I just wanted to write a little follow-up to my plagiarism post from a couple of days ago.
I just received a reply to that post and that actually made me write this second one. Let me show you the comment:
@anonimnotoriu brought this to my attention, but I just couldn't believe it was that simple.
So I went digging!
The information our fellow Steemian showed me came from this site. they write about a court ruling and claim that it means everyone is allowed to basically steal anything that's shown publicly on the internet.
That sounds quite disasterous, right?
I mean, I don't know about you guys, but I'd never post any picture on a seller site (like Redbubble) again. And how would I be able to maintain any kind of blogging audience if someone who's better at marketing is allowed to just pretend to be me by stealing all of my articles/pictures/whatever?
No, that couldn't be right. So I read the article. Sure enough, it tells us exactly what @anonimnotoriu told me.
However!
Apparently, this site took out the juicy parts of the ruling, but left out the most important parts. Allow me to share them with you, these are a few parts from the ruling they linked to:
This tells us a completely different story! Yes, you can link to openly available sources online. Heck, I'm pretty sure you're even allowed to quote a little bit. Nowhere in this ruling, however, do I see anything about anyone being allowed to copy someone else's work and post it as their own.
This ruling basically tells us that we are allowed to use hyperlinks to other sites.
So let's just be decent human beings and not plagiarise, shall we?
It's quite a misleading article they posted. Anyone have any experience with this particular site (meaning Virtual Privacy Network? I think it's very irresponsible of them to go and tell people a story based on some quotes taken way out of context. I just wrote down my findings in a comment there to inform others who read the article.
| Photo shop | Foodblog | Photo gallery | Twitter |
Want to satisfy your creative needs? Join the Marvelous Tales Contest!
Become my patreon and earn yourself a mention or permanent place in my blog posts!
Fair warning: Copy/paste comment and obvious bot comments will get flagged.
I'm 100% behind cleaning up Steemit although I'm slightly concerned that there's a growing zealotry trend.
I think people should be very careful with this Copy/Paste tagline that's doing the rounds. You are perfectly entitled to copy-n-paste any of your own work from any of your own sources including websites and or other social media accounts. Just check out the likes of @sweetsssj sheesh's she takes cross posting to whole new level!
You are perfectly entitled to copy-n-paste works licensed under Creative Commons depending on how it is licensed and by adhering to its accreditation rules. Then there is work that is in the Public Domain which you are perfectly entitled to use as-is or modified. In some cases you may even copy and use Copyrighted material.
I see two issues which actually Steemit fails on.
Now obviously if we're talking plagiarism within Steemit that's a whole different ballgame. To be honest I don't even know what the licensing is for content posted on Steemit. I'm wondering if the steemit source code is based on an MIT license then I suspect posts will be CC (Creative Commons) or something like that although there's no reason it cannot be copyright.
I myself found a duplicate post this morning by supposedly two different accounts. The thing is I don't have the skillset to determine if, in fact, the two accounts belong to the same person or not. If they do then that's not plagiarism or copy-n-paste that's just greed. Personally, I'd far rather turn this stuff over to @sherlockholmes or @steemcleaners or even @spaminator although they are more concerned with a whole different problem.
You bring up excellent points @dickturpin. Copy/pasting your own content is ofcourse perfectly fine. That's how I started out on Steemit aswell, by using the recipes I had already posted on my Wordpress blog. In this case though, I would simply state at the bottom that it was taken from my site (with a link). I would also reply to Cheetah's comments by telling her it was my own work. There wasn't much of a problem there.
I don't really know what the licensing is for content on Steemit either! I wonder (and I'm no expert on this at all) if simply writing at the bottom of each post "My work is not to be copied and/or used without my permission" or something of the sorts would be enough...
Ofcourse, legal points aside, there is also some human decency to which we should adhere. This standard is different to anyone, but I think most people here would agree that posting someone else's content as if it were made by yourself is a pretty crappy thing to do. Steemit is basically policed by its users, so whichever license any content might fall under, people can still flag a user if they don't actually cite their source. I think this would go for your example. Whether it was copy/pasted from a different person or it was just someone being greedy, posting on two accounts, people are free to flag this user for it to show him/her that they don't feel it's okay to do this.
Anyway, either way, posting actual plagiarised content (like using a random picture someone found online), could get people into trouble if the content is protected by some form of copywrite. That would be a shame to happen, especially since we can't edit our old posts, so we can't rectify those mistakes.
Both the back end blockchain service (steemd) and the front end (condenser) are MIT licensed. However, the licensing of the software used is not relevant in terms of content posted. Steemit's legal jurisdiction is in the US and as such is subject to copyright infringement claims, aka DMCA takedown requests. We can't modify what gets posted to the blockchain but can be legally abliged to filter content that gets displayed from the front end web site. This is not censorship, it's just law within the jurisdiction that the front end website is hosted.
I think you are right, linking is fine, copy/pasting is not, surely not when no source is provided. I even thought we have a new law in the EU stating that when photographing eg the Eiffeltower, the owners of the Eiffeltower may ask for a fee of using their 'property' when using the photograph for commercial purposes. Meaning, the owners of assets, goods and art are even more protected then before. This must be the same for Internet. Now, the think with Steemit is that we earn money with our posts, which then means that when we use someone elses matrial, or even link to it, I can imagine the owners are allowed to ask for a fee, but am not too sure ont hat part.
Thank you for your comment @edje. I didn't know that about the new law! If I have to believe the ruling I just read, we should be allowed to link to a public source, even if we earn money from it. That's just a link though, I'm not sure how it works for quotes. I'd imagine using someone's image and linking to the source might not be enough. I think the safest thing there is to only use images which are free to use for commercial purposes.
Agree, but I'm not sure if many of us Steemians actually do so. I dont look for it, I take whatever image I like. I also post music, links from YouTube, Soundcloud and all. I actually think most maybe even all artists posting music in their own channels at Soundcloud and YouTube do not mind their links being re-used in other posts, even when the user is payed for it like on Steemit. In the end it is promotion for them, as well as they generally allow embedding their music in our posts, which can be switched of at least on YouTube. So, I'm not to scared, but I may be in violation and may have to face the consequences.
Not so long ago I had a post about Steepshot taking part of our Steem/Steemit generated content and show this in their UI. I actually think this might be against the EU law since they take parts of the content and show that to others, in fact they create a new post from our posts. Ok, they do not make money with it. However, I do not like my posts to be degraded for their Instagram like service while eg rewards and number of votes is kept like they are in the bockchain. Most of my posts are about the text or music links, not so much the images. And what when Zapple launch their service? They will be Twitter like. Anyway, complex topic.
I think you're right about the promotion for the artists (though I'll bet some of the more popular ones would throw a tantrum over it). I've embedded some music videos in the past, but thinking about it, I think I'll share a link to the source in the future, or atleast do both.
I don't like using other people's images, because I know how I would feel if I saw someone earning money off of one of my pictures. That's why I usually use my own and make sure it's a free to use picture otherwise. I always share the source in that case.
Hmm, I hadn't heard about Steepshot yet! You're right though, showing the blockchain in other ways is a complex topic that I hadn't really given much thought yet.
Even if the law did allow it (it doesn't), not everybody is in the EU and different online communities can still have their own rules that are stricter than the law allows.
That was indeed something else that came to mind when I wanted to challenge that particular article. Then it turned out the whole thing was just wrong.
In my opinion, flagging/downvoting exists in order to fight abuse. Also in my opinion, plagiarism is a form of abuse - as is spam. Making posts about it, talking about it, and taking action sets the tone for our culture. I applaud you for taking a stand
Thank you very much for your comment @justinw! I agree with you, I also feel both are forms of abuse. It's why I report both to Steemcleaners and I flag them personally aswell (though my VP only allows so much flagging).
It should be common sense that a copy/paste job is simply not ok.
I am glad to read your article and detailed information
It should be, but sadly, many Steemit posts show that it isn't common sense. And a website publishing such a misleading article does not help this case at all.
What do you think about posts like this? https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@barrydutton/crypto-101-or-video-just-released-andreas-antonopoulous-bitcoin-q-and-a-what-is-the-biggest-adoption-hurdle-3-mins-super lots of copy and paste and a few comments.
I personally don't have much against something like this, especially the first part. Barry clearly states his sources a lot of times and combines them in one place for other's convenience. If I look at the ruling I just wrote about, that's perfectly fine. What makes this okay in my eyes is mainly that he also writes his own comments on the things he links.
The (veeeery long) list of videos though... I feel he could have posted a direct link to the source of each video there. That's what I would do atleast.
I'm not actually sure what the rules are for showing embedded videos. I think I might have not shared a link to the (youtube) source either in the past... I think I want to change my ways on that front.
Well hell that is very easy to do, I guess I need to rethink how I do things. Posting can be so much more rewarding and way easier if I write about other peoples content. Might just have to start looking for creative commons Milky Way photos so I do not have to spend a whole night doing it myself.
You know some people actually do that (though some don't cite their sources). I'm not saying I completely agree with it. As a matter of fact, I refuse to vote on posts like that, but I also don't feel like I have enough reasons to flag them. Not if they clearly show the source of their picture... I don't think I can really do much about such posts and defend my actions well enough, you know?
Its just kind of sad to see one person employing these tactics to soak up as much from the daily pool as they can. Its ranging from $200-$1000 per day for a single person using someone else's work and adding very little to it. Its a way to steal a little bit from the original creator as well as everyone on steemit.
Yeah, I understand that and I don't really agree on these kind of posts getting such high rewards. But then, I don't agree on a lot of huge payouts... there's just not a lot we can do about it, other than not vote on them ourselves. The only thing I can battle (without risking the wrath of half the platform) are plagiarists. People who do wrong in basically everyone's eyes.
Actually, @azfix, I was thinking about doing a post featuring some Steemit articles that I feel are undervalued. Kind of like a Hot list of my choosing, instead of that of bots and whales. I would link to them (maybe snap some screenshots for clickable pictures) to give them some extra exposure. How do you feel about something like that?
I used to feature some newbies from time to time. I'm done with that for now, but would like to give extra exposure to undervalued posts. Reading your standpoint on Barry's post though, I was wondering how you'd feel about my idea, since I'd probably earn a few upvotes on it myself aswell.
I think the best strategy is to organize a group of people that want to work together to do this sort of thing. I think your idea is fine as well although not quite as effective. Harvesting the mind power of many is always a better strategy. I am thinking about organizing people with similar steempower that can make a difference together. On a side note I used data from your profile for a post https://steemit.com/community/@azfix/who-supports-your-work-the-most-on-steemit
Very nice research @playfulfoodie! It's certainly not ok to use content/pictures without permission as if it were yours! I recently had this thing with a company using my pictures without permission claiming it was their work and their picture. I wrote an article about this a while back! They took it down after some threatening. It's true though that there should be a much clearer law and guideline on this issue!
There definitely should be @glowbeauty! I'm glad to hear they took them down eventually... what a shitty thing of them to do!
You might want to check out @originalcontent ---- you might find it useful on some of the things that bother you. It only looks at text, not images.
When I click @originalcontent, it says the user doesn't exist.
I've been using google to find original sources of texts. I tried it on images aswell, which works sometimes, but not all the time.
Oops, let me find the correct name. I must have remembered it wrong.
@originalworks I was close, but close doesn't invoke the bot.
It might only work as the main comment. I've managed to invoke him elsewhere. Either his name or a ! instead of the @ is supposed to work.
If this were true the whole copyright system had been changed in silence... But it is rather common on the internet to believe such things.
The notion that everything on the internet is free has been very damaging for small independent artists and creators, but as they do not hold any power it is largely ignored by both politicians and consumers. Maybe Steemit where everybody is creators can change that ruthless delusion.
That would be great, but it would mean basically every user needs to keep paying attention to what they upvote. People are quite easy to throw upvotes around (atleast quite a few are), so plagiarised posts are easily missed or even rewarded. Even Cheetah's comments get ignored plenty.
You're right, way too many people think everything on the internet is free to use. We all take chances when posting online. I worry sometimes that my images are being used without my permission, but as long as I don't see it happening, I can't do much about it at all. It's a risk I have to take if I want to get some visibility. I just wished people wouldn't be such crappy creatures sometimes :-)
Thanks for the updates.There are so many ins and outs of this issue!
I use pixabay and take my own photos too. There is a huge difference between claming something as your own and fair use.
My husband is a musician.. so it gets trickey. We rarely post full songs, he owns the copyright to his music. Why because we had people passing it on social media without a tag line which made it look like it was them. I notified them and asked they identify the performer and the piece being played. It did disappear.
To me it's a question of honesty. I'm a lousy photographer , so yes I pull photos to use.
I love to give people credit for ideas etc that I've found. If I quote something it's because I think it's worth it and so is the writer! We're all in this together! And together we can succeed!
I rarely link as all too often the link goes bad in a few weeks. I will look into using that more.
I completely agree on your view of this. I always credit people aswell. I feel that's just how we should act towards each other as decent human beings. I just can't understand what's wrong with the people who just steal other people's ideas...
That guy is either a moron for believing that story or is using it as an excuse. Either way it is irritating.
Well, it sparked a nice discussion, where he also says you have to cite your source. In the article though, they don't really state that clearly at all, which is what bugs me. If you just read their first paragraph, you'll think it's okay to steal anything you find online and use it without giving any credit at all!
Thanks for nice info.
Congratulations @playfulfoodie! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPI like this. You are considering these very useful posts above steemit. I look forward to receiving many of your posts. Thank you for sharing! good luck and happy in life!
Flagged for comment spamming and copy/pasting.
UPVOTED.
very good.
I would be happy if you like to follow me and give your opinion about my posts.
Thanks
As I clearly stated in my article, I flag copy/paste comments.