracking and controlling attribution, I prefer Embed Articles.

Still, I am not extremely optimistic about this kind of text tracking as it requires those who do copy the content to participate in the tracking. Neither Tynt nor EmbedArticle can track or prevent copying from RSS feeds (IE: Scrapers) or copying by users who refuse to use the provided code.

Though I can see some uses for EmbedArticle, especially news sites eager for a share of the ad revenue, it should never be your only content protection system. Then again, neither should anything else.

Note: If you’re eager to play around with EmbedArticle, I’ve added it to this post, both via the button below and via copy and paste. So feel free to try it out.

Have a copyright question? Need some advice? Visit CopyByte.com for information on how we can help you.

jonb1324cdr

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Apple’s iPad Will Read Books Out Loud, Support Free E-Books

First off today, Apple’s iPad is making some copyright headlines as Apple has announced that its new tablet computer/eBook reader will be able to read books aloud and will also support free eBooks in addition to those sold through its “iBooks” store. A the “read aloud” feature on the latest version of the competing Kindle caused a stir and resulted in a suit from the Author’s Guild, which has not said if it plans to sue Apple over the iPad.

2: Film Piracy: Lord Puttnam Targets Tween Curriculum

Next up today, in the UK, Film Distributors’ Association president, Lord Puttnam, called for copyright to be taught in schools beginning at a very early age. The remarks came at a keynote he gave to the FDA and said that his organization has been targeting the “tween” group, ages 8-11 with a free academic curriculum that has been distributed to one in five schools in the UK.

3: Obama Reiterates Support For Finishing ACTA

Finally today, in a speech to the Export-Import Bank’s annual conference, U.S. President Barack Obama reiterated his support for the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) saying that it is part of the government’s efforts to negotiate “proper protections” for works. This comes as the secretive treaty was the subject of a vote in the EU that called for a public draft of the document to be released.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

jonb1324cdr

It is Friday again and that means that it is time for another episode of the Copyright 2.0 Show.

It was a busy week for copyright news with the closure of one of the more important cases in recent copyright history, another potentially coming to a head and several pieces of big news from the UK and all of Europe.

All in all, there were thirteen stories this week including news from all over the copyright world including our “Weird Story of the Week”.

This week’s stories include:

• RealNetworks Settles RealDVD Case
• Google v. Viacom Lawsuit Heading For Summary Judgement?
• Newspapers Prepare to Crackdown on Infringement
• Crown Copyright Changes to Creative Commons
• A Way to Get Fined $12,000 While Speeding
• And Many more…

You can download the MP3 file here (direct download). Those interested in subscribing to the show can do so via this feed.

Show Notes

About the Hosts

Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey (@plagiarismtoday) is the Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today (Hint: You’re there now) and works as a copyright and plagiarism consultant. Though not an attorney, he has resolved over 700 cases of plagiarism involving his own work and has helped countless others protect their work and develop strategies for making their content work as hard as possible toward their goals.

Patrick O’Keefe

Patrick O’Keefe (@iFroggy) is the owner of the iFroggy Network, a network of websites covering various interests. He’s the author of the book “Managing Online Forums,” a practical guide to managing online communities and social spaces. He maintains a blog about online community management at ManagingCommunities.com and a personal blog at patrickokeefe.com.

Have a copyright question? Need some advice? Visit CopyByte.com for information on how we can help you.

jonb1324cdr

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Judge Dismisses God of War Copyright Lawsuit Against Sony

First off today, screenwriters Jonathan Bissoon-Dath and Jennifer Dat have had their case against Sony, the publisher of the popular God of War video game franchise, tossed out after the judge found that there was no evidence of copying by Sony or the games developers from their works. The pair had sued claiming that the game bore a strong resemblance to their work but the judge found that the similarities were not extensive and there was no evidence that Sony even had access to their writing when making the game, dismissing the case without letting it head to a trial.

2: Researchers Aim To Reduce Copyright Infringement False Positives

Next up today, Polycipher, a group jointly owned by U.S. ISPs Comcast, Cox and Time Warner, has funded research into a product entitled BitStalker that it claims can actively monitor Bittorrent swarms and do so very cheaply while reducing the false positives that plague current detection systems. There is some doubt if the technique can work and Comcast has said that they are no longer involved with Polycipher or this research, but the news has caused a major stir among those interested in detecting and preventing detection of bittorrent-based piracy.

3: Oregon Candidate Pulls Look-Alike Logo

Finally today, Oregon state senate candidate Mark Delphine was forced to pull his logo from his Web site after it was discovered to have a very strong resemblance to the Columbus Blue Jackets hockey team. According to Delphine, the logo was donated by a volunteer and he was unaware of the similarities until he began to get calls about it.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

Article Updated: See Below

It is well-known that, if you are a U.S. citizen and wish to sue for copyright infringement in a U.S. court, you have to first register your works with the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO). If you wish to collect statutory damages, you need to register either before the infringement or within three months of publication.

However, for a time it was very murky whether this element also applies to foreign authors who wish to sue within the U.S. This is because, in 1989, the U.S. became a signatory to the Berne Convention, over 100 years after the first countries signed on, which states, under article five, that “the enjoyment and the exercise of [rights under the Convention] shall not be subject to any formality.”

The theory was that. while the U.S. could do what they wanted to their own citizens, including subjecting them to the 9-month delay for a registration certificate, but they were bound by the Berne Convention to grant full rights to foreign copyright holders.

However, a decision by a U.S. District Court paints a very different picture, saying that the Berne Convention does not preempt U.S. copyright laws and that the treaty is not self-executing. This essentially means that all copyright holders, regardless of where they are located, need to register their works with the USCO before filing suit in the country if they wish to seek statutory damages.

Needless to say, considering that most nations have no formalities at all for copyright protection, this decision is going to cause some major headache for foreign copyright holders as they try to enforce their rights within the U.S.

What Happened

The case in question is Elsevier B.V. et al v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.. Elsevier holds copyright in a collection of science books that they make available through their paid database ScienceDirect and they claim that at least one of the defendants, Ingenix, allowed others to access that database unlawfully.

However, many of the works in Elsevier’s portfolio are foreign and lack copyright registration. Elsevier sought statutory damages for those works, claiming that the Berne Convention should allow them to do as such. The judge, however, ruled that the Berne Convention is not self executing, primarily because the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 said so explicitly.

The result is that, even though the U.S. is a signatory to a treaty that forbids formalities in the “enjoyment and the exercise” of copyright, foreign content creators still have to register their works with the USCO to collect all the potential damages and, most likely, to sue at all.

What Changes?

The long and short of this is that, if you are a foreign copyright holder and think you might ever want to sue in the United States for infringement, you should register your works with the USCO and keep those registrations up to date.

Failure to do so could result in you being unable to claim all the damages you would otherwise be entitled to.

To be clear though, lack of registration does not prohibit you from filing DMCA takedown notices nor does it prevent you from sending cease and desist letters, this only restricts your rights when you go to file a lawsuit. Also, you may still be able to sue and collect significant damages for the removal of copyright management information if it is an element of the case.

Still, the point remains that, regardless of where you are located, if you are considering filing a lawsuit in the U.S. at any point, it’s probably worth your while to register your work with the USCO.

My Thoughts

The decision is legally sound, of that there is no dispute. However, it is fascinating when looked at in the broader context of global politics and intellectual property.

The U.S. is one of the first nations to criticize other countries when we feel their copyright laws are lacking. We even have a “Copyright Watch List” of nations we feel are encouraging piracy through either lackadaisical laws or enforcement.

However, this ruling clearly illustrates just how dated and out of touch our own laws are in many ways. Though we are a signatory to a treaty that bars formalities in copyright enforcement, we require copyright holders to register with the USCO to enjoy the full protection allowed under law.

To make matters even worse, the USCO is a notorious mess. This includes delays 9 months and longer for receiving certificates, even after the use of the electronic registration system. Subjecting U.S. citizens to this is already inexcusable, but to force its use internationally is simply mind-blowing.

Sadly, even as we negotiate treaties that seek to push various elements of the U.S. law on other nations, we are not making any push to change our own laws and harmonize them with the rest of the world. The USCO copyright registration system is a dinosaur in many ways and should be done away with.

Especially since we signed a treaty almost 25 years ago that said we would do away with formalities.

Bottom Line

In the end, the result of this is pretty clear, if you are a copyright holder not in the U.S. but may want to sue for copyright infringement in a U.S. court, you need to register your works and keep those registrations up to date if you want all of the damages to be at your disposal.

It is a huge pain and a hassle that most copyright holders outside of the U.S. will be uncomfortable and unfamiliar with, but it is a fact of life at this time.

Hopefully we will begin to see some changes in the law that will make this unnecessary but, in the meantime, it is a reality that we all most adapt to and live with.

Update

Commenter Terry Hart pointed out that there was a previous case on this issue, in the same court, that slipped under my radar and answered this question previously. He also clarified that the issue of registration only affects the ability of the foreign copyright holder to collect statutory damages, not file suit, an element I was admittedly unclear on. I’ve updated the article to reflect these changes.

Have a copyright question? Need some advice? Visit CopyByte.com for information on how we can help you.

jonb1324cdr

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Pink Floyd Win Court Battle with EMI

First off today, just a day after we first reported on the lawsuit, Pink Floyd has emerged victorious in their battle against their label EMI. EMI will have to pay back royalties to the band as well as cover their legal expenses, estimated at £60,000 ($90,000) for selling the band’s tracks individuallly on iTunes, even though their contract only allowed whole-album sales. The exact amount of the royalties have been kept secret.

2: European Parliament Slams Digital Copyright Treaty

Next up today, the EU Parliament has passed a resolution 633-13 to compel those negotiating the ACTA treaty to publicly disclose the details of the treaty and threaten legal action if the disclosure is not adequate. The ACTA treaty, which includes the U.S., EU, Japan and other nations has been swamped in secrecy, as are most international treaties, but has been the subject of several leaks and increased public scrutiny due to the potential changes in copyright law for some participating nations.

3: Net Giants Rail Against Law to Block File-Sharing Sites

Finally today, a proposed amendment to the Digital Britain Bill in the UK that would allow copyright holders to demand ISPs block access to sites that are allegedly infringing is being protested by many prominent Web companies including Google, Facebook and others who signed a letter to the effect. Some celebrities, including Stephen Fry, have also signed onto the letter of protest.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

jonb1324cdr

If you are launching a new site, especially a new blog, there are several things that you can do to make sure that your copyright is as protected as possible.

Simply put, when you are starting from scratch, you have a rare opportunity to get things right from the start and many of the best tools to protect your work function at their best when you use them from day one.

So, if you’re preparing to launch a new site, whether it is a static one or a blog, here are the steps you need to take today to protect your work or, if you’re not interested in enforcement, track it and encourage its sharing.

1. Register with the U.S.Copyright Office

Registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is both slow and expensive. It’s also hopelessly out of date with the current Web and can take some nine months get your certificate.

Still, the fact remains that, if you want execute your full rights in the U.S., you need that registration. You need it both to file suit in a Federal Court and you need to have either registered before the infringement or within three months of publication to be able to collect statutory damages.

If you think you might ever want to sue for copyright infringement, you will want to register your work promptly. It’s a pain and it costs $35 but it can be invaluable down the road.

Likewise, as you add content to your site, you will likely want to re-register every 3 months to ensure that the registration is up to date and all content is protected.

2. Register with FairShare or Use Google Alerts

If you have a site where most of the content will be in an RSS feed, set up an account with FairShare so it can begin tracking the content in your feed from the first post. The service is free and only requires you to subscribe to the provided RSS feed where it will list where matches of your work were discovered along with some basic information.

If your content is largely static, you can use Google Alerts. I’ve covered Google Alerts before, but basically you just find good, unique phrases within your content and have Google search for those phrases and email you with any results it finds.

3. Set up an RSS Footer

If your site will put a large part of its content into an RSS feed, add a footer to the feed. You can use a simple WordPress plugin to do that if you’re a self-hosted WordPress user or, Blogger users can simply use the option in their admin panel.

Ideally, it should include a copyright statement, a link back to your site and, possibly, a digital fingerprint to make the tracking of your content even easier.

Since RSS scraping is one of the biggest problems content creators face, this can make sure that such use is at least attributed and trackable, even if it won’t put a stop to it.

4. Set up Your Site’s Footer

Though you don’t technically need to include any copyright information for your work to be protected, it is a very good idea to do so as many have the misconception that, if it is not marked, it is free to use.

Make sure your footer includes all the basic copyright information including the year, which you can configure to update automatically, the copyright symbol, your name and the license information for the work (All Rights Reserved, Creative Commons, etc.)

5. Add Contact Information for Permissions

Finally, as you’re setting up how people will contact you, make sure to have a means for people to contact you to ask permission to use your work.

This is a good idea even if you use some form of blanket licensing, such as Creative Commons, as people will still contact you about these issues. This happens both because they don’t understand or see the license and because they want to use the work in a way that goes beyond it.

If you offer a clear path to contact you about these issues, even if it is just through your regular contact page, you’ll find people to be much more likely to ask permission than they would otherwise.

Bottom Line

When starting a new site, whether your first or your hundredth, it is a chance to get things right and avoid mistakes that you made with the other efforts. Copyright is no different in that regard.

If you value your content, its worth taking some time before launching to make some adjustments and make sure that your work is protected. Doing so will not only help you enforce your copyright, but also track where it appears on the Web, legitimately and unlawfully, letting you better understand your audience and reach.

So take the opportunity and spend a few minutes making sure your work is adequately protected.

Have a copyright question? Need some advice? Visit CopyByte.com for information on how we can help you.

jonb1324cdr