Sometimes It's Better To Just Let People Copy Your Content Than Deal With Licensing
from the just-take-it dept
For the last few months, we've been going back and forth with a well-known major mainstream news organization about syndicating some Techdirt content. There's no monetary exchange here. They just want to republish some of our content. I'm totally cool with it, as we're perfectly happy to get more people reading what we have to say, and as we've said repeatedly, we've declared everything we do here to be in the public domain so people can do what they want with it. Yet, because of the way things work these days, this company still requires a licensing agreement, and that's meant months and months of back and forth delays as lawyers have to look over stuff. Admittedly, some of this is my fault for being slow to review things, but that's part of the hassle. I'd be perfectly happy if this publication just decided to start reposting posts here with a nice linkback without even having to go through the legal discussion. In fact, the more we've gone back and forth over the agreement, the more I realize that this license agreement only serves to make things worse for me -- because the lawyers want me to "indemnify" and promise that anything I write won't get them in legal hot water. In other words, all this license really does is create increased liability for me.I'm almost wondering if a better strategy isn't to just follow the strategy of the site Universe Today, which was sent in (months ago, actually) by clemahieu, who put up a post telling major media properties to "please 'steal' our content":
I’m not sure if you've noticed, but Universe Today articles are showing up on other websites, including our good friends over at Discovery News, Physorg, and even the Christian Science Monitor. I've had a few people emailing me, warning me that people are stealing our content.We've had a few other big news organizations approach us about similar deals to the one I mentioned above, and I'm pretty tempted to just point them to this post going forward, and tell them to use whatever they want (which they could already just do) rather than have to go through the whole "license agreement" process again.They're not stealing, I'm encouraging them to steal. Here's the deal, and I've actually said this for years and years: feel free to use Universe Today articles for anything you like. You don't need to ask permission. If you find an article that you like, and you'd like to put it on your website, be our guest. Free. You can put it into a website, record it as a podcast, include it your Astronomy Club's newsletter, etc.
All we ask is that you attribute Universe Today as the original source of the article, and that you give credit to the original writer. If it's on the web, please provide a link back to the original article on Universe Today. I think that's fair. Free content for your website in exchange for a link back.
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is a quick fix to this problem agree to it and place in the agreement that Techdirt will not post anything that will get them in trouble as long as they review the post before copying in an actively decide on what articles to use.
That way you push the burden back to them, the one who is copying it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Strange logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
This is a reason I dislike Creative Commons. Not because it's trying to do something good, but it's doing it at the expense to believe copyright can't touch it.
That's simply not true. Even with "take it" messages all over the web, there is no guarantee, unless it's in writing, the information *is* free.
While I get the licensing issues are a pain in the ass, they're required by companies who do want to refrain from finding themselves liable over commentary stated by others.
It's a pretty pathetic situation, but until copyright law is repealed, perhaps it's best to consider the other side and put some speed on those negotiations. If this is problematic, perhaps just say "no".
Please stop pretending this isn't an issue for them, because it is.
It strikes me rather perplexing those who find copyright a problem be the least to understand its ramifications on trying to give their own content away.
Would you really accept "word of mouth" to run your business?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
Would you really accept "word of mouth" to run your business?"
Like it or not, word of mouth runs many businesses. That's why some have great reputations and loyal customers (say Apple or Nordstroms) and some have lousy reputations (Best Buy, in particular their Geek Squad, and various cable companies).
Word of mouth is even more important now, considering how quickly this information can be disseminated. If you're constantly hassling people about using this or that thing without permission, you'll find that your reputation heads directly for the toilet incredibly fast.
Why not preempt all the hassle by letting them know that they can borrow and reprint as long as they credit the source and link back? That's asking hardly anything and builds you a ton of goodwill, whereas DMCA takedown notices and the like tend to alienate those who could help you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
That was the opposite of her point. I've done quite a bit of business design, and I always hesitate before using resources I didn't create from scratch, even if they were free and available for commercial use.
Why? Because they can always change their minds later, and even if a judge looks at my screengrabs of their 'IT'S FREE' posts, I still a) don't have an actual license in hand and b) we'd still have to hire an attorney and go to court. In other words, there's still too much liability for us, not for the original creator.
So I spend time recreating what others have already done and wasting my client's money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
I'm not sure what you mean by this - Creative Commons licenses are perfectly valid copyright licenses.
I agree with your general principle - if you want to give away your content, just putting "please take it" in a post somewhere doesn't really cut it - you really need a license linked to from every page so everyone knows where they stand - even if the license itself is no more complex than the WTFPL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
This is the problem with an automatic opt in copyright system. You've got content, people that want the content, and other people that want to disseminate that content to people. With our system, you have to automatically assume you can't have the content. Why is that the default?
Wouldn't it be easier to require registration for copyright? A registration with explicit rules about how you mark the content in different mediums? Say, a blog that wishes to enjoy copyright must display the mark on their homepage banner? That way, if (insert major media publication here) wants to use the content, they just check for the mark and if it's not there they're good to go. Instead we have a system in which everyone is so afraid to act that they don't.
I'm pretty sure that isn't the point of copyright....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
In fact I'm not sure there is any need for registration as such - how about if there were just some rules that say if you put a (c) on the front page/album cover/whatever then you've claimed copyright, otherwise it's PD?
OTOH an unenforceable law is no better than no law, so what say we just scrap the whole thing ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
What precise benefit do you see of copyright that we cannot get without it? The things I see advocated here work just fine without government-granted monopolies, so why need them at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
I often suspect that to be a product of peoples natural incline to search for a middle ground (pardon the not-pun). The legal premise behind copyright in the US and UK is that an artificial economic incentive is a net gain for society, but no burden of proof is acknowledged and no standard is set to determine if copyright fulfils its premise. When people agree with the premise then they may confuse calls to abolish copyright because it is is not fulfilling its premise with calls to abandon the premise itself.
Personally, I think there are plenty of questions to ask about the premise itself as it seems to be a solution looking for a problem. Generally the way our system works is to have minimal restriction and rely on market economics to meet societies needs. The idea that we should interfere to try and improve the efficiency of the system goes against much of what I understand about economics. The premise behind copyright isn't about ensuring a minimal level of service, or standards, it's about redirecting wealth to increase production.
The trouble there is a dilemma of whether to deal with copyright or it's premise first. If everyone held the same premise then I would probably argue that should be the subject of discussion. However, most of the people who fervently support copyright do so with a completely different premise along the lines of authors rights (sometimes without admitting it, but most of the time quite openly). When you shift the issue to the premise then you risk those people actually getting the idea of authors rights codified in law (as it already is in some countries and to some extent in treaties). It is obvious that they wield the most influence over law makers, so that is a serious issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
You want to write about vampires? If it's in the modern setting they can't twinkle or Twilight sues.
If you want to write about orcs, Tolkien will come a calling. The contracts with publishers are about 5 million pages too much with liability and I hate it!
I'd rather just write a story and call it a day. But we can't do that because of the trudging on toes. >_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
note that is != was, but the big corporations with their lobbiests basically control the is on this matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
No, they're not. Creative Commons is a non-profit and has no ties to federal jurisdiction to circumvent copyright law.
CC is just a glorified "Go ahead and take it" system. Until CC is embedded into copyright laws, none of it is "free for the taking".
See, even you're confused by it. That's pretty telling right there.
@Lion:
I've not seen a business run word of mouth in a long time. Saying "Sure, we'll have that for you by Friday." means nothing until the Friday arrives and the item is in hand.
Guess what happens when it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
Guess what happens when it's not.
i think you are confusing "word of mouth" with "giving your word".
"word of mouth" is what other people say about you to other people. giving someone your word is a promise to do what you said you would do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
CC licenses don't "circumvent" copyright. They are copyright licenses, grants of permission from the copyright holder to the public. Public copyright licenses have been upheld many times around the world. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Law has some relevant links.
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/17422 addresses some previous Techdirt posts on CC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
Until a court of law proves infringement did not occur can the licenses be accepted.
Therefore, you can defend CC all you want. However, it's still doesn't remove the protection needed just in case, one day, an artist wakes up and decides they're having a bad day.
No contract. No content. No exceptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
Why not? At least one highly-regarded copyright lawyer says they are. If you disagree, please provide an opinion from a copyright lawyer stating why it is not a valid license.
... and that matters because????
Sorry - can you say that in english? It sounds like you're trying to claim that because they aren't part of the government, that they can't write a copyright license, but that makes absolutely no sense - so assuming that's what you're claiming, please provide a reference to US law that backs you up, and then explain how ANY corporation can write a valid copyright license with such a law in place.
Sure, if by "glorified" you mean "vetted by lawyers".
Umm. at this point, I have to ask if you actually know what a license *is* - because none of what you are writing makes any sense. At all.
It takes *years* for laws to be amended. If copyright law needed to be rewritten every time someone licenses something and didn't use an existing license, nobody would ever be able to license anything - the backlog would be centuries.
Actually, that would be you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in other words, never.
[ 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: 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: Re:
No, I think patent law has that one covered fairly well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the internet, I see more people understanding fair use and netiquette than ever before.
As far as breaking copyright law with regard to IP, people only do that because they are currently availed to it, and/or the risk of being caught is low.
Since the beginning of time laws have always been slower to catch up than technology.
That certainly doesn't mean copyright is going to disappear. That's some seriously delusional thinking there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm astonished that your experience is that most people understand and obey copyright. You must see a very limited cross section of society to make that determination. I've dealt with many people who are very intelligent otherwise, that have no understanding of, and no desire to understand, copyright as it really is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Famous Last Words
The Southern slave plantation system isn't going to disappear. That's some seriously delusional thinking there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public domain dedications require legal documents
You can use Creative Commons CC0 to do so, available through their license chooser and directly at http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
For databases, you can use the PDDL by Open Data Commons http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/
Putting an IP notice on the footer of your page explaining your license terms would help cut down on these requests.
Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public domain dedications require legal documents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public domain dedications require legal documents
Certainly has changed a lot since the days of opt-in, 14-year copyright. Too much, some might say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public domain dedications require legal documents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public domain dedications require legal documents
True.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
isn't this just the situation creative commons was designed to avoid?
Can you expound further?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ok to steal, but... = license
"steal my content, but be sure to drop a linkback and give me credit as the source"
you are legally saying:
"I hereby grant you a license to reprint this content provided you drop a linkback and give me credit as the sourse, and if you do not do those things I just mentioned in the proviso I will be empowered to sue you for copyright infringement and breach of contract."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ok to steal, but... = license
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My question Mike.....
You write for your site, not theirs. You have to deal with what you write getting you into hot water with someone. You shouldn't then have to think about weather it gets someone else into hot water.
It's backwards but the same as this "law" that Microsoft want's to get passed making businesses here in the states responsible for something another company overseas does.
Christ it's early and I'm not fully awake yet.....
My 2 cents
Gordon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever happened...
The views reflected in the following article do not necessarily reflect those of this [insert media type here].
Lawyers are the only ones that freak out when you say "Sure, you can repost my article, free.. no charge."
And in some cases it's always best to go by the philosophy of "if you can't be 'em, join 'em. Then when they aren't looking, beat 'em."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Indemnity clause?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For example, "but we might be sued for defamation", "we might be sued for legal rights presently unknown and want to make sure we are protected from the unknown", "we are a large company with deep pockets, so we want to ensure that are deep pockets are zipped up tightly", "we need to make sure that we do really have rights that are irrevocable", etc., etc., at infinitum.
Simply posting the original content with a "have at it notice" will be met with the rejoinder "but there has to be an exchange of consideration, because without it we are getting nothing more than an at-will license that can be withdrawn at any time". Again, etc., etc., etc.
And, yes, you are absolutely correct that "Stepford Wives" lawyers working solely from boilerplate do every in their power to make sure they receive everything free and clear of any legal liability by making sure that all liability is shifted to you. Actually, it is all quite pathetic, but what do you expect from people obsessed with boilerplate and almost certainly divorced from any understanding of what the actual business deal really entails. You could sell a company a rock taken from a creek bed, and the company's internal or outside counsel would probably insist that it is free from any and all trademark, patent, copyright, unfair competition, defamation, product liability, etc. claims" that come to their fertile minds.
Frankly, at some point in time a light bulb should go on that a formal, signed contract is to much of a hassle and drop the matter.
Whenever faced with boilerplate contracts such as you talk about, I have always taken perverse pleasure in using a red pen to "X" out virtually all of the boilerplate and say "here it is...take it or leave it". While there have been a few exceptions, they usually take it. Of course, it helps when one on the business side of the issue talks with his/her counterpart at the other company and lets him/her know what the heck is going on. This generally results in the business person telling the lawyers to knock it off, quite stalling, and approve the darn thing...NOW!
I happen to upload photographs to a royalty-free website that makes my photos available for use by others. Of course, the site has terms of use that place limits on what downloaders can do with photos, limits that I view as just plain silly. Hence, I have unilaterally modified the terms associated with my photos to render the terms of use irrelevant. In my case I have provided the following terms:
"Please feel free to modify and/or use these uploads for any purpose whatsoever (commercial or personal, for-profit or not-for-profit, for print, for web, for "print on demand", for web templates for sale or distribution, for "whatever", etc.) You do not need to contact me before or after using an image, though a note is always appreciated if you have the opportunity to do so. Similarly, attribution is nice, but not necessary."
Is the language legally perfect? Not really, but it seems to do the trick. Users like it so much that they quit worrying about all the boilerplate BS that would appear if it was a formal, official looking contract. Even large, nationat retailers have felt comfortable enough that they have used my photos in national campaign ads. Why, because they felt comfortable enough with the statement that they did not even bother to send it out to lawyers to review.
Bottom line, if you make it simple enough lawyers are never even consulted. Keep them out and things get done. Bring them in and you soon discover it is not work the effort.
And to think, all this is coming from someone who is continually called here an "IP maximist", which has never been the case and never will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creative Commons 2.5 Attribution License
Wayne
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can relate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My position on this
So if you're a Universe Today reader, and you'd like to use my content for your astronomy club newsletter? Awesome, be my guest. You're a reader, you know my policy, we're cool.
But if you've got huge scraper bots running from hacked servers in Russia, seeking out creative content articles you can scoop up and convert into some kind of blackhat SEO scheme, I'd rather you didn't notice me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My position on this
What I find interesting about your position is it is exactly the same reason many people choose to use CC. I've never thought about CC licences much, but perhaps they could make one that is incompatible with such content scrapers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your content is not free; it carries risk to republish. They find these risks unacceptable. You can indemnify them and reduce the risk in exchange for some more publicity, you can find somebody who will accept the risks as-is, or you can stay here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the past, Mike has attempted to put his work in the public domain. He has stated repeatedly that anyone can use his content without asking. He has also said you can use it without attribution - he wouldn't like it, but giving the content away means people may do things he doesn't like.
So, despite him saying all of this in writing - repeatedly, when a company comes along and want to use the content, their lawyers say THEY HAVE TO LICENSE IT.
One of the problems with copyright law as it is:
You cannot create a work and put it into the public domain even if you want to.
Isn't that weird? A content creator is not allowed to do what they want with their content when what they want to do is give it away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is entirely possible to license works in the public domain. The whole point of this particular "license" as clearly stated in the article, is to go above and beyond what simply reusing the content would allow. The lawyers want to have clear statement that they lack liability. You can still do that even with public domain content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Possible, but it's fraud, no? If it's in the public domain, it's not yours to license. How can you grant rights that you don't have?
From the Tenth Circuit:Golan v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1179, 1189-90 (10th Cir. 2007).
And I know you've read this: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=787244
The whole point of this particular "license" as clearly stated in the article, is to go above and beyond what simply reusing the content would allow. The lawyers want to have clear statement that they lack liability. You can still do that even with public domain content.
Are you actually licensing the content, or are you just making a contract where you indemnify them from liability? It sounded to me like you were doing both. I would be very surprised if in this contract you were not granting them the right to use the content. My point is that if the work is truly public domain, you don't have any rights in it that you could transfer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not *copyrighting* it.
Are you actually licensing the content, or are you just making a contract where you indemnify them from liability? It sounded to me like you were doing both. I would be very surprised if in this contract you were not granting them the right to use the content. My point is that if the work is truly public domain, you don't have any rights in it that you could transfer.
That's what happens when you make assumptions. You get it wrong. No we are not granting a right. We are simply letting them know that they will not have any issues with us if they do republish it -- they wanted that clear -- and then we're debating about the indemnity stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you are granting a license, then you are indicating that you have ownership of the rights being licensed, i.e., the copyrights.
That's what happens when you make assumptions. You get it wrong.
You are the one who said "syndicating" and "license agreement." Those terms imply that you are actually licensing the works. Don't blame me for the confusion you started.
No we are not granting a right. We are simply letting them know that they will not have any issues with us if they do republish it -- they wanted that clear -- and then we're debating about the indemnity stuff.
You are granting them a right, but just not the right I'm talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You got me thinking though. Since copyright is the default, how do you legally put a work into the public domain? Can you really just put up a blanket "everything I post on techdirt is public domain," or do you need to relinquish your rights for each article individually?
If it really is the least bit difficult to put works into the public domain, I'd have to agree with you that that is stupid. It should be easy-peasy to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then I don't see how you could *license* it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ask the buy indemnity insurance for you.
Back in the individual Consulting days a client required indemnity insurance and simply billed it to them as an expense for doing business with me - they happy paid with out questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]