Constant Content

Hi folks - I've been writing for Constant Content for a while, and I've become suspicious that "Unique Rights" to my articles are being purchased, and then reprinted as another author's work ("plagiarism"). Thus, I've started to use Google Alerts to track unique phrases in my articles sold under "Unique Rights" to track the issue.

Recently, a customer requested several articles on a particular topic (CMS). I wrote and submitted several. One was purchased on "Full Rights" and the next was purchased on "Unique Rights," which raised my suspicions. I started a Google Alert, and sure enough, I found the article today reprinted on the author's website, http://thinksmartsolutions.net with a different name in the byline ("edward," as opposed to my name, "Robert Bono"). The article in question exists here on Constant Content: http://www.constant-content.com/MoreDet ... uction.htm and has been plagiarized here at Think Smart Solutions: http://thinksmartsolutions.net/archives/211.

I've just contacted Constant Content about the plagiarism; however, I'm not sure what the protocol is in situations such as these, and thought I should bring my questions and concerns to a public, user forum for more information. I've debated leaving a comment on the Think Smart Solutions blog stating that I am the article's original author, but I'd prefer to handle it internally within the bounds of Constant Content's protocols.

Scanning the forums, I've seen other users with this same problem. I'm wondering if anyone has any advice; I'd be happy either with my full name in the article's byline, or with the additional $10 (amazing that this customer would cheat an author for such a small sum) that the author owes me for Full Rights. Any advice, authors?

For this reason, I'm thinking about nixing unique licensing offers.

CC seems to take care of these issues for authors, which is nice. I posted this link in another thread, because stealing content really irks me, and I like to take the bull by the horns. You can write them a cease and desist letter, but most foreign server admins don't even respond.

You can file a DMCA with Google. If they won't remove your work, you can have their link banned from Google, which ultimately just kills their site traffic. I posted a link in another thread where a guy stole content, got his link banned from Google and went from 4,000 visitors a day to 100.

Here is the link: http://www.google.com/dmca.html

You'll need a fax machine or you need to snail mail it. Make sure you read it carefully and include the verbiage that needs to be in the complaint.

This instance should be taken care of by Support, not the author. While the customer might very well know what he is doing, he might not. After all, lots of authors don't even know how to properly price their articles to reflect the status (published elsewhere or unique to CC). Our licensing structure is far from muddy, but unless someone keeps a copy of the graph taped to her keyboard, it's possible that misinterpretations can occur.


Thanks,
Ed

It's important to point out that this instance is an example of copyright infringement, rather than blatant plagiarism. The person using the content is a paying customer who is using the rights purchased in the incorrect manner. The nature of the problem - content theft or incorrect use of purchased license - must be identified correctly so a proper solution can be found.

Robert, Support should contact you about the problem. Sometimes it takes them a couple of days to get back to the author.

Thanks,
Ed

Thanks for the speedy response, Ed, but on the question of "copyright infringement" vs. "plagiarism," I have to say that I'm not interested in splitting hairs. Plagiarism is defined as: "a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work" (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism). Whether or not they've paid for the right to print the work with the original author's name is irrelevant; the work has been copied, and presented as the work of another.

Regardless, I'm looking forward to hearing back from support about how best to resolve the issue. Thank you very much for taking the time to respond!

Thanks, Lysis! I found that same DMCA link in the FAQ and I'm pondering the cost of faxing the United States from Malaysia (my current location)!

Lysis wrote:For this reason, I'm thinking about nixing unique licensing offers.

CC seems to take care of these issues for authors, which is nice. I posted this link in another thread, because stealing content really irks me, and I like to take the bull by the horns. You can write them a cease and desist letter, but most foreign server admins don't even respond.

You can file a DMCA with Google. If they won't remove your work, you can have their link banned from Google, which ultimately just kills their site traffic. I posted a link in another thread where a guy stole content, got his link banned from Google and went from 4,000 visitors a day to 100.

Here is the link: http://www.google.com/dmca.html

You'll need a fax machine or you need to snail mail it. Make sure you read it carefully and include the verbiage that needs to be in the complaint.

Just wanted to share that I filed (faxed) a DMCA complaint and it took over 3 weeks to hear back from them. By then, the issue had been resolved. While it is certainly the best way to go if you are not getting results from any other channels of communication, don't expect a quick resolution to your problem this way.

Linda

I'm familiar with the definition of plagiarism, and certainly some instances straddle both copyright infringement and plagiarism, but you said you were interested in rectifying the situation, not being overzealous. It seems to me that both you and the customer win if you get your byline/proper compensation and he gets his content. Right now you're sending mixed messages - Do you want to resolve the situation in a manner that educates the customer about the proper way to use the license he purchased or do you want to lose your customer completely?

Authors who don't understand our licensing structure are informed about it when they mess up upon submission. Most are not repeat offenders. If they don't understand the licensing structure, they are educated about it. If they do, and they're trying to pull a fast one, they know this aspect of submission is being checked.

Ed

Hi Ed,

I value your perspective on the issue and your genuine desire to see all parties involved win out in the end. That being said, thus far my interaction with Support has not gone well. Despite Constant Content's guidelines stating that author's biographical information should not be included in articles, support's response to my questions ran as such:

The reason he doesn't have your byline posted is because you didn't place your name anywhere on the work. In fact he did exactly as the guidelines ask buyers to do with unique articles, he posted it exactly as you have it in your attached word document.

When I complained about the discrepancy between support's assertion that author information should, in fact, be included in articles, and CC's guidelines, which state that biographical information should not be included, I received this response:

Bio information is different from a byline. We have always allowed bylines as customers need them to include them when they publish articles. We can ask the buyer to include it, but it is our opinion that since no byline was included in the article, the customer is not contravening our guidelines.

My pen name is clearly displayed during the purchasing process and anytime the customer views the content after the purchase; it was every bit as available to the customer as the content itself was, despite the fact that the pen name was not included in the Word document itself (which, as I've mentioned, is how I interpret CC's guidelines that biographical information should not be included in content). This, I've always thought, was the purpose of displaying author information to customers - so that customers can give authors the credit they deserve.

In good faith, the customer had every bit of information required to include my name in the byline.

If byline information should be included in articles, the CC author guidelines should say so clearly and definitively, and articles without bylines should not be accepted for sale under Unique or Usage Rights.

All of this is, to some extent, beside the point, since the customer also changed the content itself. I've pointed this out and Support's last response on the issue was:

I'll see what we can do.

I suppose that's more positive than what I've heard back so far, but I'm not holding out much hope. If the matter can't be resolved via CC support, I really won't have a choice but to take Lysis' advice and file a DMCA complaint with Google and other search engines - I'm patient, and three weeks really isn't that long in the grand scheme of things.

Anyway, thank you very much again to both Ed and Lysis both for playing such an active part in providing me information and valuable perspective on the issue.

Our guidelines actually do include the information you specified:

We do not accept:

Submissions that contain author bios or sig lines. If you wish to receive a byline, you must include your name within the document text.

Some authors simply do not wish to have their byline included on work - even pieces that are sold under the usage or unique licenses. That being said, I'll investigate how we can make this problem less likely to happen in the future.

Thanks,
Ed

I strongly recommend NOT filing a DMCA complaint with Google because of a simple misunderstanding on your part as well as the client's. You didn't include a byline because you misunderstood the guidelines so you can't really blame the client for not including it. If the customer changed the content with the unqiue license, then he has likely misunderstood the terms of the unique license and should either upgrade the license or post the original article without the changes. Let support intervene and educate the client as to what is allowed under the license and I'm sure it will be resolved.

Filing a DMCA complaint seems extreme in this situation and isn't a proactive relationship-building step. I can guarantee if you do it, you won't get repeat business from that customer again. This business is like any other: it's easier to keep an existing customer than it is to get new ones.

Hello all-
I have just spoken with our support person that dealt with the issue at hand here today. I want to make very clear that we completely understand the problem that Robert was facing here, but I would be careful in jumping to the conclusion that this buyer is willfully stealing or misrepresenting their use of the 'unique license.' I say this because it all appears to me to be an honest misunderstanding. Though the byline was not included, it may not have been intentional since the byline was not included in the article, and may have not understood the system well enough to find it and may not have even thought to do so. To avoid this, simply make sure to place your byline in the body of your articles. As for the changes made to the article, it was a few of words in the title that were perhaps mistakenly taken from the first paragraph and placed in the title. This does not excuse the error, but it does make it likely that it was not a grand conspiracy to commit content theft.

We have contacted the author, and immediately notified Robert that we had done so earlier today. We always would prefer to tread carefully when dealing with situations like this since we don't want to make anyone feel as if we are accusing them of doing some untoward, since more times then not, it is an honest mistake. In the same way that we try to make sure our buyers understand how important seemingly 'unimportant' things like bylines and exact reproduction of articles are to our authors, we hope that our authors can see that buyers don't get 'what the big deal is.'

I hope that this helps to answer any questions you have about the situation as it has unfolded. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

David

Thanks David. I didn't mean to cause a ruckus with the link, but I feel really strongly about plagiarism since it happens to me a lot. I also see it a lot on the google webmaster forums, and people blatantly copy others' work without any hesitation. It's very frustrating, but I have seen that Google does take action.

I took his post to mean that one was plagiarized entirely, but I agree with others that the mistake is probably unintentional on the customer's side and a little slack should be given.

And yes, a DMCA request takes time. That is because Google contacts the other party first and time is given for a response.

bonochromatic wrote:Thanks, Lysis! I found that same DMCA link in the FAQ and I'm pondering the cost of faxing the United States from Malaysia (my current location)!

You might consider printing, signing, etc. Then scan the docs and email them to a friendly person in the states who could fax them for you..... just a thought.

Hello. Is this something that cc writers will need to be concerned with going forward? Or has the solution been found to thwart future attempts at the practice mentioned in this thread?

Thanks All,
jt