4 ms·

What if I created my content by slightly altering other content? Like writing a news article from a Reuters press release, how much difference does there need t

by stef25 8y ago

What if I created my content by slightly altering other content? Like writing a news article from a Reuters press release, how much difference does there need to be? Seems like a pretty hard line to draw.

jerf 8y ago
You sound like you're asking this question as if it's a brand new question that nobody has ever thought of before, instead of something core to the entire idea of copyright: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work Yes, it is a hard line to draw. It is advisable that if your business is dependent on being on the right side of copyright issues that you simply stay well away from the line.
jordan801 8y ago
It's actually extremely easy to detect. Even if you change verbiage and move around paragraphs. Most sham content providers are much more sloppy than moving paragraphs around, and will just use a thesaurus to modify verbiage. This typically makes it extremely easy to detect. Because, even though a word might be a synonym, it might not work grammatically in it's context.
mikekchar 8y ago
If it's based on the other content, then it is a derived work and copyright infringement. Keep in mind that copyright is for creative works. Facts can not be copyrighted. In a news article, it is the expression of the facts that covers the copyright, not the facts themselves. So you can definitely write an article stating the same facts as a Reuters press release (and be even based on that press release). You just can't base your prose on their prose. You have to completely rewrite it as a human -- it has to be an artefact, not an automated process. However, there is another class of copyright for collections. A collection of facts can be copyrighted. You can't copy the same collection of the facts, nor a substantial portion of the collection. You can take individual facts out of the collection and include them in a creative work, but you can't just grab facts one at a time and create a new collection -- that would be a derived work. Like all laws, copyright law is subject to interpretation by humans (lawyers and judges). While you might think that you are satisfying the law, they may disagree. To avoid that circumstance it is best to stay in an area where it is obvious to everyone that you are within the law. If you don't mind being sued, then you can try to push the boundaries. It is your choice.
ben509 8y ago
> Seems like a pretty hard line to draw. All laws result in tricky distinctions, and that's what case law is for.

by stef25 8y ago

jerf 8y ago

You sound like you're asking this question as if it's a brand new question that nobody has ever thought of before, instead of something core to the entire idea of copyright: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work Yes, it is a hard line to draw. It is advisable that if your business is dependent on being on the right side of copyright issues that you simply stay well away from the line.

jordan801 8y ago

It's actually extremely easy to detect. Even if you change verbiage and move around paragraphs. Most sham content providers are much more sloppy than moving paragraphs around, and will just use a thesaurus to modify verbiage. This typically makes it extremely easy to detect. Because, even though a word might be a synonym, it might not work grammatically in it's context.

mikekchar 8y ago

If it's based on the other content, then it is a derived work and copyright infringement. Keep in mind that copyright is for creative works. Facts can not be copyrighted. In a news article, it is the expression of the facts that covers the copyright, not the facts themselves. So you can definitely write an article stating the same facts as a Reuters press release (and be even based on that press release). You just can't base your prose on their prose. You have to completely rewrite it as a human -- it has to be an artefact, not an automated process. However, there is another class of copyright for collections. A collection of facts can be copyrighted. You can't copy the same collection of the facts, nor a substantial portion of the collection. You can take individual facts out of the collection and include them in a creative work, but you can't just grab facts one at a time and create a new collection -- that would be a derived work. Like all laws, copyright law is subject to interpretation by humans (lawyers and judges). While you might think that you are satisfying the law, they may disagree. To avoid that circumstance it is best to stay in an area where it is obvious to everyone that you are within the law. If you don't mind being sued, then you can try to push the boundaries. It is your choice.

ben509 8y ago

> Seems like a pretty hard line to draw. All laws result in tricky distinctions, and that's what case law is for.