Protecting your copyright in a digital world
Tired of them stealing your content? Here's how you can fight back...
Part 2 of 2. You may be interested in reading part 1, "What is copyright, and how do infringements harm you?", first.
I've spoken at great length about why I have such a problem with people stealing my content in part 1 of this article... But what can you do about it?
Finding infringing content
Unique strings of text – It turns out that most people who nick my content with malicious intent are doing so via the RSS feed. Probably because, in addition to being immoral, they are lazy. I decided to turn this to my advantage: I inserted a unique string and a date-stamp into my RSS feeds.
In theory, because this unique string only exists in my RSS feed, it should never show up in Bing, Yahoo, Google or, well, anywhere on the internet, really. If/when it does, I know someone is doing something they aren’t supposed to. Searching for this unique string should ideally result in zero search results. Invariably, however, it never does.
Copyright web services
Apart from inserting a unique string, you can use a service like Copyscape to scan for infringing content. Their Copyscape Premium service is fantastic: Point it at your site map, and for only $0.05 per page, it will take all your pages and compare them to the internet. They score your content against other content. High-scoring content obviously is likely to be plagiarised or infringing in one way or another, so you can take action.
Of course, Copyscape only works for textual content. For photographers wanting to track whether their images have been ‘borrowed’, there is Tineye, and their more hard-core PixID service.
Dealing with infringing sites: Start easy!
If you think that someone has used your content by accident, or out of ignorance, there’s no point in chucking the book of the law at them. A friendly e-mail (cc’d to yourself so you remember to follow it up in a week or so) is usually more than enough to get them to take the content down.
I have found that the number 1 reason for the ‘friendly e-mail’ approach failing is that there isn’t an easy way of contacting the owner of the site… I’m not being difficult, but if it takes me more than about 10 seconds to find the contact e-mail address (check the header, sidebar and footer for anything that reads ‘about us’, ‘contact us’, or similar) or a feedback form, they’ve already wasted enough of my time. On to step 2:
Finding contact details
One of the big problems with many websites is that it is difficult to find out how to contact people. If their ‘About Me’ page or ‘contact us’ pages are absent, broken, or just hopelessly convoluted to use, you have to get clever. I tend to use a site called Domain Whitepages, which will give you 3 pieces of information: Who registered the domain, Who is the domain registrar, and who hosts the domain.
The person who registered the domain is usually the person you want – but many people have made this information private, or it might be out of date.
Your next point of call is the web host. These are the people who own and run the physical server on which the website is running. Look up the host’s website, and do a search for ‘copyright’ and ‘dmca’. If you can’t find either, look for ‘abuse’ or ‘report an issue’. Most web hosts have a mechanism for contacting them with abuse-related e-mails. If you sent a DMCA notice (more about that below) to the host, they will generally respond extremely quickly – I often had responses within an hour – anything longer than 12 hours is quite rare.
If you really can’t figure out who is hosting the server, your last option is to go for the domain registrar: This is the people who have registered the internet domain (like ‘photocritic.org’ or ‘google.com’). If you have to serve a DMCA notice to them, things will take a little bit longer, but if they can’t contact the owner, they’ll pull the plug on the whole domain, which tends to get the owner’s attention really quickly.
Fighting back with the DMCA
After your e-mail, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act – or DMCA – is going to be your second response to any issue of copyright. The DMCA is an US piece of legislation which doesn’t apply in any country except the USA, but I’ve sent DMCA notices to all sorts of countries (including, interestingly the UK, although the appropriate document in this country would be a ‘Notice and Take Down, or a NTD document), and while the legalese on the DMCA notice might be incorrect for, say, Germany, copyright law tends to be similar in most countries, and they’re not going to split hairs over receiving the wrong form: The important thing is that someone is breaking a law, somewhere.
To use a DMCA notice, you need the following: Your details, the details of the original and infringing content, and two particular snippets of legalese which swears on pain of death (ok, not quite – but nearly) that you’re convinced that you are in the right and they are in the wrong. Below is an example of the form letter I have been using.
Example DMCA notice
I have been using the following format for my DMCA notices to great effect:
[your address]
[today's date]DMCA Notice of Copyright Infringement
Dear Sir or Madam: Upon a routine copyright check, I discovered that the example.com site infringes on my copyright.
The copyrighted work at issue is the text and images appearing on my site here:
- http://photocritic.org/nude-girlfriend-photography/The URLs infringing on our copyrighted material include:
- http://example.com/nude-girlfriendPlease ensure that the infringing content is taken down within 48 hours.
You can reach me at [e-mail address] if you require further information or clarification.
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
[my signature]
Mr [my name]
If the person you are sending the notice to demands the notice to be sent in by fax (surprisingly many do, actually), check out Interfax – they let you e-mail them a PDF document, and they fax it on for you. Fantastic, because, well, who even has a fax these days?
In the above, it is important to add your full mailing address near the top of the document. Create a list of all the article originals, and then the corresponding list of the articles on the infringing site.
First off, send this to the contact e-mail for the site. If that fails to get the content removed, send the same thing to the web host’s copyright or abuse team a week later. If that fails again, send the same thing to the domain registrar after another week. Do add a note to the letter stating whom and when you sent the notices to before, because the host might want to know before they decide to shut down a server.
But… Does it work?
Here, have a random photo I took this week-end. I'm quite proud of it. And this post is nearly 4,500 words long or so, so I figured you needed a break for a few seconds. Enjoy.
The DMCA form is incredibly effective. In the past year, I have sent out around 50 formal notices to people infringing on my copyrighted content, and all but two of these infringements have been taken down. One of them is in Vietnam (which doesn’t have any meaningful copyright legislation, so I’m out of luck, basically) and India (which does have legislation, but is notoriously lack at enforcing it, and the site owner is simply ignoring me. Particularly annoying because it looks like it might be a pretty high-profile site). I am still looking into how I might convince them to take the articles down, but I fear it might take more time than it is worth to me.
Out of the fifty or so, the hosts deleted the articles most of the time. Some times they placed a block on the pages (so the pages would result in a 403 forbidden page), some times they deleted it from the database (causing a 500 internal server error when trying to access the page), some times they shut down the whole site (showing a ‘if you own this site, please contact the host immediately’ message), and other times they found more elegant solutions.
In at least three cases, the site owner never contacted the host, and the whole site was taken down. In one case, the domain registrar decided to take the domain name offline, which means that while the domain itself is still available via its IP address, most of its users were unable to get to it.
What if the DMCA notification doesn’t work?
Excellent question. You could seek further legal help, but be warned: things often get complicated really quickly: The person infringing might be based in Romania, using a server in Russia on a Chinese domain name. If that happens, you’ve drawn the short straw: Where do you begin?
The best approach: If there is any aspect of the business which is operated out of the US (Say, they use Google Adsense, in which case, fill the AdSense DMCA complaint – the content will continue to exist, but at least you can send a message). Especially check the domain registrar – you’ll often find that even ‘foreign’ domains can be registered via an US registrar, and they should be susceptible to a sternly written DMCA notice.
From personal experience, I’d say that the DMCA approach is effective in well over 90% of cases, and I decided I didn’t have enough energy (or hours in the day!) to try to go beyond that.
What if there is a particularly rampant infringement?
In theory, you could start a lawsuit whenever someone steals a single piece of content from you. In practice, you’d me mad to do so, and honestly, it is a lot of hassle to go to court. Sometimes, however, you come across a case where you can’t see any other option.
I’ve had a couple of cases where the site in question wasn’t just copying my content, but went very, very far beyond that as well. One of them had ‘borrowed’ around 50 of my articles, the other one had systematically ‘borrowed’ every single one of my articles, all the way back to the start of Photocritic – yes, nearly 400 articles.
Let’s just say that I thought they were taking the proverbial piss. So, in addition to my standard DMCA letters, I included invoices for unauthorised use (number of articles multiplied by how much I would have charged to write those articles as a freelancer) with the letter and started talking to a solicitor. I can’t go into details about either of the cases, but suffice to say that both companies ended up paying significant amounts of money for their infringements.
Dragging people to court is not necessarily an approach I would recommend: litigation can be very expensive, but when things get just a little bit too silly, getting the legal system involved early on can ensure that people sit up and pay attention.
Disclaimer
I have rudimentary legal training in UK media law, but my training is several years old, and you’d be insane to take legal advice from some random bloke off the internet anyway. Nothing in this post is meant as actual legal advice – talk to your solicitor, that’s what they are there for!
Further Reading
This is part of a 3-story series:
- What is copyright, and how do infringements harm you?
- Protecting your copyright in a Digital World (this article)
- Just because it's in my RSS feed, doesn't mean you get to steal it
Do you enjoy a smattering of random photography links? Well, squire, I welcome thee to join me on Twitter - Follow @Photocritic
© Kamps Consulting Ltd. This article is licenced for use on Pixiq only. Please do not reproduce wholly or in part without a license. More info.
- Tagged with:
- copyright
- copyright infringement
- DMCA
A photo competition for February!
Design-led? Actually, I think the Pentax K-01 means business
We’re All Bozos On This Bus--The Red Bus to Hell
25 time-lapse videos reeking of awesomeness
Worlds Fastest Camera
The New Sony NEX 7
Choosing your first dSLR
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
Photo Accessories that Fail Security Checks
My week with Q
Studio equipment buying guide for beginners
VSCO Film Studio Review
Lessons in Lighting
The russellgraves.com Photo Minute - Truck Blinds
Cattle Country
Creative Photo Valentine Surprise
How to Use Multiple Lights for Dramatic Portraits
Making your own flash diffuser
LR4 free presets: Faded series
Using Sync for Video in Develop
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
My Night with Ilford Galerie Gold Silk Fibre
FOTOMOTO - Why I Left











Silhouettes & Photo Contests
Cyan, not just another color
Our 26 best photo projects of 2011
Family Ties That Bind
Animal Group Portraits
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Always Dream Big
Behind the Scenes of a Documentary Film
Getty Villa Malibu — 4 Old Faces, 1 Sunken Garden — GALLERY (6 photos)
GALLERY — Walt Disney Concert Hall — 5 Photos
Wildlife photography for the masses
The 110 page guide to post-processing
Santa Pictures + Marketing for your Business
Keep your tongue in your mouth!





































Comments
Great read Haje. Last week I was experimenting with some blog based tools to fight back against scrappers. I let some tests run over the weekend and no luck in finding a proper solution. Relying on DMCA notices work, but do take time. I long for a solution that disables blatant theft of content. If I find anything I’ll be sure to keep you posted.
I would absolutely love to be able to get one dollar from each infringement. Would make a massive difference.
How do know or find out if someone is using your content?
Haje, this is a great and practical post, very informative.
I have taken the liberty of linking to it from my blog – hope that dosen’t trigger te lawyers :) Only a link nothing copied, promise!
I follow your blog with interest and appreciate your guidance here as a photographer myself
Great article! One idea – maybe the best (for you) way to respond to your notice would be to replace the infrigement by a link back to the original at your site.
I don’t understand why people copy articles – that’s a waste of their disk space while only linking to the original is almost equally valuable. And if they ask you for a permission to include a short quote with the link, I have no doubt you will agree, and it will improve search engine ranks of both sites…
Honza: I completely agree. From my perspective, the ideal solution would be if someone wrote their take on the article, combined with a link to my original article. That way, they add additional content (an opinion) to my article, whilst also adding further traffic to my site. Tell that to the site-scrapers, though…
I doubt this post will be approved but I want to share as someone who was recently served a DMCA notice by Haje. It wasn’t sent to me directly but to Tumblr, who then removed the content then Tumblr notified me of the removal and why.
First, let me say in the outset that I am in no way advocating ripping off an artists content, however you want to label it. It’s unethical and simply wrong.
In the section regarding RSS, I feel that there is a gross generalization about readers who share articles with services like Google Reader. As it’s worded, the article seems to imply that if you share with these services you are trying to “clone” the sight and subsequently generate revenue from that “clone”. Again, this is a gross generalization and highly inaccurate. As it happened to me, I clicked the Share button in Google Reader and I have a Tumblr site that collects the shared links. (Contrary to the screen shots provided, I’m doubtful Tumblr included the entire article.) The intent was to share something that I thought was worthy to be shared, not to somehow gain a profit from it. I know ignorance and intent of the person who shared the story won’t hold water in the courts and I’m sure I’m probably not going to find many sympathetic ears here but I’m of the opinion these kinds of strong-arm RIAA style tactics against the casual reader only does harm to the readership.
Perhaps I’m being too emotional or irrational, but as a “regular guy” and wannabe photographer, getting the CDMA notice then to see this article, it feels like a sucker punch and cheap shot.
a.bird – Why wouldn’t it be approved? You underestimate me, kind sir.
Anyway – I think you’re illustrating very well one of the trickier parts of DMCA / copyright protection: People who end up infringing on copyright by accident, without any intention of malice whatsoever. On a personal level, I think I got it wrong in your case – A simple e-mail directly to you would have been a more polite way of requesting to take the content down. It’s clear that you’re upset, and I’m actually a big fan of your Tumblr stream, so I regret the way I ended up serving a DMCA notice directly to Tumblr.
It illustrates another point as well though: I found another 20 infringements yesterday, and have to make a choice: Do I spend a lot of time analysing each case to see whether or not I should be polite, or should I just send out 20 form letters and be done with it? Yesterday, I chose the latter, which upset someone who is (or, by now, possibly ‘used to be’) a Photocritic reader. Lesson learned, I’ll have to spend more time thinking about how to approach people who make accidental infringements.
On the point of RSS feeds and re-publishing: It took me a while to realise how you actually ended up re-publishing the content. (What Aaron did, basically, was to click on a ‘share’ button within Google Reader). Whilst Reader won’t display the blog posts to the world at large, the ‘share’ function works differently: It appears that the feed gets passed on to a third-party site, in this case Tumblr. Tumblr then parses the feed and posts a short version to Aaron’s feed – but in this case, it posted the full version via a different template, which I found via the unique string embedded into my RSS feeds.
This raises an interesting question: Are services like Tumblr, who have a (semi-)automatic mechanism for re-publishing content on rocky ground legally? I would argue so, because their mechanism enables (or should I say ’causes’) people to unwittingly commit copyright infringements; but then, Tumblr is an awesome service in general, and on the whole trust them to not be lame about stuff like this – so in a way, both Tumblr and a.bird made a minor mistake each, which resulted in an infringement I had to react to.
Finally, I suppose I should point out that this article has been several months in the making – it’s a coincidence that it got posted the same day as 20 people were served with DMCA notice – sorry if that felt like a ‘sucker punch’, most certainly not my intention.
Best,
~ Haje
"People who end up infringing on copyright by accident, without any intention of malice whatsoever".
True .. and I have no malice in stealing a loaf of bread from the corner shop either.
Tumblr is an interesting issue. The site only exists through stolen or appropriated content - call it what you will. In all cases the content is linked back to the original. Unfortunately the problem is that the 'original' post may be from some blog that has actually stolen the content from the copyright owner, sometimes with no back link or attribution.
My view on Tumblr is that it is innoucuous and as there is no advertising, the owner of the Tumblr can be given a break for posting or aggregating content of interest to a small audience. However, if Tumblr were making money from stolen images then that is another matter and should be tested in court.
For a well known photographer to trawl content on Tumblr and issue DMCA take down notices, the cost of the effort is greater than the reward in most cases.
Haje,
Haje,
Thanks for reply. Like you pointed out, I think it was about the timing of the notices being served & this article being published. Imagine my surprise to see that article after our congenial email conversation. That’s where the “sucker punch” feeling came from. You still have a reader in me because the content is just that good. In the mean time however, to cover my own butt, I’ve removed your RSS feed from my Google Reader feed. I don’t want to have a repeat of what happened here. I hope you are able to resolve the code issue with Tumblr (or where ever it lay) so that both the reader who shares your content & you can benefit from the traffic to your site.
Now that that’s done, I’m curious about your thoughts about Creative Commons?
Thanks for the info, I’m a amiture photographer, everyone has been bugging me to start a business selling my work. I have a real fear of it being stolen. I had a facebook page and was posting a few pics for my friends and family to see of my travels. Next thing I knew people I didnt know were writing me telling me thanks for the pics they were using them as screen savers I was horrified. Needless to say I no longer have a facebook or send any of my work even threw my email anymore.
Your images will always be used like this. Even in times gone past, people could borrow one of your books ( if you have one ) from a library, make a scan and use it as a screensaver. But they are protected in copyright law. What they are not protected for is publishing or selling your work.
Many thanks, Haje. This is an permanent issue for me, you made great and logical suggestions for me. I’ll consider them from now on. Sincere congrats!
Post new comment