Fair Use and Freeriding

And they say nothing good ever happens on Twitter.  Oops, I said that.  Well, never mind.  Something good did indeed happen on twitter yesterday, when the Texas Tornado, Mark Bennett, noticed that a lawyer from Puerto Rico had lifted a post from Brent Trout, lock, stock and barrel.  Of all people Brent does copyright and internet law at BlawgIT, so of all the guys around to steal a post from, Brent should not be your first choice.

A discussion ensued, with the lawyer about his lifting the post wholesale.  Now I suspect that it didn’t help that this lawyer’s blog was over-the-top self-promotional, billing itself as “Puerto Rico’s Premier Bilingual Law Blog” even though there’s no evidence that a contest was ever held.  Indeed, to call it a blog is an indulgence, but I hesitate to be judgmental as I have no idea how others in his neighborhood promote themselves.  Maybe it’s just self-preservation.  What do I know?

In any event, the lawyer posed first whether it was sufficient to mention the name, maybe throw in a link, in order to legitimize his theft of the post.  The response was “nope”, Brent’s post remained Brent’s post, and mere attribution (with or without link) didn’t absolve the lawyer from copyright infringement.  Rather than knock around the extent of fair use of content, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence, the lawyer (to his credit) removed the post altogether.  Maybe he’ll write something of his own for his blog?  It could happen.

All of this raises a point that needs making every once in a while.  The blawgosphere, even including those blogs whose sole purpose is marketing, thrives on the synergies created by cross-linking.  No, not the linking to build SEO page rank, but the linking of posts and ideas that creates conversation and discussion.  People want to read interesting, timely, substantive posts.  Nobody wants to read about what a really great lawyer/humanitarian you are.  Nobody.

But that doesn’t mean you can glom entire posts that someone else wrote and use them to create something of interest on your own blog.  Just as I can’t publish Moby Dick even if I put Herman Melville’s name on the cover, no other blogger can lift an entire post wholesale, regardless of attribution or link, without permission. 

Now I’m pretty liberal about fair use, taking paragraphs from others and including them in my posts, and having others take paragraphs from me.  In fact, as I wrote in the ignominiously titled, Steal This Post,


I write it and click on a button and it suddenly appears here, for all to see.  If I didn’t want you to see it, I wouldn’t do that.  It adds (in my wildest dreams) to the body of ideas in the world and some of these ideas will be worthy of repetition.  That’s why we have ideas.  If no one wants to use them, then they really aren’t worth very much.

The point of the post was to ridicule the efforts of those who don’t want anyone taking anything, and I mean anything, from their site upon pain of death.  I want people to take ideas from Simple Justice.  Discuss them all you want.

But there is a point where even the most liberal fair user draws a line, and that’s when the post is taken in its entirety to provide free content for someone else.  That’s not fair use, nor a contribution to the discussion, but freeriding. 

There isn’t a blawger worth a damn who hasn’t had a post lifted wholesale, myself included.  Anyone who creates original content will eventually find that someone (or something) has stolen it and published it for their own use.  Many time, it’s robotic, and neither attribution nor links are included.  You would be amazed how often this happens, and there really isn’t much to be done about it short of litigation since there’s no one to talk to at these commercial parking sites.

But when it happens that there’s a live person behind the blog, it’s different.  It seems that this is a problem not so much of intent to steal or violate copyright, but ignorance and selfishness.  The people who steal posts think that it’s okay to do so and part of the game.  They tend to be the same people who think blogging is just a big marketing scam anyway, so what’s the problem with glomming up some free content and beefing up their own blog at someone else’s expense?

I can’t define the parameters of fair use, and I doubt anyone else can give a definition either.  But I can state without hesitation that taking someone else’s blawg post, in its entirety, without permission, and publishing it on their own blog, isn’t fair use but freeriding.  It’s wrong.  It stealing.  It reflects poorly on the thief and deserves whatever bad press it gets. 

If you like someone else’s post, then take a couple of paragraphs and add something of value to it.  If you want to use the whole thing, then get permission first.  Most of us, by the way, will agree to allow it since we’re generally a genial bunch.  But don’t just steal the whole thing without asking.  It’s not okay, and it’s likely to get you noticed in the blawgosphere for being a thief, which isn’t going to do much to help your marketing message.

And if you are really ambitious, maybe you should consider creating your own substantive content.  It will save you a lot of headaches and maybe even attract some real attention to your blog.

11 thoughts on “Fair Use and Freeriding

  1. SHG

    Oops. Thanks for the heads up Doug.  Let’s make it the Bible and . . . oh wait, that won’t work either, will it.  Ideas?

  2. Doug Cornelius

    I think it does point out that copyright law is a mess and hard to navigate. Unfortunately, that means people just give up and steal.

    If you are looking at different example, how about something on the current NY Times bestseller list.

    The Associate By Grisham?
    OUTLIERS, by Malcolm Gladwell?

  3. SHG

    I am deeply shocked and appalled that Professor Ann Bartow would violate copyright in this manner.  Isn’t there some academic integrity rule involved in the wholesale theft of intellectual property?

  4. SHG

    Not a chance.  I’m going back to Moby Dick.  Maybe The Good Earth.  I always like the name Buck.

  5. Christian M. Frank

    Well, Brent did eventually give me permission to translate his post into Spanish, after clearing up our mixup. I did not “scrape” his blog post entirely, and did add some of my content. Obviously, he set me on the right path regarding IP on blog posts.

    As for my blog being “over-the-top self-promotional”, I’d love to have someone point out another bilingual blog from Puerto Rico, and I’d be delighted to change that to the “Second Bilingual Blog in Puerto Rico”.

    Thanx for the link, and the web traffic!

  6. SHG

    You vindicated yourself well by your willingness to change when the mistake was pointed out to you.  As for your being the “Premier” bilingual blog, my bet is that you would need to have a second to legitimately claim a comparative advantage.  But it’s entirely up to you to decide how to present yourself when it comes to hyperbole, though real blogs aren’t about self-promotion but substance.  Again, it’s up to you to decide whether you want to create a real blog or an infomercial.

Comments are closed.