Charles Arthur launches one man mission to stop copyright theft

Every so often, I check through the Google Analytics, Technorati, Feedburner and other stats on this blog - it tells me who's visiting, what they're reading and where they're from. It's fun.

One of the things I notice consistently is how much traffic comes through Google Images - people search for an image of, say, a "sleeping kitten", and then copy/paste it to their own site. It's sort of annoying and also illegal - the images are copyrighted and actually owned by a stock image company - I pay an annual fee to license those images for use on the website, blog and in various 101 materials. Every so often I roll my eyes at the idiots who think that because something is on "Google Images" it's somehow free. Jeez.

So I'm really heartened to see that Charles Arthur is getting good and stroppy with idiots who copy/paste images and text from the Guardian Tech website without seeking the proper permission. As Charles correctly points out:

1. No it's not magically legal if you provide a link back to the originating website
2. No, it's not magically legal if you're running the content on your own non-profit blog or website
3. No, I'm not really grateful for you ripping off my content because it provides me with, er, "publicity"
4. No, I don't agree that the Internet has somehow magically made copyright theft legal. It's just made it easier.

Comments

[Anne Nonymous]

This is an interesting and obviously valid point, but I was amused to see Charles acting as internet vigilante for an image that came from a stock photo service. Charles has a point when it comes to websites blatantly nicking copy, but why is he so concerned about protecting other people’s copyright..? And I doubt very much that The Guardian will lose any traffic as a result of a blog pinching the photo question.
Nonetheless, such casual copying is against the law, no matter how honourable the intent (the blog in question used the film still for a piece about a Guardian story – and even linked back to it to the Guardian site).
But what about websites that use images from an article on another site when writing about that article? Just take the recent build up to the iPhone 3G as an example – there wasn’t a tech blog around that didn’t re-use photos that were originated from other sites. Fair use or copyright infringement?

[Sally Whittle]

Well, my images all come from a stock photo site - and it narks me that people think they're there to be nicked. Why should they get to steal something for free because I paid for it? Tossers. ('scuse my language)

The issue for me at least is this - whether you steal from a stock site or a photographer or a journalist or whoever - you're still stealing. Every time you do it, you're simply perpetuating the wrong-headed notion that somehow it doesn't matter.

As to tech blogs, I would hope that most of the images being copy/pasted are

a) still residing on the original host server
b) press images that are freely distributed (as is common with product/tech pack shots)

As to why Charles cares, I suspect it's 50% that he's just got strong principles about these things and 50% cos he just likes a REALLY good argument, really....

[Anne]

In answer to the person above: actually it is about traffic. The more people take traffic away from the Guardian website - and every little counts - the less traffic it gets and, in the end, the less money it has to spend on content. One blog doesn't matter. Lots of blogs do.

Sidenote about images: you never know, maybe they all got 'em from Apple. Though I very much doubt it.

Some other points:
- If it's still residing on the original server, well, you're hotlinking, which isn't OK...
- A friend recently got her freelance fee bumped up after a piece she wrote was one of the Guardian's top 10 most read. Traffic good.
- Oh and number 5: No, it's not magically legal if you're not making money out of it.

[Anne]

Sorry, you covered that in point 2...

[Charles]

"As to why Charles cares, I suspect it's 50% that he's just got strong principles about these things and 50% cos he just likes a REALLY good argument, really...."

Well it's certainly a good way to *find* a good argument.. the nice thing is that one tends to win it. That's the sort of argument I like!

[Sally Whittle]

Thanks for commenting, Charles.

I'm not sure about winning the argument - I think that Manchester chap was just gaining the upper hand when he closed comments, surely?

Seriously, I can't believe how many people think this isn't a debate worth having - so seeing you get so vocal about it just cheered me right up.

[Charles]

Well, you may be right, though the Manchester guy tweaked his blog invisibly (he changed the picture he used) which makes it hard to judge the strength of his *original* argument.

Closing comments is hardly the position of someone who has the upper hand in anything but their server, though, is it? On my personal blog they're open forever (G4 fans still come and rail at me) as long as people can get past the spamblock.

Anne Wollenberg is just as vocal, and possibly even more frustrated by it, judging by her tweets...

[Sally Whittle]

Sorry, my sarcasm font might not have been working there.

Of course you win the argument because there ought not even to be an argument, but your view is definitely a minority view in our industry.

[Anne]

Yup, I'm pretty vocal about copyright theft. Why? Because I think the more people object to something the less socially acceptable it becomes, because I refuse to just accept that 'the internet is changing everything, man' and because so many copyright thieves are blinking hypocrites. Plus I like having arguments with people on the internet... Basically though, I am endlessly frustrated by the number of people who think IP law doesn't apply online just because the original version is, y'know, still there.