I was reading a recent blog post by Lauren Carlson, who writes about CRM systems, and was intrigued by her take on the subject of “Blog Scraping,” something that could arguably describe some of the articles here at this site. It generally describes the practice of “republishing” information without consent on a web site or newsletter.
Carlson rightly asserts that those who develop original engaging content set themselves apart from competition and build keyword-rich pages for their web sites. She also pointed out that occasionally, the site that borrowed the content ranked higher in search engines than the originator of the content.
The Cry of the 21st Century Dinosaur
In the case of her company, they decided the only thing to do was to register over 1200 pages of their website directly with the US copyright office and then threaten lawsuits when they found content in use on unauthorized sites. In many ways, this seems to me a lot like the tactics of the music industry, where record labels, unable to survive with a viable business model in the digital age, determined to stop file sharing of songs by suing users of the sharing networks.
A single comment on the Carlson blog post by Eric Woning feels similarly and points out that there are friendlier alternatives that could give content creators the same rights, but which would be more in keeping with contemporary Internet culture, which in these matters boils down to “sharing is good; stealing is bad.” Be good!
Q: Is it Legal?
I’m concerned with both the ethics and the legalities of this issue for myself and my clients, so I looked into it as a critical matter. First the legality:
As a publisher of online information, you have legal right to “excerpt” information from existing articles and comment or express opinion about them. This is part of the “Fair Use” clause that also allows satirists to mimic trademarks and other legally protected assets in various media. You do not, however, have the right to republish the entire piece, without the author’s consent.
Q: Is It Right or Wrong?
That’s the legality of the issue. The ethics are less straightforward, although it’s pretty clear to me where the line between right and wrong lies. When I “borrow” an article from a known resource, I do it firstly with the intent of serving my readers with information form a source I have expressed trust in. It’s an implied endorsement.
I always attribute the source of the information to the appropriate author or publisher. This is key for me. Plus I provide a link to the original source, for the reasons not only of staying within legal bounds, but also as a kind of “compensation” for producing good work, of value to an audience they might not reach otherwise. And to me, that is the crux of the ethical issue.
By doing this, I have served my readers, and potentially increased the audience for the original content creator. But that is not always good enough.
Please Use My Article
I have had an author contact me and ask me to take down a piece I had excerpted. [I did so immediately] I have had authors contact me and thank me for republishing their material. And I have had authors contact me and ask me to publish articles they wanted to create specifically for this blog. It’s definitely a mixed bag.
My advice for those of you who do as I do and provide a mix of original and excerpted content, is to take the time to let the originator know you have respectfully used some of their words (or video or audio), and let them know you appreciate it. If you are met with a negative response, a no-debate compliance with requests to take down material is a good policy.
Chances are, you’ll find the majority of 21st century publishers are delighted to have their work spread virally to new audiences and will be happy to work with you on some basis. If they’re smart, they’ll ask you to “like” their Facebook page and “retweet” their article when you publish something.
And if you are concerned about someone “borrowing” your original content, I’d urge you to think seriously about how that work serves you when its cordoned off in the Internet equivalent of a concentration camp. For me, sharing sets you free.
Robert B. Gelman
ps. this article is protected by Creative Commons License ” Attribution-ShareAlike.” 
you are free to copy, distribute and transmit the work; to remix or adapt the work, or to make commercial use of the work…under the following conditions:
Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
