copyright, crediting, plagiarism and blog ethics

( wow, I just noticed in my dashboard that this is my 100th post! apt, i think! )

You know how one thing can lead to another, and another, and another... This post is a result of a postcard I received from a blog buddy. I started researching the card, as I'm wont to do (I'm a facts junkie!), which led to a post about snail mail and Google Books, another post about Google Books and copyright, and now this post about copyright, plagiarism and blogging ethics. 

I'll start with plagiarism. I have several facts posts that rank very highly in Google searches, so they get a lot of hits. Many of my visitors are educational institutes, academics and students (I base this on comments and data from website trackers I use). It is possible my posts get copied wholesale (you can tell from the data when a viewer is toggling between your site and a document on his/her desktop).

My facts posts are not analyses. There are no original thoughts there. But I do spend a lot of time doing research, rewriting what I find and organizing the information into a format that makes everything more digestible and understandable, for instance by grouping chunks of information and data into bite-size categories. I haven't found any similar web pages for my facts posts on the Japan earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis, my most popular posts. I'm happy my posts are of use to some, but it also irritates me that my content gets copied and pasted. Some blog owners go so far as to copy my html so my pages gets cached on their sites and they rank higher in searches even if there isn't any content relevant to the search words on their pages. Clever, that. Sometimes I want to just take my facts posts offline completely, but that seems seriously egostic and drastic since many people with no bad intent can also benefit, which was the reason why I wrote them in the first place.

I received this email last week about my Japan disaster facts post, did I do right?

from AJ (last name and email removed)

I am a thirteen year old boy from England. You have compiled a researched this article very very well and it is because of this that I am requesting that you let me copy parts of the article. I have a scholarship exam for Westminster School and the Japan Earthquake is very likely to come up and it would save me a lot of very precious time if I could copy and paste the article. I will only be sticking it in my revision book. I understand fully why you don’t particularily like copying and I agree. But please, just let me copy. 

My response

Dear AJ, I'm flattered that you think my post is so useful you'd like to copy it. However, I'm afraid I'm going to have to say no. I don't want to make exceptions for anyone, I wouldn't be able to draw a line as to whom I should help and whom I shouldn't. In any case, I don't believe in doing something I've explicitly come out against. 

A lot of the information is available elsewhere on the Internet. I have spent a lot of time and put much effort into researching, rewriting and organizing the info so that my posts are useful resources, and I believe they are as I get a lot of visits from educational institutions, educators and students, some of whom I'm sure have copied and pasted the information wholesale somewhere. If you don't already know, that is PLAGIARISM. It is wrong and as a student (or anyone, for that matter), you should know not to do it, and you could get into trouble if you did. 

If you only wish to use the information for revision purposes, you could always take notes, that is a form of studying. I don't think it would be wasting "precious time", as you put it. You'd be learning as you read or take notes. The only use I see in copying and pasting the article into a revision book is if you were planning to copy and paste it into some form of homework or essay. I can't stop anyone from printing or from copying/pasting, but I don't need to help you in doing so. Thank you for your understanding.

Then I received this comment over the weekend from an Anonymous: "I’ve recently started a blog, the information you provide on this site has helped me tremendously. Thank you for all of your time & work." I don't quite know what to make of this. Were my posts inspirational? Or had they become fodder for someone else's blog?

Yesterday, I found an excerpt of my Japan facts post copied verbatim and posted as homework on a site. It was not credited or linked.

I'm not sure I have the right to righteous indignation. It's so easy to draw the line where plagiarism is concerned, at least it is for me. Copyright is a completely different ball game. I have to admit I'm somewhat conflicted with regard to this. Of course I know it's wrong to steal, but can the use of images or works that don't belong to me ever be justified? Should I have not used the images of the magazine covers in my Google Books posts?

When I first started blogging about four months ago, I used a lot of photos of art, works and crafts created by other people in my posts. The more I blogged, the more I did my best to trace the origin of such works I used and to credit their creators and link to their blogs or sites. If I couldn't find the original source, I would link the works to where I had found them. I never claimed them as mine. Often, I used them when I wrote about their creators. I know that is no justification; flattery is nice but still constitutes a violation. So many people do it, though. In my daily bloghop, I come across countless sites where other people's photos and works are used, often without even a credit. Does it become more morally acceptable because it is so prevalent?

No. But I still fight the constant temptation to use others' images, even if it's for the purpose of education or promoting their works. In the past month, I've tried to avoid posting any images that aren't my own if they are not retail stuff or free to share (eg as stated on blogs/sites, Creative Commons, Wiki Commons). I've written many emails to artists, photographers and bloggers to request permission to use their works. It takes time and it means I don't get to write about everything I would love to if I don't get a response (I haven't yet got a negative one, so most people do say yes if they don't ignore you!), and I may have to rethink the rationale behind this blog, which I started to catalog the stuff I like and the wonderful things I discover. And what about Pinterest and Tumblr, where I post/repost and pin/repin all the amazing things that are on the Internet? I don't lurk around there anymore, mostly because I don't have time and partly because I got frustrated after a while of looking at beautiful photos that are credited or linked to source, and spending hours trying to trace them. It got to be a bit too much and yes, it's possible to get tired of looking at so much beauty when you don't know where it comes from. I'm speaking for myself of course; I like to get to the bottom of things.

Bottomline: I'm not sure where this blog is headed. I have several half-written posts that I probably won't finish due to the copyright issue. I'm no longer comfortable with crediting sources without permission, although I suspect I may have lapses if I find something truly wonderful. I also don't know where the videos I post fall into all this. They aren't always embedment-coded videos that are provided by original sources.

If you're still here, I would love to know what you think. This post is not meant as a criticism of anyone's blogging approach. I think we all have to find what works for us individually, whether in blogging or in life. I saw this cool infographic during my period of Pinterest/Tumblr obsession; it is a good guide on the copyright/credit problem. I'm happy to say it's free to share.

 giving credit infographic by Pia Jane Bijkerk (enhance the everyday) and Erin (Design for Mankind)

Click the links in the credit to read the articles Pia and Erin posted on crediting sources. There are other great posts on crediting/copyright, I like this detailed one from Grace at design*sponge (a wonderful blog if you don't know it already): biz ladies: online etiquette and ethics (part 1)


Thank you for reading.
♥ Please leave me a comment
You can get updates from this blog by
♥ subscribing in a reader
♥ following me (click on the Google Friend Connect "follow this blog" button at the top of my sidebar) or
♥ subscribing by email through this form

Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner

More blog discussions on copyright/plagiarism
Shades of Gray (the long thread)

Related links
Why Do They Do It (The New York Sun)
Plagiarism lines blur for students in digital age (New York Times)
turnitin.com, an online plagiarism detector
http://plagiarism.org/
link to resources on blog copyright and content theft (from geneabloggers.com) a very good list!
Patterns and how they are affected by copyright law (tabberone.com)

Understanding Copyright and Licenses (smashingmagazine)
Copyright, Part I: It’s Not Only About the Law (an interesting piece on using others' images in your art or crafting)
Small businesses warned against infringing on copyright (British Journal of Photography)
Copyscape, service that crawls your site to see if your pages have been copied
Tynt, a program you can install in your site’s header that inserts a credit tag/text every time someone copies a chunk of text or images from your site
TinEye can find an image wherever it lives on the Internet, even if the file name has been changed



by liberal sprinkles

google books, copyright, art project and magazine

Life magazine
via Google Books

I wrote about Google Books in a post earlier this week, where I gushed about what a great resource it is. Google Books has partnerships with some publishers that have led to the archives of numerous magazines being digitized and made available online. The magazines whose back copies you can read (some go back further than others) without having to pay anything include Life, Billboard, New York, Ebony, Liberty, National Parks, Prevention, Working Mother, and many, many more.

New York magazine
via Google Books

Apart from magazines, Google has a database of more than 15 million digitized books from over 100 countries in 400 language, which it has scanned, many with the permission of libraries but not always with the consent of authors. Books whose copyrights have expired are available for sale through Google Books, which also gives previews and snippets of books under copyright that it has licensed from publishers, or copyrighted titles for which it has no license.

Google's dream is to make Google Books a digital library of every book ever published, including out-of-print and "orphan" titles, and selling access to them (orphan books are those for which the copyright holders have not been established). Google's digital library would also give authors and publishers a new outlet to sell their works.

Not surprisingly, Google Books has faced many copyright suits and its future is now unclear. On March 22, 2011, a US federal judge made a landmark decision in New York against the creation of a universal digital library by Google. Citing copyright, antitrust and other concerns, US Circuit Judge Denny Chin rejected a $125 million legal settlement the company had worked out with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers which would have let Google sell access to its database. Under the 2008 settlement, Google agreed to pay $125 million to search for copyright holders and pay authors and publishers fees and royalties.

Google says it is not violating anyone's copyright, even if it scans a text without the author's permission; it cites the concept of "fair play" and says authors have the right to opt out of having their books digitized. Judge Chin says it should be an "opt in" process. Another sticking point involved orphan books (according to the dearauthor.com article, as much as 70 per cent of the books Google has scanned are orphan works), for which Google got the right to sell through the 2008 settlement. Judge Chin says the orphan issue should be one tackled by legislation instead of an agreement between private parties.

This is a very good post explaining the court decision and what's ahead
Judge Chin rejects the Google Book Settlement (dearauthor.com)

And here's a very well-argued, though completely biased, commentary against the judge's decision. The reactions to the post are as interesting and represent both sides.
Singel-Minded: To the Whingers Go the Spoils in the Google Books Decision, by Ryan Singel (wired.com)

Among the comments posted at wired.com was one from someone who identifies himself/herself as CJ Hinke from Easterwood Press in Bangkok, who says:

"As an author, translator, editor and small book publisher, I have always posted my books to Google Books for free download before the print editions. Think about it: If people like the book, they’ll probably buy one. If not, I only make about a dollar per book in profit anyway. If I’m so stingy I won’t risk losing a dollar, I should get out of the book business.

The real travesty of this decision is that, at 61, I will probably not live to see the ancient libraries of Timbuktu and Alexandria recreated by the likes of Google in my lifetime. The ancient libraries were torched by small-minded men just as Google’s has apparently been burned by Judge Chin."

Like CJ Hinke, I feel sorry at the loss of what could have been a universal digital library that would have given me access to books and text I would never otherwise get to read or see. I am very much an armchair viewer, of events, books, arts and so many other wonderful things I can witness and experience thanks to the advent of the Internet. Did you know that you can peruse the British Library's John Gutenberg bibles online? Do you know about Google's Art Project? Through it, you can view and examine hundreds of masterpieces and tour museums around the world like MoMA, the Tate and the Palais de Versailles. Sure, nothing beats seeing the real thing but how often do you get to visit New York, London or Paris?

Hopefully the copyright issues can be addressed. As for fears that Google will dominate the market, well, it is already the king of search engines. It would be lovely and ideal if a non-profit body could be the one to create a universal digital library but since no one seems to be anywhere near doing so, why thwart Google?


Thank you for reading. If you liked this post, please
♥ let me know in a comment
♥ link back.
You can get updates from this blog by
♥ subscribing in a reader
♥ following me (click on the Google Friend Connect "follow this blog" button at the top of my sidebar) or
♥ subscribing by email through this form.

Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner

by liberal sprinkles