is this legal?

**imported_kdoggfunkstah** · 07-25-2006, 11:56 AM

I'm a bit new to this whole shpeal, and I had a question concerning blogging. Is it legal to snag word for word blog entries from big sites like Digg? I would like to put the ones that are really interesting into my blog site (of course citing that the content came from them).

If that is legal, are there ways to get revenue from this?
Thanks!

**Tom Huveners** · 07-25-2006, 12:05 PM

I you type at the end of the article 'Source: www.site.com' there is no problem imo

**Zachery** · 07-25-2006, 12:32 PM

Really whatever they give you in an RSS syndication can normally be used, but more than 20% of the conent should not be copied from the site,

**imported_kdoggfunkstah** · 07-25-2006, 12:48 PM

Awesome

Quote:

but more than 20% of the conent should not be copied from the site,

I think it would be close to impossible to get more than 20% from a site like Digg :-)!! But that's good info, since I would probably like to get material from friends and smaller sites.

Now as for making revenue from it, any ideas?

**imported_thilak** · 07-25-2006, 04:49 PM

Its legal, it it will seriously harm your readers

**Plugin-Developer** · 07-25-2006, 08:03 PM

I find that I tend to read websites that are mostly original content. Sites that I know are generated from RSS feeds, especially from popular sites like Digg, are something that I don't spend the time of day on.

Also, if you were looking to make money from this site, and wanted to use RSS feeds without producing original content, then you may want to consider a different source. Sure, Digg is mostly technology stuff, but that is so broad. I've just kept hearing that the tighter the niche, the better you are, so you might want to set up a Google News feed with some keywords. That way, you'll only get content about the subject that you really want. Your site would be more focused and you would do better off with search engines, I believe.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I've been lead to understand.

**marketjunction** · 07-25-2006, 11:56 PM

You need to look up FAIR USE. If the content is from a feed, that's fine, because they authorized it. However, if you go to a site and take text, you could be violating their copyright.

There's no magic number or %. How you use the information and what it is determines if you have violated fair use. It could be 10% of the article that's ok or just a sentence here and there--perhaps less.

**Tran** · 07-25-2006, 11:59 PM

Lol just put this.. before and after.. "Article Content Here"

**Shawn Collins** · 07-26-2006, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zachery

Really whatever they give you in an RSS syndication can normally be used, but more than 20% of the conent should not be copied from the site,

I provide a teaser for my blog via RSS. If somebody was taking 100% of my content to try and game AdSense or whatever, I would not be happy.

**beley** · 07-26-2006, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Huveners

I you type at the end of the article 'Source: www.site.com' there is no problem imo

There seem to be a lot of people who don't understand copyright law here.

First off, don't expect legal advice from a bunch of random folks on the Internet to be accurate. If you need a definitive answer, talk to a real lawyer.

Second, Google search "copyright law" and do some research yourself.

Whoever wrote the original blog post owns the copyrights to that writing. You may NOT republish that work without consent. Publishing a small excerpt and link would be fine, but copying the article word for word is pure copyright infringement.

Would you get caught? Who knows. Will you get sued? Who knows.

But it is copyright infringement unless you have their permission.

**danifer** · 07-26-2006, 11:54 PM

While you're Googling, look up the term "fair use" and check out this thread: http://www.earnersforum.com/showthread.php?t=2469

**beley** · 07-26-2006, 11:59 PM

Yeah, read up on fair use, but remember it's a defense not a right. You can still get sued, and have to defend yourself in court (including paying your own legal bills while you're doing it). If they have a lot more money than you they can drag out the process, so even if you COULD win a fair use case, they could bankrupt you before the tral was over.

I've seen a lot of people get bullied by companies over copyright issues. It's not worth it IMHO to fool with it 99% of the time. It's so much easier to just get permission (even if you have to pay).

**beley** · 07-27-2006, 12:04 AM

Check out this link to a definition of Fair Use by Stanford:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...pter9/9-a.html

It states that Fair Use is using a portion of a work for commentary or criticism. So if you're writing a review, you can post an excerpt - but not th eentire article/work.

Interesting read and much easier to understand than US govt sites.

**marketjunction** · 07-27-2006, 12:05 AM

Make sure you read more than codified law. That's just the loose foundation of the law. Read cases for a better understanding.

I am not a lawyer (future IP lawyer though weee). You want to find a lawyer that specialized in Intellectual Property law. If you can't afford one, take the time to read through cases that pertain to the issue at hand. That will give you a good understanding of what's going on. It's going to take you hours on end, but if you don't have money, you have to use time.

Quote:

It states that Fair Use is using a portion of a work for commentary or criticism. So if you're writing a review, you can post an excerpt - but not th eentire article/work.

That's why you need to read cases. That statement is broad and empty. If law were only that simple, we would not need lawyers.

**beley** · 07-27-2006, 12:08 AM

True, but a basic understanding of the definitions of Copyright, Fair Use, Trademarks, etc. would go a long way in most cases.

Another interesting bit of info from the Stanford site:

Quote:

Some people mistakenly believe it's permissible to use a work (or portion of it) if an acknowledgment is provided. For example, they believe it's okay to use a photograph in a magazine as long as the name of the photographer is included. This is not true. Acknowledgment of the source material (such as citing the photographer) may be a consideration in a fair use determination, but it will not protect against a claim of infringement. In some cases, such as advertisements, acknowledgments can backfire and create additional legal claims, such as a violation of the right of publicity. When in doubt as to the right to use or acknowledge a source, the most prudent course may be to seek permission of the copyright owner.

**Zepfu** · 07-27-2006, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickohrn

so you might want to set up a Google News feed with some keywords.

Does this not violate google's terms of use? Specifically, item two.
2. Use of the Service. You may only display the content of the Service for your own personal use (i.e., non-commercial use) and may not otherwise copy, reproduce, alter, modify, create derivative works, or publicly display any content.

I recently was looking into similar solutions for driving content to a targeted news site but I was trying to keep things legal so had to find an alternate solution.

**ReBoot** · 07-30-2006, 10:32 AM

Well, everythings legal as long as it is not copyrighted. Or if you want to be more safer, email first the web admin of the site where your content should be. RSS is very very legal.

**beley** · 07-30-2006, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReBoot

Well, everythings legal as long as it is not copyrighted. Or if you want to be more safer, email first the web admin of the site where your content should be. RSS is very very legal.

FYI, the lack of a copyright notice does not mean that the work is not copyrighted. If it was created after 1989 it is copyrighted by the author with or without the copyright symbol or notice.

**imported_mattd** · 07-30-2006, 02:23 PM

I concur - any unique work you create is automatically covered under copyright law if you put the notice on it or not .... in the UK anyway - I imagine it is largely the same elsewhere. You might be able to get away with it if you create "derivative works" from the original source but I suspect that you are looking at this simply so you dont have to write any content.

I'd argue that just because a site offers a RSS feed, it is not implying that you can display their content on your site and do what you want with it - RSS is seen very much as a way for users to read and keep up to date with the site's content nowadays, and less with actual content syndication.

**Lpspider** · 07-30-2006, 03:03 PM

Make sure you quote your source at the very least.