The Creator's Dilemma On Others Making Money Off Your Content
from the offer-it-up-yourself dept
A couple of folk sent in this story of Ryan Sohmer, author of the popular web comic Least I Could Do, where he complains about others "stealing" his content in iPhone apps. But, this isn't the usual case of a content creator lashing out about "stealing." Sohmer has built up a nice model in giving away his comics for free, and we even wrote about his anger earlier this year at the Writers Guild of Canada for trying to force ISPs to pay a "tax" to writers. On the whole, his views are quite progressive on business models and free content. But what he's upset about here is that some others are taking his comics and putting them in fee-based iPhone apps, and thus "profiting" off his content, without his permission:As a general rule, I'm fairly lenient with individuals using our content for personal use. You want to throw up a comic on your blog, use our avatars or wallpapers, that's fine. That's actually what they're there for and truth be told, we appreciate you spreading the word.Alex Winston, who was the first to send this in, asked what we thought Sohmer should do in such a situation, and wondered how those who are open to sharing their works should deal with cases where others profit from those works. We've actually discussed something similar recently, but to more directly address the question, I tend to think that the answer is to simply supply a similar offering yourself -- and make it clear which ones are the official versions. Even if you're giving away your content for free, if people want to pay for it, why not offer them a way to do so? And, if you make it quite clear which is the official version and which is not, most people will go for the official version, because they want to support the artist.
Where I draw the line, however, is an individual lifting our entire comic archives, putting them in an iPhone app, charging 99 cents for it and putting their own advertising banners on each comic. Profiting off of our hard work without so much as a link back to this site. No justifying that, that's ripping us off, plain and simple.
The sad reality of it, is that things appear to be getting worse. Almost every day, I receive a couple of e-mails telling me about a new app or aggregator that's featuring Least I Could Do or Looking For Group.
And, if you're still offering your works for free, and yet others are making money off of some sort of "aggregation," well, at some point you have to admit that perhaps it's the aggregation they're paying for, rather than the content itself, since they could have received the content for free. I recognize that it can seem upsetting at first if it looks like someone is "making money off of my content," but rather than worry too much about it (since it's not going to go away), the answer is to focus on doing whatever it is you can do to make sure that people know of ways to support you directly, and then it's up to them. If someone else is somehow offering something better, then perhaps look into ways to improve what you offer as well. But, in the end, worrying about what other people do will only get you so far. Focus on what you can do.
An alternative option is that if someone is really doing something that is better with your content, you could approach them, and ask them for a reasonable cut of the revenue, noting that in exchange, you'd promote their app to your fans, as well. That would likely increase the number of buyers, and everyone comes away happy.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Gotta love the logic: Someone steals your stuff, and you call them and ask them nicely if they would like to partner with you? What a way to encourage theft. I am going to start selling bootleg copies of Windows. When do you think Microsoft is going to call to partner with me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and why on earth would i buy a bootleg windows OS? i don't even buy official ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If someone is doing something you don't like with something you own the legal copyright to, your only recourse is to out-do them. Because stopping them isn't an option.
Still doesn't answer my question from a few days ago, about what you do when someone republishes something of yours that you simply don't want published. *shrug*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sohmer offers his content for free, so no one is stealing anything. They are merely profiting from his creation by offering access to his free content in the form of an iPhone app. Sohmer's only real bitch is no acknowledgement or link back to his site.
MS, on the other hand, charges for their product. Profiting from a bootleg OS without proper licensing is most definately stealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However, I am in agreement that using freely given away content to make money is something that the creator of the content should not be complaining about. In fact, they should be praising you for finding them a business model. They can then choose to lock up their content, build a similar offer and steal your customers, or partner with you in some way so they get a cut of the profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So there is no way to properly label this as "stealing". Nothing is physically missing and the only thing that can be claimed to be deprived of is unprovable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why even care?
You haven't lost anything. They are more happy; they have gained something. The sellers are more happy; they have some money. You can be happy: You can make. Obviously some people weren't satisfied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why even care?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better yet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better yet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, the content is free, but they are charging for bringing the customer to the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creator Endorsed Mark
http://questioncopyright.org/creator_endorsed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Obvious Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stealing for profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stealing for profit
Copyright holders should never be in the position of having to beg the thieves to let them make some money with them. It's a disgusting concept that only goes to show how totally out of touch with reality Techdirt really is at times. The comments on this thread are very amusing indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stealing for profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stealing for profit
As ever, nobody's saying that the "stealing" is correct or should happen. The point that since it IS happening, there are other options than freaking out and trying to increase the law's involvement. Introducing new draconian laws and new taxes is not going to help content creators in the real world.
In this case, the 3rd party "stealing" from him have identified and exploited a market that he has not identified and exploited himself - in this case, iPhone users. Rather than whining about the app's existence, he should be thinking to himself about how he can exploit this market. The easy way is the undercut the "pirates'" price (in this case free), and use the app to drive more traffic directly to him. This should be easy, as few would choose the paid-for 3rd party app over a free official app if the latter is of the same or higher quality (and since he could, say, offer exclusives through his own app, that should come naturally).
Do you want to address this point that's actually being made, or join the ranks of the idiot ACs in attacking a strawman that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: stealing for profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: stealing for profit
The first people to exploit the market were doing it illegally perhaps, but the actual market (iPhone apps for viewing comics) is certainly NOT based on an illegal activity, and is there for the original creator to exploit if he wishes.
Are you people really that short-sighted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: stealing for profit
The point is, whether the current solution is legal or not, the demand exists. He does not have to exploit it, but he would be silly not to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: stealing for profit
I believe I have hi-lighted a fundamental difference in thinking over commenters here.
One group wants to make a profit: "who cares what other people are doing, how can I use their taking advantage of me to my advantage?"
*goes and makes money*
The other: "Hey! someone else is taking my idea and applying it in a way I didn't think about; I don't care if I could use this to my advantage, I'm going to show that someone that they are a bad, bad person!"
*shakes finger atop the moral high ground*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stealing for profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stealing for profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: stealing for profit
People pay for non-scarce goods all the time. Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: stealing for profit
http://www.pcecon.com/notes/scarcity.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: stealing for profit
Anything digital media that you pay for can be copied to infinity without the bits losing any of their bit-iness, if you will.
A file is digital information, programs express that information meaningfully.
It isn't physical, it is a digital representation of information.
Information is an intangible, non-scarce good.
Infinite.
People pay for digital files all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: stealing for profit
People pay for digital goods all the time. The fact that I paid for an iPhone app today does *not* suddenly mean they're a scare good - it's data. Data can be replicated to infinity without losing any definition, therefore it's infinite.
The only scarcities involved with digital goods are artificial (e.g. the DRM that prevents me from copying my app to a friend's iPhone). This is not the same as a scarce good - the scarcities can be removed by those willing, nobody can infinitely reproduce my TV no matter how they hack it.
As ever, what's being discussed here is how to get people to remain willing to pay for an infinite good. The "criminals" in this case appear to have found a way to do that while the original creator has not. The point of the article is to address that, yes, he can do that too if he stops whining and puts his mind to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stealing for profit
These pirates are filling a market need you aren't. Why aren't you filling that need?
Why aren't you viewing pirates as your R&D and marketing departments.
Why aren't you 'stealing' their good ideas and using those ideas to make you money?
People spend so much time, money and energy worrying about and fighting pirates. Use them to your advantage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: stealing for profit
P.S. I'm not "Stealing" ideas because that's ... stealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: stealing for profit
All culture builds on the past. People are constantly 'stealing' ideas. Louis Vuitton didn't invent luggage, he 'stole' the idea and made his own version. No one creates anything without borrowing an idea or two.
So if you see a creator selling his own works in some way you hadn't thought of before, you aren't going to copy his idea for your own works?
Of course, your Louis Vuitton argument is kinda silly. People who purchase a $50 knock-off of a LV handbag wouldn't be buying the $1200 original if the knock-off wasn't available.
Sure it's the vendor's choice? But what's the best approach for the comic in this story? Get into a legal battle? or provide his own app?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: stealing for profit
"Imitation is the sincerest flattery"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stealing for profit
How do you come up with this stuff? 1) people create things for other reasons than money and 2) people make money from creating stuff without relying on copyright. You're totally wrong.
However, as long as someone can generate "revenue" as defined by our monetary-based economy from your products, you are legally entitled to a share of that revenue, unless you waive that right.
No, you're not. If someone has found a way to use your products in a legal fashion (for example through fair use or through something that doesn't infringe copyright at all) and make money doing it, you have no claim on that revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stealing for profit
Someone sells me a table for $10. They get $10. I take that table and sell it for $25 (possibly by modifying it, possibly not). Do they have a right to some of the $15 in profit that I made? [No, they don't. I already gave them what they were willing to take for the original item].
Okay, now reduce all the values in the above paragraph by $10 and change "table" (a physical item that has a marginal cost to produce) with "data" (a non-physical item with $0 marginal cost). Does the original producer of the data have a right to some of my $5 profit? [No, they don't. I already gave them what they were willing to take for the original item].
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: stealing for profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, that assumes that this is a direct copyright violation under Canadian law and that Apple have written a copyright violation clause into their contracts, but the odds are, I think.
...and, yeah, a free app to compete with the illegitimate paid-for app would probably be a great idea rather than simply complaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't bitch about it.
Besides copiers don't get referred jobs because they don't do the work.
If someone else make money off of something that is good.
It helps spread the work, create a brand and all that.
If it was me I would approach them and offer exclusive content that they wouldn't find elsewhere and ask for money LoL
Who needs copyright?
Only the weak!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I look forward to a future where all of the aggregators ceaselessly churn through the same three pieces of content - one made by Britney Spears and two made by people you'll never hear from again. Fortunately, I'll have like a ZILLION aggregators to choose from! Hooray!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just for the sake of argument
That said, if I were the iPhone app people, I would argue that what people are paying for is simple efficient way to access the comics rather than selling the comics.
If I were the comic book guy, I would create my own app or equivalent, as suggested in another comment, and market it as coming from the creator of the comics. Perhaps he could make a special page on his site that displays the comics in an iPhone specific way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What do you hope to recover from someone who sells your stuff so cheap? I agree that at times it can tick you off but it isn't worth the time and energy to go after them. I have exposed a couple thiefs and they were seen as such by their clients; and that was satisfying. You just have to adjust to the mindset of taking pride in the spread of your work and knowing you were an innovator.
Through being published the culprits reselling his comics are exposed. It is now up to the buyers to decide if they care...or, the app stores to decide if they want to continue selling these apps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This artist is offering his comics for free, but is getting revenue in ad's that are placed on his site, and from t-shirt sales of his content. He can provide the content for free b/c he's using it as leverage for other revenue. But it is not 'free' and it is still his.
For someone to pick it up and call it their own, and then make a profit off of it is stealing. That is traffic that is being taken from his site, and thus revenue loss to him.
To say, 'then provide your own alternative' is pretty much condoning it, and accepting the bad manners of the other party. He shouldn't have to reach out to the person who is stealing his content and try and turn it into a business venture. If anything, the person should have contacted him first or at least provided a link to the original in the app.
I have to ask, really, if someone were to write a crawler for this site that takes all your articles and then makes an iphone app that allows ppl to view them with a different interface and with no mention of you at all, would you not be the least bit upset?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't go there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All the same, the one thing I would ever consider going the legal route over is someone else passing my work off as their own and making money off it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The point is not whether or not Mike would be upset (he probably would be). The point is that Mike wouldn't sue, but would look to free market solutions to the problem instead of resorting to legal threats and courtroom solutions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have to ask, really, if someone were to write a crawler for this site that takes all your articles and then makes an iphone app that allows ppl to view them with a different interface and with no mention of you at all, would you not be the least bit upset?
Nope. Not upset. Totally cool by me. Would be nicer if they credited us, obviously, but the content is public domain.
Most people would probably figure out before too long where the content actually comes from -- and then whoever copied it without credit would look bad, destroying their credibility. but that's their choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My two cents, copyright but free for anyone to use.
No, it's not. Theft involves removing said product from any attempts at others from accessing the same.
This is ***CLEARLY*** not the same in this regard. The artist is more upset they didn't get to the app first so are now pointing fingers at use of his works in an app which seems more about ads than it does content.
Does this app *ONLY* show his works or others as well?
There's a great comic site I visit so often which brings together the works of many in one place. I don't "pay" for these works simply because most content is uploaded by the creators themselves.
If one should build an app which pulls down this same thing, does this mean the website owner should object? The artists?
Bullshit. This guy clearly thanks people for distributing his works he offers for free then turns around and bitches when someone must incur a cost to do the same damn thing.
Or do people really think this guy's profiting off a $0.99 cent app? Incredible. I seriously doubt the $0.99 covers the bandwidth fee of the app in question, regardless if it's ad supported or not.
Anyone, and I do mean anyone, who runs a website knows advertising isn't going to cover operational costs. They only offset them, marginally at best.
How in the world would it be ok for someone to charge money for something that you provide for free, and for them to not pay you when it's your product?
By understanding WHAT IS BEING SOLD. The app or the comic?
I'm guessing, in this regard, it's the app.
People, come back with this argument when the app developer is selling lithographs of these strips under his name.
Until then, aggregating content isn't illegal as it "steals" nothing but gives great, great benefits to making more works available to an even wider audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lobo Santo's Ugly Cat and moore850
He has an RSS feed.
I have paid money for my RSS feed reader on my Droid, and if I were to subscribe to his RSS feed, (which I certainly won't now) wouldn't that be the same *exact* thing? Didn't *he* set up said RSS feed?
Furthermore, these apps (and I'm guessing here, because I can't search the app store to find them) probably pull a bunch of "free" web comics and aggregate them into one app. That would mean that people aren't paying for his comic, but instead on the convenience of one-stop-shopping for multiple comics.
Lastly: Stealing != Copying. I write off even a well thought off argument when I read someone call it "stealing". If I threw a plastic bottle on the side of the road I wouldn't be "raping the earth" I'd be littering, no matter how badly Greenpeace hates it.
Enjoy your weekend!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lobo Santo's Ugly Cat and moore850
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think what this artist is doing is exactly what is talked about here: He is monetizing his connection with his fans by encouraging them to prefer stuff he sells.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's one thing to tell your fans on your blog, "Buy/Use my app instead of paying for this other guys so you can directly support me." and a totally different thing to say "These app developers are thieves, and if you buy their app you are just supporting thieves."
He comes off as childish, to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not if you play with semantics the right way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trademark is the Issue really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trademark is the Issue really
An RSS reader is just that, something that can read RSS. Selling an app with "comics like X and Y and Z" suggests you are selling content. That is bad.
An RSS reader would also read things like ads, links, and other material in the feed. A comic distributor just rips the comics completely out of context and presents them like that.
The difference is huge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trademark is the Issue really
If you take copyright laws out of the equation this activity should still be regarded illegal.
Creating a free iphone app with the same content, without ads, and providing links back to the original creation should on the other hand be legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reminds me of another example
There is also a free wiki on the world, and the creators chime in occasionally to correct some implication errors and to provide new material there as well. It's a very cool system, IMO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HA!
Wait a second here... So, which is it? The latter group fundamentally disproves the fears of the former group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, seriously. Entitlement culture sucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]