Constant Content

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when a customer purchases usage rights for an article they are supposed to credit the original author, and not redistribute it on sites such as articlesbase.com. This was my understanding of it at any rate. (They also aren't allowed to edit, rewrite, or otherwise alter the article in any way, but this isn't a factor in this case.)

I ask this because I regularly look for my articles which have sold for usage or unique rights to add to my writer's portfolio. Today I found one of my articles which made no mention of me, and listed the buyer as the article's author (not to mention it being available for redistribution). I've already contacted support, but I want to make sure I'm not blowing in the wind before making an ass of myself.

Thanks All,
Barry

Hi Barry,

The licensing structure is in graphic form on the follow page (you may have to scroll down) -
http://www.constant-content.com/about/faqs.htm

You can see that this is, indeed, a violation of the licensing structure. If you have included your name in the document itself, you must be credited with a usage rights purchase. If you have not included your name in the document, the customer is under no obligation to add your byline.

I understand the part about it being my fault if I don't include a byline, but the code on the page to resyndicate my work without my permission (or renumeration) kind of ticked me off. That, and that at the bottom of the article it said, "Written in association with..."

I do need to get better about adding my byline, as I didn't with most of my earlier articles because they were mostly sold for full rights.

I got an answer, so nevermind this post.

I will urge all new writers to be sure and include their byline in the text of the article though. Apparently the resyndication thing is in the gray area because they are not reselling the article. Luckily I sold that particular article for usage several times, and probably will do so again in the future. Thanks for answers.

That sucks that a usage article is being submitted to a site that encourages "free content." The customer needs to buy a full rights license for that. If the usage article is posted on ezinearticles or a similar free articles directory, then future webmasters will nab the content thinking that they can. After all, it's posted on a site for free distribution. It's not their fault that some guy is misusing the CC usage license (and how would they know?). That's one reason I dislike usage so much.

Resyndication shouldn't be a gray area as the customer is "giving away" something that he doesn't own the rights to "give away." If the customer can only use the article once and uses his one time use on a resyndication site, then he is really using it more than once and allowing others to use it as often as they want. What's to stop him from then grabbing the article off the syndication site himself and then using it over and over elsewhere because it's been offered by the article directory for resyndication (with him being the one who submitted it there in the first place)? Not cool. If the current wording of the license type is "gray," then it needs to be reworded so that it is black and white.

I wonder if CC can put a strong reminder about the rights being purchased at the time of purchase. For example, when the customer puts a usage article in his shopping cart, maybe a prompt with "I understand that usage articles are one time use articles and cannot be changed in any way or posted for resyndication." I don't know the answer, but this is the second time in a week that this same issue has cropped up with usage articles being posted on free article directories.

Like I said, I'm just glad it wasn't the first time that article has sold. I have plenty of material out there on the net, so I won't sweat this one much. I will keep a closer eye on where my articles for usage go (I usually only check every couple of months), and will be uploading new files with my byline included (sorry Ed). This way it will be a clear violation if someone else claims to be the author, and I can ask sites which use it without my permission to take it down.

It'll be a slow process Ed so that I don't overwhelm you with even more work all at once.

Okay Barry. If the articles have been previously approved, just include a note in the short summary that says, "Previously approved article resubmitted to include byline," or something similar. That will speed up the process for both of us. Thanks.

Oops... One can't delete or upload a new file if it has sold for usage or unique rights anyway. All we can do is edit the summaries and/or prices. Well, in the future all my articles will include bylines, even if they're for a public request. That way I get used to doing it all the time.

Barry -
The two articles you have the queue do not have a byline. How do you wish to proceed?

I'll add bylines to them...

Regarding Barry's first post, even if the article does not have the author's byline, usage rights should NOT allow the buyer to use their own name on the article. That's a whole separate issue from the redistributing thing.