Catching the copyright thieves
Realtor Notebook
By Teresa Boardman, Thursday, February 19, 2009.
Flickr photo by Matti Mattila.Most adults and even children understand that it is wrong to steal. We don't take something that does not belong to us without asking permission or paying for it.
Plagiarism is theft. I find it amazing that so many real estate professionals steal. We are supposed to be held to a higher standard. Entire articles from this site are lifted and posted on blogs. The blogger usually gives attribution and links back to this site, but it is still plagiarism because so many words have been copied that they make up the majority of the post.
Some real estate professionals take entire posts or photos without giving any attribution at all and pass them off as their own work. I recently found some photos that a friend of mine took -- they were on another Realtor's Web site. Photo theft is rampant. Posting them on the Internet seems to make people think they are public domain.
When it comes to content theft, if it is another agent who is taking my content it is fairly easy to stop. Many real estate agent Web sites and blogs have contact information on them, and if they don't I can look the agent up and get the contact information if I know which state they are licensed in.
If the agent cannot be contacted or will not cooperate, it is usually easy to find the broker or manager or at least the company that they work for.
So far I have found that real estate brokers, managers and real estate companies are very cooperative when I call them and let them know that one of their agents is taking my content. Perhaps information about plagiarism should be included as part of agent training programs. Ignorance of the rules is the number one excuse I hear from agents who steal.
Some real estate professionals plagiarize by taking entire posts and articles and giving the author credit. When I send them a cease-and-desist e-mail or call them, they are often surprised that I am accusing them of plagiarism. Publishing my work word for word and crediting it to me is still plagiarism.
I am not a lawyer, but I know there are laws against plagiarism. And like most other laws, ignorance of the law isn't a defense. There are a couple of Web sites that contain great information about plagiarism and creative commons licensing: Plagiarism.org and CreativeCommons.org.
The idea of creative commons seems to be widely misunderstood. There are levels of creative commons. With photos I like to use creative commons with attribution, which means you can use my photo but you must give me credit for the work in a way that I agree with. For example, I require a link to where the photo is published. Putting my name in as the author without the link is not acceptable to me, and because they are my photos I get to make the rules about how and when they are used.
Under U.S. law the expression of original ideas are protected just like inventions are. The author of a blog post does not need to do anything special to get a copyright. Simply having a computer file with the original content is enough.
It is the same with photos. The copyright is automatic. The photographer should be able to prove that they took the picture, but nothing more than that is needed.
Before starting a blog or a Web site please learn a little about copyright law and creative commons licensing. Plagiarism is theft, and real estate professionals should not steal.
Teresa Boardman is a broker in St. Paul, Minn., and founder of the St. Paul Real Estate blog.
***
What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.
All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.
You must login or register to post a comment.
Submitted by Matt Carter on February 19, 2009 - 12:25pm.
This is a topic of great interest to anybody who blogs or creates other content, Teresa.
I think it's important to distinguish between plagiarism and violations of copyright law, however.
When a blogger or somebody else takes an article or a large portion of an article and posts it on their own Web site -- but cites the source of that information -- they are in all likelihood violating U.S. copyright law. But because they are not attempting to pass it off as their own work, they are not plagiarizing under the strict definition of the word.
While plagiarism may also involve violating copyright law, I think of it more as a moral or ethical issue. A student or academic writing a paper, for example, should acknowledge when they are talking about theories or ideas developed by somebody else -- whether they are using that person's exact words or not. When students lift entire passages of books or other sources word for word without attribution, that's plagiarism. They may also be violating copyright law.
There's an important provision of copyright law called fair use, which allows you to quote a passage of work for the purposes of commenting on it.
Stanford University has a nice site that's dedicated to helping people understand copyright and fair use issues.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
See also Stanford Center for Internet and Society's "Fair Use Project"
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/374
Here's an interesting article by Mediashift's Mark Glaser on the Associated Press's attempts to narrowly define fair use of its articles:
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2008/06/ap-badly-mistaken-on-drudge-retort...
Submitted by Catherine Read on February 19, 2009 - 1:28pm.
I think a column on this topic is long overdue. And I agree with Teresa that one way to combat this is by offering training on this subject to agents along with all of the other types of training they receive. Many agents are not sufficiently well informed on this aspect of blogging or putting content on their website. Certainly brokers could be proactive in providing this as a way of looking out for their own liability.
Catherine S. Read
Creative Read, Inc.
Submitted by Bill Lublin on February 19, 2009 - 1:28pm.
Bill Lublin CRB,CRS,GRI
CEO CENTURY 21 Advantage Gold
Visit me at MovePhilly & REreflections Click Here to
Find Homes in PA & NJ
Sometimes a silly unthinking person might add a wonderful majestic photo to a blog without knowing what they should have done and they might even mistake the subject of the photo - for example thinking that a photo of St Paul was a photo fo our nation's capital.
In that case, a kind creative resource will often gently and appropriately request an attribution which is then granted with humility by the poor newbie blogger - making them a friend for life of the aforementioned creative genius.
Of course if someone knowingly steals someone's intellectual property or creation, then they should be exposed for the crass thieves they are ;-)
On a more serious note, the topic is timely and the point made is important. Where content is king, the creator and the content need to be appropriately respected
Submitted by Bill Gassett on February 19, 2009 - 1:34pm.
I recently had someone take my entire article and post it on 4 different blog sites and their website and tried to pass it off as their own. There was not a stitch of credit given. Of course I had them remove every post but I had steam coming out of my ears!
Bill Gassett
Massachusetts Real Estate
Submitted by Joe Hildebrand on February 19, 2009 - 1:42pm.
In real estate, R&D seems to mean RIP OFF AND DUPLICATE!
Joe Hildebrand
Denver, CO
Submitted by Robert A. Hulme on February 19, 2009 - 1:49pm.
I feel sorry for those individuals who abuse plagiarism. It is too bad they have to use other peoples articles and not their own. I have seen some of my blog material on other agent websites but I chose to not worry about it, I guess that is just me. It could become a big problem and affect my production, but I choose not allowing it to do that.
Robert A. Hulme
Realtor, GRI, e-PRO
Prudential Utah Real Estate
Loan Officer
Mortgage Xpress
www.UtahCountyRealEstate.us
www.UtahHomesForSale.ws
801-885-2586
Submitted by Ken Jacobs on February 19, 2009 - 1:55pm.
I find it utterly amazing that you would post an entire article on plagarism, when it's clear you have no idea what the definition of the word is. Look it up. Plagarism is taking someone else's ideas or words and passing them off as your own. By quoting you or giving you credit, clearly it is not "plagarism", even though it may be copyright enfringment. I always try to make sure I know what I'm talking about before I make a public post or acuse others of wrongdoing. Get the facts first please!
Submitted by Larry Whited Sr. on February 19, 2009 - 1:56pm.
It seems that many think if it is on the internet it is free and true. As I tell my pre-teen twins and my 97 agents. Both are dead wrong and it is dangerous to assume otherwise. Timely article.
Larry A. Whited, Sr., CRB, CRS, GRI
President & Founder
www.WebMLS.net & www.maxUnet.com
P.O. Box 757
West Chester Ohio 45071
Cell - (513) 543-2727 Fax - (513) 297-7497
Submitted by Brendan King on February 19, 2009 - 2:00pm.
As long as I get attribution and links I welcome it when people publish my work in full or in part.
Brendan King
www.VendAsta.com
Submitted by Tina Merritt on February 19, 2009 - 2:12pm.
Do people copy and paste due to laziness? Are they so insecure in their own writing abilities that they have to copy someone else's words? It's sad, isn't it?
Submitted by Wayne Herman on February 19, 2009 - 2:16pm.
What a great topic. With the amount of writing that now exists on the Internet, it is almost impossible to enforce these issues.
However, I certainly wouldn't consider any content on a real estate website or blog as the type of information that most writers should worry about in terms of duplication. As long as the other writer provides attribution, what's the problem?
Having been in the media for decades before real estate, most complaints of plagiarism come as a result of the writer's ego. There's nothing earth shattering or confidential about real estate information. I say we should all be glad to get an attribution... that should serve to stroke our egos to satisfaction. If I was writing about the deployment of nuclear tipped rockets, I'd be a bit angry. But, the next best way to hold an open house really doesn't fit that category. Let's get over ourselves!
Submitted by Eric Bryant on February 19, 2009 - 2:27pm.
Hi T-Board, great topic! I agree with the comments that say this is not "plagiarism", because that would be more appropriate if they were "taking credit". I spend a great deal of time reading and commenting on the writing of RE Bloggers. I enjoy the articles and reference them with my comments or opinions. I have typically stuck to a rule of thumb whereby I copy the 1st paragraph and then refer the reader to the original posting, followed by my comments. In a way, I agree with the comments that lean towards the old saying "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery", however we should strive to stay on the right side of "Thievery" ledger.
Thanks for starting this string!
The Coach
http://MyRECoach.com
Submitted by Chris & Karen Highland on February 19, 2009 - 2:37pm.
Theresa, I think you're right about ignorance. I don't think a lot of agents really know what plagiarism is. I'd like to see something added to our Ethics CE classes. As more agents enter into the online marketing world, they need to be trained. I don't think we can assume they know the facts. Thanks for this post, I hope it starts some action on the issue.
Submitted by Ken Lampton on February 19, 2009 - 2:38pm.
Most people can't write. Most agents are people. Therefore most agents can't write.
So much pressure is being put on agents to blog now. It shouldn't be surprising that many agents will steal content. Most of them couldn't tell you anything about copyright law if you asked them.
My own MLS is just now putting together training classes on Social Media and Blogging. No doubt they will try to help agents understand what is fair and what is copyright violation. But there has definitely been a deficiency in training so far.
-------------------
Ken Lampton, CRS
RE/MAX REALTORS
www.m-street-dallas.com
Submitted by Michelle Minch on February 19, 2009 - 2:43pm.
Teresa: Stealing of blog posts, articles, photos and art work are a big problem on the internet. I have frequently had my blog posts, web site pages and photographs hijacked. Often I get the excuse "my web master or designer did it". Taking something that doesn't belong to you, regardless of where you found it, it wrong. We learn that in kindergarten.
I use Copyscape (www.copyscape.com) to check for plagairism and copyright infringement. Haven't figured out how to track my photos yet. That is next.
Thanks for calling attention to this important topic.
Submitted by Paul Howard on February 19, 2009 - 3:16pm.
I find it impossible to believe that when an agent - or anyone else - takes content and posts it (with or without attribution) they believe that it is ok. They know they are stealing - they just hope they won't get caught and held accountable. If they can't write maybe it is because they have nothing to say or no thoughts of their own. If I see my stuff taken without permission I'm not likely to say 'please remove it'. I'm likely to start with their superior (if they have one) and then also let everyone else I can find in their service area know about it too.
Does that sound harsh? I guess I'm not sorry.
Paul Howard, Broker
NJHomeBuyer.com Realty
Cherry Hill NJ 08002
Submitted by Lenn Harley on February 19, 2009 - 3:23pm.
Good timing.
I discovered one of my images on an ActiveRain member blog post yesterday. When I viewed his web site, there was another one.
I e-mailed him and advised him to remove my copyright protected images immediately. He did so and that was the end of it.
However, I don't buy his excuse that he didn't take them from ActiveRain. I've used both of those images on my blog posts. It's just too much of a coindidence that 2 images, one from an ActiveRain member, me, were used by another ActiveRain member.
As I told him, only because he is an ActiveRain member and removed the images immediately did he not receive a letter from my copyright attorney.
Lenn Harley
Broker
Homefinders.com
http://www.homefinders.com
Submitted by Mara Hawks on February 19, 2009 - 3:34pm.
I don't think this topic can be talked about enough right now, especially with the waves of new folks getting on the blogging board. I find that offenses are typically a lack of either education or ethics. Some really do miss the obvious or were terribly misguided doing school papers...There's a lot we can do about the education (like this post and someone talked about their local Board including it in education classes---excellent). The lack of ethics is simply deplorable.
Mara Hawks
REALTOR® 3345242220
FIRST REALTY, a Realty South Company
Auburn,AL
www.marahawks.com
Submitted by Ted Mackel on February 19, 2009 - 3:48pm.
Theresa,
Nice article. I pretty much buy all my blog post photos from istockphoto.com at a buck a piece. Really not that big a deal. I have recently been taking some of my own stock photography.
My listing photos were recycled by another agent. The listing is two years old from when I had it. I guess that agent felt that there is a two year SOL in the photos....HA. Our MLS will send out a nasty gram and fine.
Ted Mackel
http://www.homebuysblog.com
Submitted by Ryan Elliott on February 19, 2009 - 4:58pm.
Some of this is black and white other issues you bring up are in the Grey area. I will agree that outright plagiarism (by true definition) is not right. But take the photo you have in this article for example. Do you have permission to use it? I am sure you do but many people assume because the photo is on Flickr you can use it. You gave them credit so does that make it ok? Many blogs get traffic from referrals and mentions from other blogs. I know I read many blogs I found from quotes and articles on other blogs. I guess in the world of open source, blogs, web 2.0, twitter, facebook, Api's, etc. sharing is promoted and encouraged. I am not encouraging the practice, but let's be real. We are talking about blogs and a few house photos written by and taken by real estate agents?
Ryan
ryanassist@gmail.com
Submitted by Eliese Pivarnik on February 19, 2009 - 5:33pm.
I'm at a loss as to what to do about this. This link:
www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ji...
is #1 for a very hard to optimize search term. It is my content with my name at the bottom but no linkage back. I've emailed them to take it down, but they've ignored my request.
What do I do???
Steamboat Springs Real Estate Blog
Submitted by Bart Wilson on February 19, 2009 - 5:40pm.
Hi Teresa,
Yes people know right from wrong. But they still do the wrong thing because of greed and it's so easy to do the wrong things.
Take the banks who received millions of dollars in TARP funds only to buy up other banks, take expensive trips... one even bought an Airplane. All of them forgot their promises about loaning any money to the poor home owners who are still under water right with their mortgage or about to go into info foreclosure.
I am happy to give everyone here a quick education on Copyright law.
Four years ago, the 8th Circuit Court made a landmark decision that made alot of web people rather unhappy to say the least.
Let's assume I was one of the agents that stole your content. You sue me. We cannot sue in in Magistrate Court as the Magistrate court cannot hear or make a ruling on a Federal Copyright.
If you ever heard the expression, "Don't make a Federal Case out of this..." well... you have to in matters concerning Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights. The Federal Courts rule on matters of intellectual property.
Back to the 8th Circuit Court Decision and suing me for stealing your content.
The judge will ask if I own the copyrights to the material in question. I present them with proof positive. I bring out a form SE (serial) and present this to the judge. This is the registration issued me from the Copyright Office.
You, on the other hand, only have an article published on Inman News.
I win. You lose. Case closed.
Now, you can argue that I took the work and managed to get to the Copyright office before you did, but this is irrelevant. I still win because I was bright enough to file for the protection. You will have to argue that your work appeared before mine did, and with depositions and attorney fees -- you'll easily rack up another $10,000 in more charges here.
Suffice it to say -- Federal Court appearances are expensive. Plan on spending a minimum of $15,000 - $20,000 and then you begin to realize that filing against an agent who stole your work over a single article being blatantly copied on their blog can be a nightmare in itself (never the mind that you may not have the issued copyright to present to the agent who took it and put in on his or her blog).
Putting the Circle C Copyright tag on your work is not legal anymore.
Cheap insurance is to file for your recurring works periodically through the Copyright Office as a Serial as you are constantly contributing to Inman News and be sure to include the copyright symbol at the bottom of your work.
Copyright 2009 (C) Jane Doe. All Rights Reserved.
But the sad fact is, you cannot LEGALLY put the copyright symbol on the bottom of your articles UNTIL AFTER you get the registration back from the Copyright office.
Since you are a contributing writer, it's a good idea to protect your on-going works. The Form SE was replaced by the Form CO (or eCO for electronic CO form). You can file these now electronically for $35.
Once the Copyright is issued you, the work is protected for your entire lifetime + 70 years.
But if Inman paid you for the article you wrote for the Inman Website, this constitutes a work for hire and you have no rights to your work whatsoever. Unless you have different terms spelled out in writing and signed by both Inman and you for ownership.
So if you are doing a lot of articles for Inman, or anywhere else for that matter, you need to look at the SE Group form of filing for your copyrights. Because at $35 a crack for every article you write, this can be a lot of money. So the SE Group form will save you $$$ as you add articles to any online or offline magazine.
For more information on this, you can get the US Copyright's instructions on how to do this by visiting this link: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ62b.pdf
I've been to court many many times and like you, I am a writer. I have two books on real estate marketing and working now on my third: Real Estate Warriors. Plus I have a guest column that appears in the Alamogordo Newspaper. And yes, I protect all my works with the Copyright office BEFORE I publish them.
I hope my advice helps clear some myths about copyrights and helps anyone who has been a bit unclear on Copyright law.
Best regards to all.
Bart Allen Wilson
Chief Marketing Officer
Voyager International
http://www.Voyager360.com
Submitted by Mason Fok on February 19, 2009 - 5:45pm.
I think there are two reasons why copyright online is not respected.
1. The Internet is largely free.
When something is free it rarely has the respect of its true value. If you purchased a book for $500 you can bet that you will care for it and read every page, the same is not always true for content freely available for download from the Internet.
2. People will spread any message but…
Articles about how to best cut the hair of your pet ant is something someone will spread and breach copyright rules. However, articles that educate people to copyright issues are not shared as that underlying uncertainty of “is it right or not right” triggers before the user goes annoying someone that talks about potential litigation. This results in more people learning about hair cuts for ants then that of copyright issues.
Submitted by Ned Carey on February 19, 2009 - 5:46pm.
I had someone link to a photo on my blog. So every time someone went to her blog, her server came to my server to get the picture. I was tempted to replace the photo with a sign that said I am a photo thief, so it would show up on her website.
Ned Carey
http://baltimorerealestateinvestingblog.com/
http://commercialrei.com/
Submitted by Jon Astaris on February 19, 2009 - 8:13pm.
Stealing is wrong. Downloading millions of songs, and movies, and clips, and photos, and articles, is - what?
The moment it's published on someone else's blog or web page, the material is "plagiarism".
The only thing that is clear is how incredibly behind times, retrograde, ossified, moralizing, holier than thou, many in the real estate business are. Anachronic as live dinosaurs.
You should be proud someone has found your work worthy of borrowing. So you took the picture, SO WHAT? WHAT IS THE LOSS to you? That is the legal test of any "plagiarism" or "theft" or some such claim, by the way - how much measurable damage have you suffered? How much has the "borrower" gained from your effort?
And moreover, WHAT is original about a picture, a photo? Your FILTER? You added a flower in the corner of the window?
Welcome to the 21st century! The government is stealing trillions of dollars from your children and giving it to you and your generation. That's called investment not theft. And you want to stop some enthusiastic admirer from using your pix to adorn his web page? Aaaawww!
Downloading everything thats not nailed down is just that - downloading - hundreds of millions of people do it every single day. It's a new day, a new age, a new paradigm. Is it stealing? Not when every one including the government is doing it - on unprecedented scales.
The fact that you must have spent DAYS looking around to see if someone "plagiarized" your precious photo(s) speaks volumes about you and the fact that you really have no life. And those who agree with you...welcome to the 19th century.
Submitted by Matt Carter on February 20, 2009 - 9:53am.
Bart Wilson, I'm afraid you've done more harm than good with your "quick education on copyright law."
There is no requirement to register work with the copyright office in order to use the copyright symbol.
There is no requirement to use the copyright symbol in order to protect work published after 1989.
Here is the most important thing to know about how copyright law works today: Copyright is secured automatically upon creation.
You may or may not retain your copyright when you sell your work to (or are employed by) a publisher.
Here is what the copyright office has to say about the issue:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
"The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright ... There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration."
...
"Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is 'created' when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time.
...
"When a work is published, it may bear a notice of copyright to identify the year of publication and the name of the copyright owner and to inform the public that the work is protected by copyright. Copies of works published before March 1, 1989, must bear the notice or risk loss of copyright protection. See discussion on 'Notice of Copyright' below."
...
"Use of the notice may be important because it informs the public that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and shows the year of first publication.
Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if a proper notice of copyright appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in section 504(c)(2) of the copyright law. Innocent infringement occurs when the infringer did not realize that the work was protected. The use of the copyright notice is the responsibility of the copyright owner and does not require advance permission from, or registration with, the Copyright Office."
Also of note in regards to the discussion of plagiarism v copyright violations:
"Categories of material ... generally not eligible for federal copyright protection (include) ... Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration."
This goes back to the idea discussed above that if you are summarizing somebody else's ideas (and claiming they are your own) you may be plagiarizing, but you are not necessarily violating copyright law.