Who owns the content?

[humble pie]

Let's say someone resurrects a domain I dropped 5 years ago with 20+ pages of unique content using IA.

Does anyone know the IP implications (if there is any even) - is it just a finders keepers losers weepers situation ..

 

[acceleratoraccelerator is verified member.]

My view is that if you have created unique text through your own efforts, then that is a unique work and you own the copyright to it. It's irrelevant that it's been put online, you still own the work.

If they have only resurrected the site from the internet archive, and not come to an agreement with you the copyright holder to use your work, then they are infringing your intelellectual property in my opinion.

Rgds

 

[Retired_member41]

The content is owned by the writer of that content.

As to the use of the content by a third party that would depend on the intended original use of the content and any stipulations as to its use at the time of publishing.

Eg if it was on a web site that offered professional information intended for customers of the content writer you should be able to prove the new user is using it incorrectly.

If however, it was published on a site giving free advice and information to anyone who visited, as long as they reproduce it the same, there is no chance if you getting it removed legally, plus the costs would be not worth it.

As far as the web goes though you could just send a cease and desist and have it removed with just a quick statement.

 

[Retired_member41]

As acc says. If it's work from your own efforts then it becomes a property, but unless it's truly unique and not just rehashed content or something in your own words then it would not be classed in a legal state as your IP.

CandD's would still work though.

 

[doodlebug]

The moment you write something you have copyright to that work and it lasts for something like 50 years before going into the public domain and even then you can further protect it.

I am not a solicitor or any sort of legal entity but this just my understanding through previous experience.

 

[Retired_member41]

If I write a pancake recipe I haven't really toiled any intellectual labour by recalling it and writing it down. Even if I add my own spin it's not truly worthy of copyright no matter what any (c) says.

 

[woopwoop]

If I write a pancake recipe I haven't really toiled any intellectual labour by recalling it and writing it down. Even if I add my own spin it's not truly worthy of copyright no matter what any (c) says.

The law isn't based on how much you sweat - you wrote it it so you have copyright protection.

The only times that wouldn't be the case is if:
1. You infringed someone else's copyright at the time you wrote your recipe (in part/whole).
2. You released the work with a creative commons, no rights reserved or another type of license.

In #1 above, you can have protection in some cases even if you materially use someone else's work. For example remixing a song gives me a copyright on the remix, but doesn't necessarily mean that I can profit from it without the original works copyright owner's permission/partnership.

2 lines of a song on a napkin, congratulations you now have copyright protection on those lyrics. Obviously unless the date can be proven, actually enforcing this protection can be difficult - but you still established copyright.

For the OP, accelerator is spot on. Just difficult to get them to comply if they don't cooperate. To get the host to take the site down may require you to prove that you are the copyright holder (date of first published, etc.) plus there's probably a process that hosts have in place for this.

This site looks at image and text copyright infringement but there may be jurisdictional differences.

 

[Adam HAdam H is verified member.]

Its the original content creator who owns the rights to it, whether those 20 pages of content is worth pursing is a totally different matter, the costs involved with doing so in most cases wouldnt warrant a return.

You'll find in most cases a nice email to who ever copied it will be enough for them to remove it, if the nice email doesnt work launch a DMCA.......regardless of if the DMCA is US based you'll find most hosts will still take actions and contact the site owner.

Ive grabbed some stuff from Archive.org before after catching a domain with authority as temp content to get the site reindexed again, always try to reach out to the previous owners but most of the time ive replaced the content before they even reply.

 

[Retired_member41]

Woophoop you don't automatically gain copyright just for writing it. Maybe better to familiarise yourself with the cdpa and the latest IP cases and you'll clearly see that writing it doesn't give you instant copyright. And the p in IP is property and yes you do have to have shown your intellectual toil for it to become a property.

(Edited as letter p posted as so)

 

[woopwoop]

Wrong.

As soon as it's tangible (for example written on paper, recorded on a CD, even a screenshot print of a website you have copyright.

It doesn't need to be registered to have copyright. Registering serves as a process to make the first creation/use date more clear/enforceable.

Just like a trademark is established at its first use. You don't need to register those either.

IP isn't something you pay for. You pay for registering should you choose to. Otherwise you still have unregistered rights.

 

[Retired_member41]

Who mentioned registering anything? Maybe you should stop consulting web sites for bits of poor information and realise it doesn't matter who's right or wrong.




Ps I'm not wrong.

 

[woopwoop]

Not consulting any website - funny because sounds like you're misinterpreting something you're reading.

My comments are based on my own research year's ago and my application and registration of a UK trademark and 4 EU design patents.

So you were saying that just writing it doesn't give you copyright? Even if it's unique work? Care to point to where you read that.

 

[humble pie]

thanks chaps.

ok, I write 20 pages on a tourist guide to Scotland, drop the domain 5 years later. I guess writing a guide to .Scot is not particularly unique

 

[Retired_member41]

The only time I mentioned unique above was when I said unless it was unique?

Uniqueness isn't that clear to most, it's not just an article that passes copyscape or has no matching string of words anywhere else. A unique article online is pretty hard to find. So using old content from closed down sites doesn't carry that much of a problem.

Unless the content is written in a manner whereby each piece of information is attributed to the author which would make standard content look awful, it's not unique and can't be claimed as so. No one wants the web to look like the emerald database which is why it's a free for all regarding content.

"But I wrote it all myself from my own knowledge" could be a common statement a content writer would say, but if they saw or got an idea from Sky news then they should really attribute it.

I was only commenting regarding the op question.

 

[Retired_member41]

thanks chaps.



ok, I write 20 pages on a tourist guide to Scotland, drop the domain 5 years later. I guess writing a guide to .Scot is not particularly unique

If you'd been to all the places or had permission from the people who had been and you used their words, and you constructed the guide in your own style then it becomes your IP

As you published it freely with no limitations all the new owner would have to do is attribute it to the site at the time.

You could with a struggle get it took down but unless you were suffering a loss because of it being there then it's a no win situation.

 

[woopwoop]

"But I wrote it all myself from my own knowledge" could be a common statement a content writer would say, but if they saw or got an idea from Sky news then they should really attribute it.

Caz - I know I'm sticking on this right now but I'm personally interested in topics of IP and there is so much misinformation out there.

What I quoted from you above, I believe is another example of misinformation.

Someone getting an idea from a source doesn't have to be cited nor should it in my opinion. After all it's an idea - ideas are the start of everything. Everyone would be citing everything and the world would become a dull place.

I'd have to attribute my primary school English teacher by name, date and location for teaching me a twist on the i before e except after c rule every time I wrote 'received'. Also maybe she should have cited her inspiration to the new rule when she taught it to us.

After watching a movie or TV show we'd read a thanks to the very first person who came up with the idea of credits. When I eat my cereal the name of the Egyptian who invented the first spoon should be engraved on it.

Ok I digress, but If I only get an idea to write an article from Sky News, then I don't have to attribute them. That would mean every article ever written would have a bunch of people to give thanks to at the start - where do you draw the line?

Under fair use I have to attribute them if I cut and paste a part of their article word for word - and this doesn't mean the whole article.

If you'd been to all the places or had permission from the people who had been and you used their words, and you constructed the guide in your own style then it becomes your IP

As you published it freely with no limitations all the new owner would have to do is attribute it to the site at the time.

You could with a struggle get it took down but unless you were suffering a loss because of it being there then it's a no win situation.

• Him going to the place doesn't impact whether what he writes grants him copyright
• If he uses someone else's words, even with their permission, this does not give him copyright of those words
• His own style would mean that he materially changes those words so the original works are unrecognizable otherwise part of the copyright would still belong to the original creator (for example the someone who remixes a song)
• You can't assume that something published on a website is published freely to use or be copied - fair use has restrictions
• Suffering a loss and quantifying the financial hardship or even no hardship but the other party profiting is important

Anyone else interested in this topic, check out the Shepard Fairey (Obama Hope Poster) case.

 

[Retired_member41]

In the guide example, I meant the words from others would have been specifically hired to write them by the publisher with all rights obtained. Seems everyone interprets everything based upon their own idea without actually applying the rules on a case by case basis.

http://youtu.be/vB76C3IQ0eQ

 

[woopwoop]

Seems everyone interprets everything based upon their own idea without actually applying the rules on a case by case basis.

Can't argue with that.

 

[BeachLife]

As you published it freely with no limitations all the new owner would have to do is attribute it to the site at the time.

Unless you are talking about under fair use or dealing, or if it was published with a statement explicitly stating it was free of copyright, this statement is incorrect.

 

[EdwinEdwin is verified member.]

Creative Commons attributions exist precisely because original content is copyrighted in the act of its creation - thus the need for a mechanism to pass certain rights to third parties. There is no need to explicitly assert copyright (but it can always be a handy thing to do to ward off the possibility of subsequent disputes)

So pinching "old" content out of the IA cache (or anywhere else) is definitely infringement - but the rub is actually proving it.

This is a good read http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html