Monday, February 17, 2014

Creative Commons -- Gateway to Black Hat Copyright Infringement

 Will We Be Protected at Preferred Writers Group?

 I am reprinting an older article from Bukisa for the Preferred Writers Group in hopes it opens some dialog on whether or not our articles will be copyright protected here. It would be nice to have a notice somewhere on the PWG that all articles are copyrighted by the writers, all right reserved. 

Bukisa had so many issues with keyword stuffing, too many links and copyright infringement, they were shunned by Google search and reputable websites considered them spam links. My fears for Bukisa noted below were well-grounded; about a year or less after I wrote this article, the site had stopped payouts. I still can't log in to remove my old content.

Image from Wikimedia Commons/J.J.

Bukisa's Creative Commons -- Gateway to Black Hat Copyright Infringement

Why Bukisa's Creative Commons settings have become an open invitation for black hatters to steal your work

In the past two weeks, Google Alerts has been sending me a constant stream of my titles and quotes from my Bukisa articles appearing on other websites. Bukisa encourages use of the Syndication feature or the Creative Commons - Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported so we can "Gain more exposure and more readers, build backlinks to your articles and thus increase your search engine positions = more traffic = more views = more money for you." The Creative Commons - Attribution-No Derivative Works seems to offer more protection while still getting backlinks, so many Bukisa writers have opted for that setting.

Creative Commons - Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported

If you click the "What is this?" link next to the Creative Commons retting, you learn that Creative Commons - Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported means people may copy the article - as long as they link back to the original content on Bukisa. Supposedly those who want to use your work will read the terms which state that anyone is free to copy, distribute and transmit the work and to make commercial use of the work under the following conditions:

Creative Commons - Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported Terms of Use

Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

What does "Attribute this work" mean?
The page you came from contained embedded licensing metadata, including how the creator wishes to be attributed for re-use. You can use the HTML here to cite the work. Doing so will also include metadata on your page so that others can find the original work as well.
No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

With the understanding that:

Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
Public Domain — Where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
Other Rights — In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license:
Your fair dealing or fair use rights, or other applicable copyright exceptions and limitations;
The author's moral rights;
Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.
Notice — For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page.      

 
Black Hatters Don't Follow the Rules

However, apparently the black hatters are not reading the terms, and many articles of mine on Bukisa, which were set with Creative Commons - Attribution-No Derivative Works, have been showing up on multiple websites with no back links and no attribution. Not only that, but the black hatters are back linking aggressively (some might say "spammishly") to MY articles on their sites, so those plagiarized articles rank HIGHER on their sites than the ones I originally wrote for Bukisa. What this means to me is NO INCOME. If people are reading my articles on other sites, I am not being paid for my work.

Interestingly enough, I never found one Creative Commons - Attribution-No Derivative Works article that was linking back to a Bukisa article - they were all simply plagiarized. The Creative Commons - Attribution-No Derivative Works setting seems to be an open invitation to copy. Apparently black hatters think by allowing some copying via the Attribution-No Derivative Works license, there won't be any ramifications for not providing correct attribution for intellectual property or backlinks to original articles.

Resetting the Creative Commons License

The first thing I did was check my settings and to my dismay, I found some articles had somehow slipped into Syndication mode. This must be a Bukisa glitch because I only set a handful of specific articles to Syndication. The rest were set for No Copying or the Creative Commons - Attribution-No Derivative Works. I immediately began to reset all my articles to No Syndication - No Syndication Allowed - No Copying/Altering, but I hit another snag. In my first couple of years on Bukisa, minimum article length was 250 words. Now it is 350 words, so to change the settings on my older, shorter articles, I must ADD ANOTHER 100 WORDS!

The Problem with Rewrites

This presents a couple of problems. One is I already wrote the article, and it is a pain to have to go back and add another 100 words just so I can reset the licensing terms. The second is -- you better believe I am going to get Google to remove the copyright infringing articles, and I hate to alter my original article when I am in the process of sending the links to Google to prove the articles were copied. I contacted Bukisa and explained the problem and received -- ABSOLUTELY NO HELP.

What Can You Do?
  • Read Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement: Thou Shalt Not Steal for a layman's look at plagiarism and copyright infringement.
  • Don't use the Creative Commons - Attribution-No Derivative Works or the Syndication license if you don't want your articles showing up on other websites and NOT linking back to you. The black hatters are ignoring the part about links, and you are not only losing your work, but you are not getting any backlinks. And Bukisa sure isn't going to go after these black hatters for violating the terms of the Creative Commons - Attribution-No Derivative Works license!
  • Set Google Alerts for your articles & poems
  • Visit Plagiarismtoday.com. They have Stock Letters you can send websites that steal your articles as well as contacts and other resources to help fight plagiarism and copyright infringement.
  • Use the Google AdSense DMCA complaint form when appropriate.
  • Add your own warning. Now I close all my articles with this:
Thank you for reading and sharing the link to this article. This article is NOT available for translating and/or copying to websites, blogs, Facebook, discussion boards or elsewhere. If you want to share this info, please share the link.

Also see: Earning Money Writing for Examiner.com


Much of this article was previously published on Bukisa with my byline on Jul 9th, 2011.

KD214

12 comments:

  1. As quoted by Laurie, "7. All images used in your articles should be properly attributed with a viable source credit. Only images that are either A) Your own (this should be noted)
    B) Free and fair to use (i.e., Public Domain, or properly sourced from a site such as Wikimedia Commons, Morguefiles, etc.)
    or C) Have proper permissions from the photographer or source, plainly listed with them.

    All Image credits must be listed."
    http://preferredwriters.blogspot.com/2014/02/faq.html

    We got it covered. Also, if you have copyrights to an image we urge you to include that in your article. However, having said that, we can only address any situation as it comes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My Public Domain image is credited in the caption. I am talking about intellectual property in the form of the articles themselves. It would be great to have a copyright notice posted so we don't have to post our own each time.

      Delete
    2. I'll work on that. It would provide a bit of extra security for published work if after we do our originality check to validate that some how. After all, many sites ask for "proofs" which I would assume is the date it was first ever published.

      Delete
    3. Thanks! I think it would protect the site and the writers to have at least a little "legal" language in place.

      Delete
    4. Yes, I think we have images covered, and there is a note about plagiarism.
      Any republished work should include the site name, original date of publication, and the name it was published under, if different from the one you use here. I DO make random checks for plagiarism.

      Delete
    5. Great! All of that is very helpful and it protects the site from copyright claims. However, it doesn't protect the articles on THIS site from others stealing them and posting them to blogs, Facebook, etc, or translating them into another language and posting them. It would be good to have a copyright note posted somewhere.

      Delete
  2. Thanks for raising this. Let us have no black-hatters!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ok then should I put a copyright on all my writings....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It won't hurt. However, I have actually had people copy and past my articles WITH my copyright notice--more than once!

      Delete
  4. Legally, once you publish the article it's copyrighted and you own it. Notices aren't required and in most cases do not enhance any legal protections.
    What having copyright notices does do is add professionalism. It may deter a casual thief. But, a strong copyright notice will either be ignored, or as you say, copied with the article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess I am too long winded. My phone wouldn't let me finish. I am working on a template so my articles here have a similar look and feel. I will probably add a copyright statement. I think somewhere in the TOU a site wide copyright statement would be good. We may already be legally protected, but I think the notices give us more credibility. As an aside, anything written with a Creative Commons license may as well be kissed goodbye. Too many black hats and too much confusion over what it means. I love the article and am glad you republished it here.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.