I’ve been talking a great deal lately with small business owners who have had a very serious problem with their sites. They are being accused of copyright infringement or, in some cases, being threatened with large settlement demands over content that appears on domain.

This is very frightening for small business owners as, especially in this economy, paying even a small settlement can sink a struggling business. But even if the case doesn’t reach that point, having to do significant work to repair a site can be a burdensome expense.

However, for the most part, it is not small business owners themselves committing the infringements. Though very gifted in their areas of business, they are not exactly Web developers, much less copyright experts. Instead, they are good people who trusted the wrong company to develop their site and are now left holding the bag.

It’s a sad tale and its one that isn’t always easily avoided, but there are a few mistakes that small business makes when having someone building their site that can make these situations much more likely.

With that in mind, here’s some of the most common mistakes I see businesses make when building their Web presence, whether through a third party or themselves.

Poorly Sourced Images

I talked previously about why stock photos and templates are a bad combination but it also applies to non-template Web design. Many people, especially those not familiar with copyright law, don’t realize that the images that make up their site, especially stock photos and artwork, are copyright protected and the rights need to be cleared.

As image detection improves and stock photo companies get more and more aggressive about enforcement, this is an especially dangerous mistake.

You have to make sure every image that appears on your site has the right to do so and this means planning in advance.

How to Avoid: Every image that goes on your site needs to have a clear sourcing record. If you purchase a site from a design firm, ensure that they provide receipts for the images that are used or some clear sourcing. Furthermore, ensure that you can use them legally on your site.

An ounce of prevention is really worth a pound of cure here.

Accepting Untrustworthy Text

It is one thing to hire a design firm to build a site, but another to hire one to write the content for it, especially when it is specialized.

I routinely see martial arts studios, doctor’s offices, roofers and other specialized companies turn their Web site’s content over to their design firm or other writers with no specialization in the field or even knowledge of it. This is a sure-fire way to either:

1. Pay More: As writers have to do large amounts of research to be able to provide worthwhile content.
2. Get Poor Quality Content: Writers, unfamiliar with the field, produce error-ridden content that’s embarrassing.
3. Infringe Copyright: Authors, pressed by time and lack of knowledge, will often just lift and rewrite content from elsewhere.

Your text has to be vetted the same as your images but you shouldn’t put yourself at risk needlessly. Having your content written by professional authors in your field will, in the long run, save you time and money as well as give you better quality content.

They might have a higher rate, but they can turn it around more quickly and the odds of a copyright issue go down drastically.

How to Avoid: If you can’t afford to pay an author in your field to write your content, write it yourself and have someone else edit it. Editing services are usually cheaper per word and it still ensures the content is yours. If you do want to hire someone, get someone reputable and knowledgeable in your field.

Just like you don’t pay a mechanic to fix your leaky roof, don’t hire someone to do the wrong job.

It Isn’t Too Late

Though this is all great advice for a company that is either building a new site or revamping an existing one, but it doesn’t seem to help those who have an established site.

However, it isn’t too late to go back and recheck your content. Doing this might not only help you catch problems before a copyright holder sees them, but may also alert you if your original content is being misused.

1. Use Tineye: Run your images through Tineye. It’s free and only takes a few seconds. It will find matches to your images that are in its database. Though it isn’t as powerful as paid solutions. It’s great for quick checks and should spot any obvious issues.
2. Use Copyscape/Plagium: Copyscape and Plagium are two services for detecting duplicate content in text works. Copyscape has a very cheap pro version (5 cents a search) and Plagium is free. Run your articles through it and see what turns up as matching.

For the most part, until you’ve received the notice of infringement, it isn’t too late to take action as disaster can be averted. But if there is a problem, every day is a gamble so it makes sense to act as quickly as possible.

Bottom Line

If you’re a small business, you probably don’t have a large legal team, a cushion of cash to pay off a copyright settlement or a large reputation that can stand up against large companies such as stock photo organizations. As such, you have to be careful about your copyright as every cent you spend fighting a copyright problem is money off of your own table and your employees’.

This is an area where prevention is the best medicine by far. If you keep these issues in mind and are aware of them as you build your site, the odds you’ll have problems reduce significantly.

In short, be smart about these issues and you likely won’t have a problem. Ignore them, and you truly are rolling the dice.

jonb1324cdr

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

1: Pirate Bay Founders Granted Appeal Against Operating Ban

First off today, The (former?) Pirate Bay admins Gottfrid Svartholm and Fredrik Neij scored a win in a Swedish court, though not regarding their recent criminal convictions. The Swedish appeals court has agreed to hear arguments in a district court ruling that would have barred them from administering the site, to the tune of $71,000 every day they were not in compliance.

Currently neither of the men reside in Sweden nor is The Pirate Bay hosted within the country (following a different court action that forced it to move). It is also unclear if the pair are working on the site in any way still, especially following their convictions.

Despite all of the legal setbacks, the site currently remains open and even discontinued its tracker to make it less likely to be shut down in the future.

2: Court Refuses To Order Shutdown of OpenBitTorrent

Next up today, in a somewhat related victory for the file sharing community, a Swedish court has refused to shut down OpenBittorrent, which movie studios had accused of being a “rebranded” version of The Pirate Bay.

OpenBittorrent is merely a tracker and does not host any torrent files nor is it connected with any particular site. It also has a DMCA-style takedown policy for removing infringing torrents. However, despite that, movie industry attorneys filed suit in Sweden against the company’s host, Portlane, demanding the closure of the site.

The Swedish court, in its preliminary ruling, rejected the request and has scheduled the matter to be looked at in depth sometime next year.

The movie studios were clearly disappointed, especially that the court did not address their alleged link with The Pirate Bay, but the case continues where, most likely, such elements will be given a closer look.

3: Judge Dismisses Plagiarism Suit Against Stephenie Meyer

Finally today, “Twilight” author Stephanie Meyer has had a plagiarism lawsuit against her dismissed. Jordan Scott had accused the author of copying her work “The Nocture” in Meyer’s “Breaking Dawn” the fourth book in the Twilight series.

However, the judge in the case has tossed the suit with prejudice, which prevents Scott from refiling, saying that the works were not similar enough to warrant such an accusation and further admonished Scott for “deceptive presentation of the alleged similarities.”

There were also rumors previously that Meyer was being sued for plagiarism by a former roommate, an accusation that had allegedly halted production of “New Moon”. But that allegation turned out to be a hoax.

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

Have a suggestion for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Judge Rejects Amazon Bid to Scrap Google Pact

First off today, the revised Google Book Search settlement has survived yet another, albeit small, hurdle. The judge in the case has rejected a bid by Amazon to throwout his preliminary approval, telling the Web giant to make its case at the already-scheduled February 18 fairness hearing.

The original settlement, shot down by the Department of Justice due to antitrust concerns, would have ended a lawsuit between Google, the Author’s Guild and various publishers over their Google Book Search tool. The original settlement would have allowed Google to scan, display and even sell copies of in-copyright but out-of-print works provided authors and publishers were remunerated. The revised settlement removed some language promising Google the best deal possible and limited the scope of the settlement to plaintiff countries. It also created a new organization to collect money on behalf of authors who had not yet been located.

With this rejection it appears to be full speed ahead for the Feb 18 fairness hearing, where the revised settlement will be tested and, possibly, put into action. There is no word yet though if the DOJ has objections with the new settlement and feedback on it from previous critics has been mixed.

2: Web Giants Unite Against Digital Britain Copyright Plan

Next up today, Google, Facebook, eBay and Yahoo have all joined forces to protest a controversial clause in the UK’s new “Digital Britain” proposed legislation. Specifically, they are opposed to “Clause 17″, which would give the Secretary of State the power to amend copyright law within certain boundaries.

The Internet companies feel that it is so broad it could endanger “legitimate consumer use of current technology as well as future developments” The government says that the clause has significant limitations placed on it and that it will not be a radical shift in copyright law.

The Digital Britain legislation is an attempt to “future proof” the country’s copyright laws but also deals with other aspects of the Web including providing high-speed access, converting to digital radio and shifting government responsibilities on infrastructure-related matters.

The bill, introduced during the Queen’s Speech earlier this month, is scheduled to have its second reading in the House of Lords today, the second of many such readings.

3: Placating Publishers by Limiting Links: A Google 5-Click FAQ

Finally today, Google has made a change to its “First Click Free” program that many newspapers participate in. The changes will allow Google searchers to click on only five links on participating news sites before being prompted to register, either for free or paid.

The First Click Free program is a partnership with newspapers and other major content providers through Google News. Ordinarilly, Google works against cloaking, the act of showing the Google bot one thing and visitors another. However, the program allows newspapers to lock down their content by providing the first click for free. This means any click from a Google result opens up a working link, but any click elsewhere on the site shows a reminder to register.

However, concerns over abuse have plagued the system, prompting Google to offer newspapers a system to restrict visitors to five free clicks if desired. Interested newspapers who are participating in Google News should contact Google about the program.

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

The image detection field is changing rapidly. For years I’ve been predicting the growth in image searching and it appears that is finally coming to be. Not only has PicScout has begun public testing on its newest offerings and other announcements are in the works.

As such, over the next few weeks and months, it seems almost certain that I’ll be posting articles about new technologies and advancements in this field as it continues to heat up and prices begin to drop. This means that many photographers, including smaller ones, will be confronted with the question about how to best protect their images and track their usage.

Three years ago, this was almost unthinkable. Limited options and high prices made such tracking attainable only to large companies but now we’re preparing to enter a very different age for visual artists when it comes to following their work on the Web.

With that in mind, I wanted to take a moment to briefly revisit the two schools when it comes to image detection, watermarking and fingerprinting, discuss their pluses and look at which solution may be right for you.

Hopefully, by the end of this, you’ll be better prepared to decide on your own image protection scheme and know which technology to watch for.

The Two Schools

The challenge in finding copies of images on the Web has always been, to put it bluntly, that they aren’t text. Search engines, including image search engines, look for text as it is what is easiest to search for. Computers don’t understand what is inside an image (the reason CAPTCHAs are reasonably effective) and they have a hard time comparing one image to another. Scale that problem to the billions of images on the Web, and this issue becomes clear.

Solving the problem hasn’t been easy nor has it been perfect. However, there have been two different approaches that have been tried, both with great success but different ideal uses.

1. Watermarking: Though most think of image watermarking as the placing of a visual mark over an image, usually a logo or name, Watermarking in this sense involves placing either an invisible or nearly-invisible watermark over an image that can only be detected by a machine. This method is used by Digimarc and C-Registry.us (Note: The latter uses both for various purposes).
2. Fingerprinting: Fingerprinting is an automated process that takes an existing image file, hashes it and converts it to a unique fingerprint. That string is, in turn, compared to other fingerprints for potential matches. This method is favored by PicScout and Tineye.

As you can see, the two systems are fundamentally different in terms of how they work and what they can do, these differences have an impact both in terms of how they are used and the situations they are best suited for.

Watermarks

The advantages of using a digital watermark are many-fold. First, they provide much more reliable detection. Where a very similar image by a different artist can trigger a fingerprint match, only copies of your actual image will trigger a watermark match. This also greatly helps with providing evidence for a potential court case since it can be shown exactly which image was copied from.

Watermarks can, typically, also survive great modification by users. Often images with watermarks can be detected even after cropping, rotation and distortion that would have caused a fingerprinting system to miss it (though fingerprints are getting much smarter about this as well). Some need only a few pixels to remain intact.

Also, additional information about the creator can be hidden in the watermark or stored in a database. This can help greatly with the worries surrounding the orphan works bills, which may allow certain uses of works if the author can not be reasonably identified.

In short, it works like image metadata in that it is invisible and is buried within the image, but it is much harder to remove and travels with the image even after it is modified and resaved.

However, watermarks can’t do anything to protect an image that’s already “in the wild”. Though you can re-release an image with a watermark, any copies of the non-watermarked image will not be detected. Also, watermarking systems tend to be expensive to use and, since one company usually controls the watermarks and the system for detecting them, they’re vulnerable to being rendered useless if the company closes.

Fingerprinting

The biggest asset of fingerprinting is that it works on any image, including one already on the Web. There’s no need to watermark the image or do any preparation work at all before publishing it, the technique works from the image itself.

Fingerprinting has become more and more accurate over the years, now competing with watermarks in that area, and is largely cheaper, including a free, effective offering from Tineye.

Also, since there are many fingerprinting systems in place and all work roughly the same way, its likely that you’ll be able to continue to match your images this way for many, many years to come. One company closing does not destroy your copyright protection system.

That being said, Fingerprinting does not, by itself, address the orphan works issue nor provide any proof of ownership, which is why PicScout recently released the Image IRC, nor is it always 100% reliable. Similar images, such as photos of similar subjects, have been known to trip fingerprinting matches, though the problem is nowhere near as severe was it was.

So Which to Use?

When deciding which to use, the easiest answer is to just say “both”. Since you can fingerprint a watermarked image, there’s nothing, save perhaps cost, that will prevent you from using both systems. Many already view watermarks as more of a copyright verification tool than an image detection one, making the two a natural combination.

However, duplicating efforts doesn’t make much sense. Due to refinements, both systems can do an extremely good job at finding matches, what is more important than the method is the individual system and how well it works. If it can find good matches and work as advertised, it’s probably a keeper, regardless of the system.

That being said though, you can’t even consider using a watermarking system if your images area already on the Web unprotected. It is only used, ideally, for new images as much of the usefulness is lost with unprotected copies being passed around. However, the added protections provided by watermarks make them worthwhile in many cases, especially when there is tight control over distribution and the images haven’t been leaked.

In short, if you have images that you are waiting to put on the Web or routinely put up new ones (and can justify the expense both in money and time), watermarking is likely a good solution due to its added benefits. For those who have their works online already or don’t wish to invest the time/money required, fingerprint matching, via Tineye, is free.

However, even that distinction is being blurred by PicScout’s Image IRC, which is a database of fingerprinted images, which provides something of a “best of both worlds” solution. The problem though is that it, right now, is targeted solely at large stock agencies. We’ll have to see later how approachable it is by smaller artists once it is finally released.

Bottom Line

In the end, any robust image protection system will likely use at least some of both. If your images are valuable, trusting any one solution by itself to handle detection and orphan works prevention is risky. Multiple tools are, most likely, the way to go when practical.

But the most important thing, as mentioned above, is not that the system works, not the technology behind it. If it works well, it doesn’t matter if it uses fingerprints or watermarks. That is where the real challenge lies for these companies.

So, with that in mind, I’m looking forward to, over the next few months, talking more about developments in this field and how they might impact visual artists of all kinds and all backgrounds.

jonb1324cdr

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

1: European ISPs Attack Secret Acta Copyright Talks

First off today, the European ISP Association (EuroISPA) has released a statement condemming the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a controversial new copyright treaty that is being negotiated between the EU, US and other nations all over the world.

EuroISPA specifically condemns both the secrecy that the treaty is being negotiated with and news from a recent leak from EU commentary on the treaty that there is the potential for the treaty to include three strikes legislation that could disconnect alleged file sharers.

The EU has defended the secrecy, saying that such secrecy is common during international trade negotiations, especially during the early stages. Furthermore, the US comments are not available and there is no word either way as to whether or not three strikes has made it into the treaty at all.

Indeed, very little is known about the treaty right now as it is early in the negotiations and the only leaks have revolved around early drafts, itineraries and comments. The final treaty is far away from completion.

2: Using Faulty Data to Demand Settlements from Innocent Surfers

Next up today, Mike Freedman of Princeton Computer Science has been receiving a lot of copyright notices, in particular from Video Protection Alliance (VPA), claiming that his CoralCDN project, which acts as backup for downed sites, has been engaging in file sharing.

The reason, it appears, is lazy copyright enforcers.

What happens is that some copyright enforcers, in this case the VPA, connect to Bittorrent trackers and get a list of IP addresses sharing a specific file. They then run with the list and start sending letters targeted at those IPs. The problem, however is that it requires trackers to provide accurate information, which many intentionally do not.

Bittorrent trackers routinely poison their IP list to include innocent IP addresses so that the information won’t be useful to enforcers. Other companies, such as MediaSentry, have gotten around this by first downloading a portion of the file and then logging the IP. However, some enforcers it appears have been taking a more lazy route and, as a result, have been sending notices to non-infringing IPs.

The result so far has been just some annoyance and some joking, but given some of the stern letters that are sent, it could become a legal issue if the companies are not careful with who they target and how.

3: Elisabeth Hasselbeck Book Drama Gets a Second Act

Finally today, convinced that her lawsuit was thrown out on a technicality, Susan Hassett has refiled her lawsuit against Elisabeth Hasselbeck, whom she accuses of plagiarizing her book.

Hassett is the author of Living with Celiac, a cookbook for those with Celiac disease, a condition that prohibits those with it from eating Gluten. Hasselbeck, who famously has the ailment, later released a similar cookbook entitled The G-Free Diet: A Gluten-Free Survival Guide.

Hassett’s first lawsuit was thrown out after Hassett’s own attorney declined to pursue the case, saying that the potential for damages was not high enough to warrant the suit. However, now the suit has been refiled, seemingly with a new attorney, so we will have to see what happens when Hassett gets her day in court. Hasselbeck has repeatedly called the allegations of plagiarism baseless.

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.

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

1: Apple, Psystar Strike Deal in Copyright Case

First off today, court rivals Apple and Psystar have reached a partial settlement in their battle. Psystar, a computer maker, had been selling “Hackintosh” computers with Apple’s OSX preinstalled on them in violation of Apple’s license, which limits OSX only to Apple computers. Apple sued Psystar and, even though the company only used legitimately purchased copies of OSX, was successful in at least one case as the court found Psystar liable for violating the license and the DMCA due to their circumvention of Apple’s copy protection.

The two sides have reached a partial agreement in their suit. Psystar has agreed to stop preinstalling OSX on their computers and pay an undisclosed amount of damages once appeals are exhausted. This follows a request for an injunction against Psystar that would shutter the company completely and order them to pay $2.1 million in damages.

However, this isn’t the end for Psystar nor their selling of computers with OSX as an option. Psystar has hinted in court filings that they are shifting the responsibility of installing OSX from themselves to the user and are now looking to bundle Rebel RFI, a $50 utility the company made, to help users install OSX on their Psystar-purchased machines.

No word yet on where Apple will stand on that, but it seems unlikely that Apple will agree to allow that to continue either, possibly adding yet another lawsuit to the list in the Apple/Psystar war.

2: Mininova Limits its Activities to Content Distribution Service

Next up today, Bittorrent tracker Mininova, second in popularity only to The Pirate Bay, has pulled all infringing torrents off its site and limited its sharing activity to its Content Distribution Service (CDS), thus ending its reign as a pirate haven.

This follows a decision in a Dutch court that prohibited Mininova from hosting torrents for certain titles or similar works. After testing several filtering systems, Mininova has decided that the only way to completely comply is to remove all non-CDS torrents from the site.

Mininova’s CDS system was started in 2007 as a way for producers to quickly distribute their files over the network and has been used by filmmakers and bands alike to distribute their work for free over the Mininova system.

3: AFACT v iiNet: Epic BitTorrent Copyright Case Concludes

Finally today, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) and local ISP iiNet have concluded their case. The two sides presented closing arguments last week and have turned the case over to the judge, who is expected to rule some time next month.

The case began after AFACT attempted to have iiNet send notices of copyright infringement to some of its subscribers that AFACT accused of illegally downloading content. iiNet refused, citing several Australian laws that protect them, prompting AFACT to sue.

The case, if ruled in favor of AFACT, could cause a major shift in the responsibilities of ISPs in Australia.

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

Last week I covered a new startup in the copyright verification field, Myows, which stands for “My Own Works” and even produced a short video about how to use the service.

However, Myows is far from the only service that that is providing instant, unofficial verification of ownership of created works. The non-repudiation field has exploded in recent years. Gone are the days of expensive registries that rivaled the Copyright Office in price (while still being unofficial in nature) as now we have fast, cheap, services that offer to preserve your work and your claim on it.

But even there these services have grown, no longer merely providing a certificate of ownership, but branching out to provide help with licensing and even with infringement resolution.

So which service should you use? It’s a tough question that depends heavily upon what your specific needs and wants are. To help make the process a little bit easier, I’ve created a chart, which I’ve embedded and linked to below, to help you decide which of the services are right for you.

The Companies

Specifically, I decided to compare the services provided by five different sites. Myows, SafeCreative, Numly, MyFreeCopyright and Registered Commons. They are five of the biggest and best-known services in this field and all have been covered on this site in the past.

A notable omission is C-Registry.us, which is more of an orphan works protection service than a non-repudiation one, though it has some functionality as such. Also, since C-Registry is targeted almost entirely at artists and photographers, making it much less useful to bloggers and other types of creators.

However, if you are a visual artist, it is likely a service that is well worth looking into, especially if you sell stock photos.

I then took a look at the companies based up on some of the most popular and requested features. The results are embedded below.

The Chart

Click for Full Size

Link to Google Doc

*Extension is out of date.

Definitions

Very quickly, I want to clarify the meaning of the elements in the chart and what they mean.

1. Cost: The cost of the service.
2. Types of Work: The kinds of files/content that can be uploaded. If a service allows “files” there is no separation between different content types.
3. Works Fingerprinted: Refers to creating a hash of a file that can be compared against later. This is often how works are verified or identified at a later date. It does not involve any visual mark on the work (watermarking) or additional tag. It’s just a unique hash of the file or work’s content that will match other copies of the work.
4. Works Stored: Are the works themselves stored on the service for backup and/or later viewing.
5. Certificate Provided: Whether or not the service provides a printable certificate for easy verification.
6. Barcode Provided: Refers to a machine-readable barcode, commonly used on physical objects.
7. Public Verification: Refers to the ability of someone unsure of the ownership of a work to submit a copy of it (or other known information about it) and see who owns or created the work.
8. Custom License/License to Individuals: A custom license is your ability to draft your own license or set new restrictions on use. The ability to license to individuals is the ability to give a person or company a license to use the work and track that license in the system.
9. Creative Commons Compatible: Whether or not users can select CC licenses.
10. Contact Author: A means to contact the author within the system, not just a profile used by the author.
11. Detection/Resolution Assistance: A Means to detect copies of the work and assistance in bringing about a resolution.
12. API Available: A means for programmers and other service providers to interact with the service, including submitting works. Some may be in private beta at this time.
13. Firefox/WordPress Extensions: Add-ons for the Firefox browser and WordPress blogging platform.
14. RSS Integration: The ability to read content from a site’s RSS and automatically register it, very useful for bloggers.

Beyond the Chart

Though the chart does an overall decent job at comparing the various features to one another, there are a few things that aren’t displayed on the chart that are worth mentioning.

1. Myows is a clear winner on the ease-of-use front, having designed a system that is both attractive and easy to use. Great for those who aren’t familiar with these kinds of services.
2. Safe Creative has a robust API and, through it, has partnered with music sharing site Jamendo to protect the works uploaded to the site.
3. Registered Commons is extremely difficult to use and is targeted mostly at creators of larger, more involved works, as the pricing strategy indicates. It also has a very powerful system for verifying author identities to provide further proof of ownership.

In the end, all of the services have their separate strengths and weaknesses. Myows, for example, is the only service to provide resolution assistance and has great handling of licenses. However, there is no public verification of works. Safe Creative is extremely feature-rich, having at least some capability on all fronts but can be confusing and intimidating to use.

Numly, on the other hand, focuses on speed and simplicity though some of its best features, its extensions, are dated and it does cost money to use it with an account large enough for most creators. MyFreeCopyright is the only one with RSS integration, which makes it invaluable for bloggers, but only has minimal licensing features and doesn’t provide certificates for content other than Web-based ones.

Finally, Registered Commons has a very robust hashing system and very powerful user identification service but all of it comes at a high cost and with a very difficult interface.

All in all, it seems every service has a great deal to offer users and a great deal to learn from others.

Bottom Line

So it all comes back to the question of which service should you use. The answer is obvious: It depends.

From where I’m sitting, both Myows and Safe Creative are clear leaders in this field. Myows is well-aimed at novices and those interested in copyright enforcement where Safe Creative is more aimed at veteran users and those who need public verification and in battling the orphan works problem.

However, I use MyFreeCopyright on this site due to its RSS integration (no reason not to) and have used Numly in the past through its WordPress plugin. Finally, Registered Commons would likely be best used by those creating works that may be considered valuable financially as their identity verification program and strong hashing may provide greater security, but at a price that isn’t practical for most.

On that front though, I am interested in your thoughts. Which do you think is the best and why?

Disclosure: Chris Matthieu, the owner of Numly, is a long-time friend and former co-host of the Copyright 2.0 Show.

jonb1324cdr

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

1: Hollywood Takes OpenBitTorrent’s ISP to Court

First off today, now that The Pirate Bay’s tracker has shut down, though in its case to force users to use decentralized methods of downloading, the movie studios have turned their attention to other prominent trackers including OpenBitTorrent, which has had its hosting company receive a lawsuit from the various movie studios.

OpenBitTorrent is a different kind of tracker in that it is not connected to a site or search engine, but is rather just a service that connects peers based upon has values. The site also has a DMCA-style notice and takedown procedure that enables copyright holders to disable access to copyrighted files.

Their hosting company, Swedish outfit Portlane, was sued by Hollywood studios, who claim that it is merely a “rebranded” version of The Pirate Bay.

More to come on this lawsuit in the future.

2: Judge Sets February Hearing for New Google Books Deal

Next up today, the judge in the Google Book Search case has given tentative approval to the new settlement, which was unveiled last week, by laying out a schedule for the approval process.

The original settlement, which would have allowed Google to scan, display and sell copies of in-copyright but out-of-print works, was shot down following criticisms from the U.S. Department of Justice. The revised settlement, which loosens restrictions on scanned works, has greater consideration for international authors and changes to scope of the class action lawsuit, has done little to appease the harshest critics but still seems to have been widely welcomed.

The new timetable puts a deadline of January 28th to file objections to the settlement and sets a date for a final hearing on February 18. Those who wish to opt out of the settlement and retain their right to sue Google will need do so by January 28.

It is worth noting that these deadlines are much faster than the ones given the first time around, largely due to the fact that the case has been ongoing for so long.

3: Japan Set To Extend Posthumous Copyright

Finally today, newly-elected Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has vowed to extend the posthumous copyright protection on compositions from 50 to 70 years, as he had promised to do during the campaign.

The announcement came at a speech to the Japanese composers and authors’ society during an event celebrating the 70th anniversary of the group

There was no timetable announced for passing this extension.

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

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

1: Leaked UK government Plan to Create “Pirate Finder General” with Power to Appoint Militias, Create Laws

First off today, Cory Doctorow is reporting on a leak he received from a previously reliable source within the UK government about upcoming proposed changes to the UK’s Digital Economy Bill that is currently before Parliament.

According to Doctorow and his source, the changes would create sweeping reforms to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) that would give the Secretary of State some radical new powers in copyright matters including the ability to create new remedies for online infringements (three strikes rules, etc.), to confer rights to copyright holders for the purpose of enforcement, which would give some powers, currently only held by judiciaries in the country, to rightsholders directly, and to “impose such duties, powers or functions on any person as may be specified in connection with facilitating online infringement”.

These sweeping reforms, if true, would mark some of the most extreme changes to copyright legislation in the world, if not the most extreme.

Obviously we will have to wait for the actual proposal to confirm its contents, but this already has many worried. More to come on this in the future.

2: KFPA backs Web Filtering System

Next up today, the Korean Film Producers Association (KFPA) and the Digital Content Network Association have announced their intentions to target P2P sites in South Korea with legal action if they fail to install filtering software created to keep infringing content off of their services.

According to the two agencies, some 78 P2P sites have installed the software, accounting for roughly 90% of the sites in the country.

They have said that they will consider, “the failure to install the software will be taken as an offense against consumers and copyright holders” and will seek legal remedies.

Some have hypothesized that this harsh tone comes as the sites who have installed this software have seen serious drops in business due to the removal of infringing works while those who have not have grown. Prompting them to take action against the hold outs.

3: European Publishers Give Google Book Deal Cautious Welcome

Finally today, authors in Europe have given the new Google Book Search a warmer reception than its predecessor but have said that they need more time before they can make a full comment on the issue.

The original settlement, which was designed to resolve a case between Google and the Authors Guild and various publishers, gave Google sweeping rights to scan, display and even sell copies of out-of-print but in-copyright works provided a portion of revenues went to the author and publisher. The original settlement was scuttled following anti-trust concerns from the U.S. Department of Justice, but the new one follows the same approach, but offers authors more control over their work and greater consideration for international authors, who will not have their books scanned unless their nation is a plaintiff in the suit and their work is in the English language.

European authors have responded with tentative approval of these changes and considerations, but expect to have a more robust response in the future.

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

Everyone knows that I do the Copyright 2.0 Show, a podcast with Patrick O’Keefe that deals with copyright news, as well as the daily 3 Count column, which shows the three “must know” copyright stories from the day before.

But what is less known, and what Patrick reminded me in the last podcast, is that I bookmark a LOT of links to make it happen. At least three stories a day, usually more. Over the years, that adds up to quite a lot of stories.

Fortunately, since early 2008, I’ve been using Diigo to save my links and generate the show notes for my podcasts. On that front, Diigo has been a real life saver. I struggled with bookmarks/show notes before Diigo but have not thought about leaving since I found them.

That has resulted in quite a link library. Almost 2,500 coyright-related links, all of which have been tagged for easy locating.

What this means is that, if you’re interested in researching recent copyright history, my bookmarks may be able to help you out. Want an overview of the whole psystar case, look up the Psystar tag. You can do similar searches with The Pirate Bay, Jammie Thomas and other big copyright sagas. Also, if the story was mentioned on any of the past 80 episodes of the Copyright 2.0 Show, you can find out which episode and go back and listen to it.

Bear in mind that my tags are not perfect and that Diigo has a fairly limited tagging system (no spaces are allowed) so there will be hiccups and inconsistencies. However, if you need help you can either get in touch with me or, use a custom Google search to find the link you want. Just type the following into Google. :

site:diigo.com plagiarismtoday SEARCHTERM

It should produce a list of links and shows that are relevant.

So, feel free to bookmark my bookmark collection or, even better, if you are a Diigo user, follow me there and friend me. It’s a great way to suggest links for either the 3 Count or the podcast.

Thank you very much for following and I hope you find this useful!

My Site on Diigo

jonb1324cdr