Yesterday evening Black Web 2.0 was invited to an online chat conducted by Patrick O’Keefe of iFroggy Network and Johnathan Bailey of PlagarismToday.com regarding the practice of “Content Scraping.”  Patrick recently discovered that Global Grind was copying all of his articles in full, submitting them to Google News, and displaying them in on their website.    After contacting Global Grind regarding the content scraping and not achieving favorable action, Patrick hosted an online chat to discuss the practice of “Content Scraping” and why it is illegal.

What is Content Scraping

Content Scraping is a computer software technique of extracting information from websites.  Some content scrapers will only copy an excerpt from the content and include a link.  However their are tons of websites that simply copy the entire work without providing links.

Why Content Scraping is Wrong

Content Scraping is in violation of U.S. Copyright Laws if the scraper did not receive express permission from the Copyright Owner to use the work.  The U.S. Copyright Act clearly states: any person who exercises the exclusive rights of a copyright owner, without the copyright owner’s express permission, is an infringer of copyright.  17 USC sec. 501(a). Some Content Scrapers will give credit to the author or link back to the original content.  However, giving credit is never a substitute for asking express permission to use the work.  I discussed this issue here.

Content Scraping also enrages original content producers because scraping can result in loss traffic which in turn results in lost revenue.  It is argued that  content scraping confuses search engines because content appears in two or more places on the web.  As Patrick states on his blog,

“Because my content is in two places, search engines can get confused and this can lead to my original article having to compete with the scraped article for traffic.”  He goes on to state that “Less traffic also means less revenue, directly impacting my quality of life.”

Considering the huge traffic numbers of Global Grind’s and other sites like, it is easy to understand why Patrick and other author’s of original content are furious their traffic is being scraped.

Resolution

Copyright holders have to hold Content Scrapers accountable for their actions.  Copyright holders can file DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) take down complaints with the search engines against the sites like Global Grind.   Also sending Cease and Desists notices may be effective.  If these actions do not produce results, Copyright holders may have to band together and file Copyright Infringement Lawsuits to prevent their content from being stolen.

Please leave comments as to whether you have been a victim of content scraping.

Previously I wrote an article on “Giving Credit When Credit is Due” and it addressed  receiving permission from a copyright owner when using their works.  However, it has recently come to my attention that when bloggers or other journalists re-report news stories from other sources, there is a lot of re-phrasing, re-production or use of bits and pieces of the story to create a seemingly new story or different perspective.

Is this type of use copyright infringement or an exception to copyright infringement laws, i.e., Fair Use?

The United States Copyright Acts lays out several instances where the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair”, meaning an individual can use the work without seeking permission from the owner or being liable for copyright infringement.  They are: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

The Copyright Act sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

• 1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
  2. The nature of the copyrighted work
  3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
  4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work. Copyright Act, Section 107.

Number 3 above, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, is the issue at hand.  The Copyright Office is very clear that there is no exact number of words or phrases one can use without seeking permission.  However, the courts have found that the following practice is considered “Fair Use”:

summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report;

My advice is to truly create a summary of an article using your own words.  Do not take direct paragraphs, sentences or words from any article unless you have received express permission to do so.  Also be sure to use quotation marks for “brief” sentences or phrases directly copied from the article.  Always credit the news source.  If  you are not sure whether you are committing copyright infringement, simply ask permission from the source to use the material.

Yesterday this site posted a story about Ed Lover’s dispute over the domain name C’mon Son.  Basically Ed Lover has been using the phrase “C’mon Son” as a catchy phrase during his You Tube videos and to name his video episodes.  Arguably we can conclude that Ed Lover does have a trademark right to the phrase “C’mon Son.” Trademarks can be words, phrases, tag lines, or logos that identify a product or service offered to the public.  In Ed Lover’s case, the video episodes entitled “C’mon Son” are multi-media products offered to the public  for consumption.

For sake of argument, lets assume Mr. Lover does have a valid trademark to the phrase “C’mon Son” and he wants to register the phrase as a domain name for the launch of his new website.  However, a cybersquatter (one who purchases domain names of trademark owners purely for sale) purchases the domain name first and demands payment of $5000 to release it.  What can Ed Lover do legally to rightfully obtain the domain name from the cybersquatter?

1. First he can hire an attorney to write a simple letter conveying his trademark right in the domain name and demanding that the offender transfer the domain name to him, the rightful trademark owner.  Only the owner of a trademark has the right to use the name to identify any product or service.  This rule also applies to domain names.  An attorney will argue that the cybersquatter is infringing on the trademark of the owner and expressly demand that the cybersquatter cease and desist using the name immediately or further legal action will occur.

2. If the cease and desist letter  does not work, Ed Lover can file a domain name dispute with ICANN.  ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is the governing body for internet (domain) names.  ICANN has a dispute resolution procedure to resolve domain name disputes.  In order to file and be successful at a domain name dispute, Mr. Lover must show the following:

a. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark the domain name owner has in the domain name;

b. Demonstrate that the offender registered the domain name in bad faith, i.e., they registered the domain name to divert traffic from his site; to cybersquat (sit on the name in order to strong arm the owner into purchasing it); or the offender registered it to prevent the rightful owner from doing so. Mr. Lover can certainly prove his case here!

c.  Show that the offender does not have any valid rights or use for the registered domain name. For example, they do not own a business that includes the domain name or they or their company is not generally known by the domain name.

The cost to file a domain name dispute with ICANN is $2600 for a 3 member arbitration panel and $1300 for a single member arbitration panel.

If Mr Lover has not already registered the trademark “C’mon Son” or applied for registration, I would suggest he do so immediately.  Trademark registration is good evidence that he legitimately owns the trademark in question.  It definitely helps when presenting a case before ICANN.

Remember register your business’ domain name as soon as you present the business to the public.  This simple step can save you time and money.