Some one has used a large portion (they copied and pasted 341 words to be exact) of one of my hubs on a facebook page and is claiming the use of the Fair Use Act. Unfortunately Google has picked this up and consequently is sending me 50 % less traffic for this particular hub which used to be my most popular work.
This person refuses to remove my work, or give me any credit. Is there anything I can do?
Start to take legal action against this person.
I had the same thing happen with my best poem which was getting over 50 views a day. Since someone posted in on FB my views are down to 2 - 3. I had no idea what to do until now.
This thread made me think some more about something I've been thinking about for awhile: Whether Google indexes Facebook posts. I looked it up; my understanding now is they do not, only incidentally or accidentally like if an FB post is connected to Twitter. Facebook, being connected to Microsoft and so Bing, seems a competitor of Google. They (Google) only index posts on fan pages from Facebook not posts on profiles. So, content in notes and posts on your profile are not indexed.
Here's what someone from MOZ said: http://moz.com/community/q/are-facebook … eply_61757
Here's something on the limited way Google does index Facebook content: http://searchengineland.com/google-sear … den-130894
take legal action I agree,report them and quickly. Show them the original work and then what they wrote so they can see they copied it.
The fair use act is valid only if they don't infringe on the copyright of the original work which this person is doing,. First you can report them to Facebook and they will usually remove the work. That should work.
This person is claiming that because it's for educational purposes, the fair use act applies. From what I know of this act, it supposed to apply to educational works when you're quoting things like research etc.
I'll contact Facebook, should I send a standard DMCA letter?
Absolutely contact FB. Go to the offending page and hit "report" and it should give you a list of options.
Fair Use Doctrine applies for many things and educational purposes is one. However, it must not be to an extend that it diminishes your ability to prosper from your original and in the majority of cases it must be no more than 10% of your total work. How many words in your article minus the 341 words should give an approximate percentage.
Note: This does not apply to recipes, previously published works if your original is based on one, a review, commentary, used to demonstrate a technique and others.
Email me if you wish and I will research it further.
See: 1. A particular use is more likely to be considered fair when the copied work is factual rather than creative
2.The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. How much of the copyrighted work was used in the new work?
Yes, use their "report" button and in your report, utilise the standard DMCA wording as much as you can, to show you know your rights.
I would if Facebook doesn't work. Yes they can quote you and use quotation marks and reference the source but that doesn't sound like what they did.
Here's a link to Fair Use FAQ.
Can you leave a comment on the FB page where it appears?
Send the DMCA to them, and then their webhost, and then their advertisers, and then Google.
Send a DMCA letter and you can actually send the link of the facebook page via Google and they won't index it: https://support.google.com/legal/troubl … 14905?rd=2
More about the DMCA Policy: https://developers.google.com/storage/docs/dmca
Also, you may want to notify facebook as well, DMCA letter would work.
DMCA notices are worthless if the person who receives it files a Counter Notification Letter to the Cease and Desist letter they get from their web host. The Counter Notification Letter pretty much lets the Host off the hook and then your only recourse is to file a lawsuit in the district of the alleged offender within 10 business days. This means you have to travel to wherever the alleged offender lives (pay for transportation and lodging costs) find the court and file the lawsuit (roughly $25) within the legal time frame and then you must come back on the actual court date (second round of travel expenses) and physically appear in court to state your case and hope that the alleged offender does not show up to make a counter claim. So, is it worth it to spend close to $1000 to pursue legal action for an article that is earning you a couple dollars a year?
I'm not suggesting that you don't file the notice, most times it is enough to scare some sense into an alleged offender, but if it doesn't then what? What if the alleged offender lives in another country? It's not worth the headache over a few lost dollars.
I decided to give the person a chance to remove my work, explaining that because of their infringement I have lost a considerable amount of traffic and therefore income. Thankfully, they agreed to remove the work stating that they did not realize my work was a source of income (personally I think that's bs).
But now I have a bigger problem. One of the sites that stole a considerable portion of my work did remove the offending page, however they are now selling copies of it for $2.95. How do I deal with that?
This is so frustrating, it at the same time a bit flattering I guess. It must be a really good article (all about dragonflies).
Sounds like it is time for the DCMA letter. It is amazing what people will do to make money with things that are not theirs.
From what I've read in "The Copyright Handbook" I'm entitled to a portion of any revenue they've made on the article, is that accurate?
I filed a complaint with FB regarding my poem and they removed it. In my complaint I stated that I lost revenue due to the unauthorized use of my poem.
Counter-notifications are pretty rare and in my experience the host often ignores them. Even if they don't, you can get then with a DMCA to their advertiser and to search engines to get them deindexed.
Counter Notifications are not rare especially to professionals in the internet marketing industry They carry a lot of weight and hosts do not ignore them they keep them so they are not held liable in any legal case that may be presented.
A counter notification can scare just as easily as the DMCA. You have to look at it from the marketer's point of view and not just as the content creator. Many IM's pull content from article directories and other PLR sources to use as filler on their sites. Most of these IM's do not rely on Google or other search engines or even third party advertisers because they pay for direct traffic through ad networks. Several of the IM's I associate with are earning in excess of 40K per month so do you really think they are going to be scared off by a DMCA from someone who publishes articles for pennies on sites like HP or Squidoo? Google already thinks these two sites are content farms so we are already associated by default with actual article directories that allow anyone to use their content anywhere so long as the keep all the attribution links in place.
Again, I'm not saying don't file, I'm saying you have to pick your fights.
Content thieves are not professional Internet markets and $40,000 annual income is small compared to the average income of hosting company executives. Hosting companies are under no obligation to host any website, do not want to be sued, have the most money to lose and have no respect for plagiarists. They give plagiarists 48 hours to respond to a DMCA because they have to under that law. Then, they remove the site from its hosting privileges. They don't need the hassle and anyone who posts plagiarized content violates the terms of service of the hosting company agreement.
Authors and photographers can contact advertisers without a formal DMCA notice. Just a short 'Cease and Desist' email demanding that they stop posting ads and profiting from their plagiarized content is enough to get a guy removed forever from ad programs such as Google AdSense, Chitika, Bidvertiser, ClickBank, etc.
Without a way to make money from visitors, content thieves get caught in their own trap eventually.
For clarification, Livewithrichard actually said 40k per month, not year.
I have submitted a DMCA counter-notification and had my site restored. In order not to be sued, hosts must comply with take-down and counter notifications. Not to do so, is unlawful.
There are also circumstances whereby hosts have no direct control over data, such as via the provision of dedicated servers.
There is a lot of anti-competitive behaviour out there. If hosts did not respond to counter notifications, then it would be an easy way to wipe your competitors out of the water.
Hosting companies evaluate the claims by hand and they do make a determination about which claim is truthful. Most of them act very responsibly and want to protect their reputations in the industry.
In the discussion above, we were discussing complaints against a real plagiarist site not a false claim against a legitimately authored content site like yours. You're right, of course; they do see both types of complaints.
I have to be honest and say that I disagree with the view that hosting companies evaluate the truthfulness of DMCA notices. In my experience, upon receipt of a notification, the content is removed, regardless of the merits. All the host is interested in, is simply protecting themselves under the safe harbor provisions. The simplest and most cost effective method of doing this is to remove any content that has been complained about and equally, restoring it upon receipt of a counter-notification.
It's okay, some people just have too big an ego to read things all the way through.
Before the first Panda, I had a relatively large article directory called 411Article.com It had roughly 500k articles and over 40k members. I received DMCA claims and counter claims every single day so I think I'm pretty well versed on the subject. The directory was so big and profitable that I had to put it on a dedicated server and my host informed me that I only needed to forward them the counter claims to keep in compliance. After Panda, like most article directories, the site was losing more income than it was earning so I closed it down. Now my sites are mainly IM sites where I pay for traffic through ad networks. I do not care if Google indexes a single page. I don't need Google to earn on those sites. I'm just trying to give you a perspective from the other side of the table with a voice of experience and not something I'm regurgitating from some SEO website.
@Marisa You may be right but don't be surprised if you do get a counter claim whether it is a legitimate claim or not, it serves only to derail the original claim. Do not for one second think that just because you have a time stamp on your content published online that it will constitute as the absolute authority for copyright reasons. Copyright occurs at the time it is written not the time it is published and if someone really wanted to push the issue they had better be able to afford the cost of real legal action.
But the point is, you can't know beforehand who's going to fight back and who isn't.
So surely the approach should be, file all DMCA's?
Ignoring a counter-notification is totally lawful so long as the terms of service/contract specified that they host and removed material at will--as most hosts do.
You are completely wrong... A counter notification is a provision of the DMCA and it is meant to keep competitors from maliciously abusing the system. It cannot be ignored and in fact it provides the host and ISP's a safe harbor from liability in any copyright claim.
Except that they can. As many of us bloggers have discovered. No host is obliged to put any content up just because the user claims it is legal to do so. Blogger for example routinely ignores counter-claims. They reserve the right to withdraw service at any time for any reason.
Yes, I suspect that sites such as Blogger may well do, under the guise of their terms and conditions. But they cannot do it pursuant to DMCA. It would be unlawful to do so.
Also, don't confuse Web 2.0 sites such as Blogger, HubPages and Squidoo with web hosting companies.
I am not wrong. Blogger ignores counter-notifications and it is legal for them to do so because they provide free blogs at will and without guarantee. But if you refuse to believe that, that's your choice.
I seriously doubt you have any idea what Blogger does and does not ignore. Besides, Blogger is not a hosting site they are a free blogging platform. Why would any reasonable person try and sue a free platform? Also, nobody would file a counter claim to reinstate a free blog unless they could reasonably prove they have cause. You have totally confused the purpose of a counter notification. It is not to get a blog reinstated it is meant to provide a host free harbor from any possible litigation.
Sure it is used sometimes by unscrupulous individuals but for the most part it is used legitimately by professional internet marketers who do not care what Google does or thinks. They are only concerned with their host and like I've said a few times already, the counter notification serves as a safe harbor for the host. Most internet marketers are marketing either their own products or other people's products and we rely on ad networks to provide us traffic including Adwords. There is no fear of having pages de-indexed and no fear of losing our host or ISP's. The only ones that do fear that are the bad apples that only have a site full of plagiarized content. I don't know what the payoff is for having a site like that unless they are using small ad networks that provide contextual ad links but I do know that when one goes down 3 more pop up in its place and they are often located in foreign countries.
I just recently had this problem on facebook. I reported it but don't know what will happen.
One of my poems was copied by 3 sites and I filed a DMCA with Google. Google removed just 1 URL from the search engines as it had ads running on it. Remaining 2 URLs were rejected. I couldn't figure out why they were rejected. They are hosted by Blogger and don't run any ads currently. Would this also comply with the Fair Use Act?
File one through Blogger to have it removed...
How? How can I contact Blogger? Blogger itself is hosted by Google.
Google is huge; complaining to one part about another part is like complaining about your local Walmart, to the manager of one in another state.
I can't remember how, but you can find their profile or Google the blogger report form and complain that way.
I agree Google is huge; But it does not have to move to your local Walmart to know about your complaint. It can know about it with just one click through its desktop or tablet.
There is some reason behind the rejection of those 2 URLs. I think it's because of Fair Use Act posted by Daughter of Maat.
Google owns dozens of companies. I repeat - complaining to one company about another, won't help you.
Here is the form. Report through that.
by Arthur Fontes7 years ago
I have found a site map and emailed the two email accts in the site map. Before filing a DMCA is there anyone else I could notify?I do not want to give the guy a backlink. I found it when I googled the title...
by Peg Cole4 years ago
Following the advice of a fellow hubber I did a search query on myself on Google. The first several hubs which came up were normal and then I found one of my hubs that led to a "Secret Search Engine" labs by...
by Marisa Wright9 years ago
A discussion started about this on the end of another thread, but it's got buried. I was checking an early Hub today and it reminded me, because I'd used a photo from another website. At that time, I didn't...
by Kylyssa Shay2 years ago
I filed a DMCA report for a page that copied my hub. The hub existed as a lens since 12/12/10.The content is obviously and clearly copied and even mentions that it was taken from Squidoo at the top. Yet Google rejected...
by Ronald E Franklin16 months ago
I'm planning a hub about one particular actor in one particular scene of a movie. Without a visual representation of the actor in the scene the article would be meaningless, but no free or non-copyrighted photos appear...
by Roberto Eldrum3 years ago
I had a Squidoo lens which was locked about 2-3 months ago. I had fixed the violations but the greenlight request was never answered. So, it remained locked. Now it was transferred to HubPages automatically. I tried to...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.