Constant Content

Back in June 2006, I purchase numerous articles with Full Rights Licenses (Order #2337). I held on to them for quite awhile before deciding to publish them out on the web. To my dismay, 2 of these articles (so far) appear to have been previously published on another site prior to my publishing them. If I have Full Rights Licensing on these articles, how can this happen??

Here are my articles:
http://knol.google.com/k/vicki-lawless/ ... 053ggres/7#
http://knol.google.com/k/vicki-lawless/ ... 053ggres/2#

Here's the other articles:
health.learninginfo.org/herbs/lavender.htm
health.learninginfo.org/herbs/calendula.htm

Both articles were written by the same author which causes me some concern. Any help on what I should do to get this issue straightened out would be most appreciated.

I'll draw Support's attention to this problem and make sure they are aware of it so that they can get back with you.

Thanks,
Ed

Thank you Ed. They can contact me via email at the email address associated with Order #2337 (same email address I have registered with the forum).

I haven't heard back from Support yet regarding this issue. In the meantime, I've also submitted a direct request to Support as well. How long does it usually take to get a reply back from them when requesting support?

I'll check for you.
Ed

I STILL haven't heard anything from anyone regarding this issue. Does it need to come down to me publically posting this author's name in order to get some help with this issue??

No need; we know what articles are in question and to whom they belong. At any rate, this author did not do anything wrong and was in keeping with CC's previous policy. These articles were purchased by someone for usage rights on CC before they were purchased by you for full rights. If an author posted an article that sold for usage rights, it was still available for purchase for full rights by customers who may have wanted to adjust the article or purchase the article and own the rights to it. The previous usage rights license was disclosed upon the article's info page. It was the customer's choice whether to purchase the article for full rights despite it having been purchased for usage.

In short - articles that were available only through CC were able to be purchased for full rights after they had been purchased for usage rights by another customer. This is no longer a part of CC's policy, but the change occurred only a couple of weeks ago. This is what I can tell you from my limited perspective.

Thanks,
Ed

I had no idea that an article available for Full Rights could potentially have had someone previously purchase it for useage rights. I would figure once a "lesser rights" purchase had been made, Full Rights would no longer be available. There's really no point in purchasing Full Rights if someone else already has the article and it has been published elsewhere. Live and learn I guess...

Actually, there is a slight difference in full rights versus usage rights. Since you purchased full rights, you can change the article anyway you want. Since you bought the piece so long ago, you could add in some information, or rearrange the information to make your article slightly different from the other one. :)

Usage rights licenses do not permit the buyer to cut one word, or remove the byline.

Always Smiling,
Elizabeth Ann West

Well, since the "usage" rights publications (see URL above for the learninginfo.org site) do not include a byline or any information about the author at the end of the published article, I still think there's something hinky going on here...

Sorry, I should have specified the byline is at the author's discretion. Some who write here prefer to remain anonymous, so they do not put a "By: Suse Q" in the file. If there is no byline in the actual file, then someone who purchases for use doesn't have to give one.

On the other hand, I agree it's tough to enforce how someone with a use license actually uses the content, especially if it's in a print publication. It's up to the author to monitor how the content is used, and report any discrepancies between the licensed purchased versus the manner in which the prose was used.

Unfortunately, this is just the way things work in the world of journalism, online or otherwise. :-/

The main difference between use and full rights is editorial capability. You completely own that piece, just like you wrote it. You now know the article was impressive to other people too, and visitors to your website likely enjoyed reading. Since it's been 2 years, something fresh may catch readers' eyes.

As an author, though not the one who wrote the article, I do appreciate you making the original purchase and asking about the problem. It's really nice to see the buyers' side of things which we don't get very often on the forums. For instance, I was originally annoyed about the policy change since it limits my ability as an author to make more from my articles. Now, the policy change makes perfect sense to me for everyone involved in the Constant-Content community. I'd rather have happy repeat buyers, even for use licenses, than a buyer unhappy because they think an article was sold unfairly.

It stinks the old policy made a situation like this happen, but the authors and site owners here are professionals who really listen to feedback. I know I write for a few other article markets, and Constant-Content is head and shoulders above others.

Good luck to you, and I hope you will still keep Constant-Content in consideration for your future writing needs :)