JB
Attribution is fair and I hope nobody has ever felt that I haven’t given it to them on the I run or previous ones. I worry that people with a bit of right on their side though are using a little truth to suit their monetary agendas on some blogs. For instance, I go to places like ProBlogger a lot for both business and web development ideas, not for blogging but as a web developer. I see someone write something about basic SEO (search engine optimisation), a lot of what I see on ProBlogger is not new in my line of work by the way. So do they own ‘basic SEO’? Nobody else can blog it? Which is funny because I might have found that on A List Apart a year or two earlier and its kicked around for a long time with a slight rewording and then its up again on other blogs. Finally making ProBlogger or another who gets copied and points a finger. You see some of these guys are expanding it out from ripping text straight off the page. They just want accreditation for the link and complaints are as much about the naming as them not getting a link. And that I think is up to whether or not I particularly want to give them one, its a courtesy.

So a lot of my issue over there was about the mixing up of all these issues and calling it copytheft or whatever on the one hand, and running around and trying to push enforcement of things that weren’t in fact law. Hyperlining to them for example. And the conversation was rude, I just put in one comment and came back the next day to find myself flamed by Duncan Riley from BlogHerald. In fact Duncan’s article publicly outing WebPro News had comments shut abusively I noticed as everyone didn’t agree with him. The final comment simply asked why he never accredited the Old Bailey tv show image that was in the article – a fair question? He said he’d take an image off his tv next time but that’s not exactly the right thing either I’d expect.

All I really did was put forward the suggestion and walk away that it is a reality of the internet we work with that it isn’t secure and you can’t protect your stuff outright. So, knowing this fact of life, they should consider first what content they put up there. If its really valuable information that is marketable and sellable publish a hard copy book before they put it on the web. I didn’t think that condoned copytheft. So I came back after a day and found the witch-hunting continuing and unsubscribed.

I really do hope that these guys see that point. A little right on one’s side isn’t a licence to be that way. And the final article by Darren Rowse angry was confirmation to me at least they had all lost their marbles.

Anyway I guess its water under the bridge and I’m moving on. ProBlogger is for some but not for me anymore. So I hope you understand better where I’m coming from – it was the BlogHerald guy saying I supported content theft actually, and its still irksome to think about. If I’ve ever actually said that one I seriously never intended to say so.

OK I have to run, sorry for the laboriously long comment. Have a great day.

JB
Attribution is fair and I hope nobody has ever felt that I haven’t given it to them on the I run or previous ones. I worry that people with a bit of right on their side though are using a little truth to suit their monetary agendas on some blogs. For instance, I go to places like ProBlogger a lot for both business and web development ideas, not for blogging but as a web developer. I see someone write something about basic SEO (search engine optimisation), a lot of what I see on ProBlogger is not new in my line of work by the way. So do they own ‘basic SEO’? Nobody else can blog it? Which is funny because I might have found that on A List Apart a year or two earlier and its kicked around for a long time with a slight rewording and then its up again on other blogs. Finally making ProBlogger or another who gets copied and points a finger. You see some of these guys are expanding it out from ripping text straight off the page. They just want accreditation for the link and complaints are as much about the naming as them not getting a link. And that I think is up to whether or not I particularly want to give them one, its a courtesy.

So a lot of my issue over there was about the mixing up of all these issues and calling it copytheft or whatever on the one hand, and running around and trying to push enforcement of things that weren’t in fact law. Hyperlining to them for example. And the conversation was rude, I just put in one comment and came back the next day to find myself flamed by Duncan Riley from BlogHerald. In fact Duncan’s article publicly outing WebPro News had comments shut abusively I noticed as everyone didn’t agree with him. The final comment simply asked why he never accredited the Old Bailey tv show image that was in the article – a fair question? He said he’d take an image off his tv next time but that’s not exactly the right thing either I’d expect.

All I really did was put forward the suggestion and walk away that it is a reality of the internet we work with that it isn’t secure and you can’t protect your stuff outright. So, knowing this fact of life, they should consider first what content they put up there. If its really valuable information that is marketable and sellable publish a hard copy book before they put it on the web. I didn’t think that condoned copytheft. So I came back after a day and found the witch-hunting continuing and unsubscribed.

I really do hope that these guys see that point. A little right on one’s side isn’t a licence to be that way. And the final article by Darren Rowse angry was confirmation to me at least they had all lost their marbles.

Anyway I guess its water under the bridge and I’m moving on. ProBlogger is for some but not for me anymore. So I hope you understand better where I’m coming from – it was the BlogHerald guy saying I supported content theft actually, and its still irksome to think about. If I’ve ever actually said that one I seriously never intended to say so.

OK I have to run, sorry for the laboriously long comment. Have a great day.

First off, thank you very much for the post and for the clarification. I appreciate you adding to the discussion.

To answer your question though, there isn’t a law that requires adding a link to a post you use in another blog. The link doesn’t provide any protection one way or another.

You see, if you use a whole work without permission, it’s copyright infringement with or without the link. If you use a snippet and attribute the original source, it doesn’t matter if the attribution isn’t in the form of a hyperlink so long as it is easily located.

I’m pretty sure that there are other ways to attribute a source other than hyperlinking. However, it’s by far the easiest and most direct way. I suppose you could use MLA or Chicago style, but it seems to me that a hyperlink is much easier. It’s a win-win.

The problem is that most people who don’t hyperlink don’t attribute at all. That’s where plagiarism comes in. Even in the case of small snippets that might fall under fair use, you have to attribute your source. Any non attributed use of someone else’s work is a violation of copyright law.

Hyperlinks are just the easiest and most accepted means to an end. If you want to find another way to bring an attribution up to legal code, I’d be willing to hear it.

Oh, and though I’m glad you love the look of the site, I can’t take much of the credit for it. I borrowed heavily from a theme and other code snippets, the credit is in the footer. I did a fair amount of hacking on my own, but I had a huge head start. Once I get back home, I’m going to start on a custom layout though.

Cary,

I’m sorry to hear that someone stole your site. If there’s anything that I can do to help, just let me know. My resources and knowledge are at your disposal.

Let me know how it turns out!

But more I particularly read ProBlogger for a year as it was less political and of a calibre above this cat fighting that seems to be the mood of the moment there.

I don’t even know the law on this one exactly to be honest. Is there a law saying you must hyperlink to a source on the web? I kind of doubt it but if i’m wrong that’s no surprise. And I’m particularly concerned that this has evolved into the witch hunting of public outings – in some cases to be proven wrong like BlogHerald regarding Calcanis (if I recall rightly at 8am). Some people are in the belief out there that if they see a link to a software program that they own that link somehow and deserve accreditation for mentioning it first, a kudos accreditation.

But I neither support the ripper offers either as you notice. Very true. And am willing to live with the idea that we all have multivarious webs that we live in with our own ideas of best behaviour and bad. That’s what makes it so special. Unfortunately if a group hang out long enough together a certain group think can occur where they believe that theirs is the rule of law on the web. What is the law?

Statements in their comments such as only certain people should be allowed to have blogs for instance make me a bit ill. Its very elitist to believe so.

Anyway an interesting offshoot flame went on over at Andy Merrits blog http://andymerrett.co.uk/ with the BlogHerald guy as well. Its worth a read.

But I liked your article it was balanced and fair. Sorry my comments were in moderation but I ended up following the link back here for a look. Its one everyone will probably have to agree to disagree on though lol. I have to run off to uni now. If you want to comment again its fine, I just deleted it as repetative spam before I found this article, sorry. I need to fix the usability of that one for sure.

Nice site too, another WordPress customiser.

But more I particularly read ProBlogger for a year as it was less political and of a calibre above this cat fighting that seems to be the mood of the moment there.

I don’t even know the law on this one exactly to be honest. Is there a law saying you must hyperlink to a source on the web? I kind of doubt it but if i’m wrong that’s no surprise. And I’m particularly concerned that this has evolved into the witch hunting of public outings – in some cases to be proven wrong like BlogHerald regarding Calcanis (if I recall rightly at 8am). Some people are in the belief out there that if they see a link to a software program that they own that link somehow and deserve accreditation for mentioning it first, a kudos accreditation.

But I neither support the ripper offers either as you notice. Very true. And am willing to live with the idea that we all have multivarious webs that we live in with our own ideas of best behaviour and bad. That’s what makes it so special. Unfortunately if a group hang out long enough together a certain group think can occur where they believe that theirs is the rule of law on the web. What is the law?

Statements in their comments such as only certain people should be allowed to have blogs for instance make me a bit ill. Its very elitist to believe so.

Anyway an interesting offshoot flame went on over at Andy Merrits blog http://andymerrett.co.uk/ with the BlogHerald guy as well. Its worth a read.

But I liked your article it was balanced and fair. Sorry my comments were in moderation but I ended up following the link back here for a look. Its one everyone will probably have to agree to disagree on though lol. I have to run off to uni now. If you want to comment again its fine, I just deleted it as repetative spam before I found this article, sorry. I need to fix the usability of that one for sure.

Nice site too, another WordPress customiser.

It’s funny, too. I got home yesterday after a long day of following all this talk about content theft only to find that someone had stolen my whole site…literally!

Too much

First off, thank you very much for the post and for the clarification. I appreciate you adding to the discussion.

To answer your question though, there isn't a law that requires adding a link to a post you use in another blog. The link doesn't provide any protection one way or another.

You see, if you use a whole work without permission, it's copyright infringement with or without the link. If you use a snippet and attribute the original source, it doesn't matter if the attribution isn't in the form of a hyperlink so long as it is easily located.

I'm pretty sure that there are other ways to attribute a source other than hyperlinking. However, it's by far the easiest and most direct way. I suppose you could use MLA or Chicago style, but it seems to me that a hyperlink is much easier. It's a win-win.

The problem is that most people who don't hyperlink don't attribute at all. That's where plagiarism comes in. Even in the case of small snippets that might fall under fair use, you have to attribute your source. Any non attributed use of someone else's work is a violation of copyright law.

Hyperlinks are just the easiest and most accepted means to an end. If you want to find another way to bring an attribution up to legal code, I'd be willing to hear it.

Oh, and though I'm glad you love the look of the site, I can't take much of the credit for it. I borrowed heavily from a theme and other code snippets, the credit is in the footer. I did a fair amount of hacking on my own, but I had a huge head start. Once I get back home, I'm going to start on a custom layout though.

Cary,

I'm sorry to hear that someone stole your site. If there's anything that I can do to help, just let me know. My resources and knowledge are at your disposal.

Let me know how it turns out!

It's funny, too. I got home yesterday after a long day of following all this talk about content theft only to find that someone had stolen my whole site…literally!

Too much