Posts Tagged ‘copyright’

FAQs: Copyright Guidelines for Content Creators

When you first launch your website, e-zine, blog, or newsletter, it’s an exciting moment. You can’t wait to fill your new forum with your original content. After a while, though, that forum starts to feel like a gigantic bucket with a hole in the bottom. No matter how much stuff you put into it, you still need more—to attract new visitors, to keep your audiences engaged, and to maintain your stellar rankings on Google. It’s when feeling that pressure to publish that a lot of people start asking this question:

Can I re-use content that I find on the Internet?

The short answer is: probably not. Copyright law is a muddle of “if…then” statements and rules that apply on a case-by-case basis. (If you’re interested in a detailed explanation, many college and university websites have excellent in-depth guidelines, like this one at Purdue, and this one at Northwestern University.) But sensible rules for copyright practice are a lot easier to absorb and use. Here are the guidelines that we give to our clients.

Your High School Teacher Is Still Right, Even On The Internet

One of the biggest misconceptions about the Internet is that copyright rules are different here than they are in print. They are not. In fact, most of the text and images that you’ll find on the Web are copyrighted, which makes the rules for web content not much different than the rules you had to follow for writing a term paper. (The good news is that you almost never have to write a bibliography.)

How can I legally use text from other sources?

Quote text, don’t steal it. When it comes to quoted text, you can’t go wrong by using the same guidelines used by The Huffington Post. They’ve been through the copyright wars, and have developed a set of standards that work well and that are easy to follow.

  • Use quoted text as a basis of, or adjunct to, original content. In other words, if you see something on the Web that’s relevant to your audience, write a fresh article about it—don’t just copy and paste.
  • Keep quotes short—no more than a few lines each. On The Huffington Post’s website, their longest uninterrupted quote is the equivalent of one long or two medium paragraphs.
  • Make quoted text obvious. The Huffington Post indents quoted text and puts it in a box with a background color. You can pick any style that goes with your publication’s layout or branding. Just be consistent and use that style only for quoted text.
  • Include attributes for every quote, with a link to the original source material whenever available.
  • As hundreds of sued bloggers have learned, you should absolutely never copy and paste whole articles, posts, or long portions of articles or other content. Providing attribution for borrowed content will not protect you.
  • Nor should you channel your inner fifth-grader and rewrite portions of articles, content, or other found material as your own. Even on the Internet, that’s still plagiarism. In the last few years, a number of online and print journalists, at least one bestselling novelist, and a famous historian, have all succumbed to sloppiness or temptation and did this, some “borrowing” and rephrasing only a few paragraphs of text. All experienced serious and very public damage to their careers. In 2010, in a scandalous and fascinating story, Cooks Source Magazine was basically destroyed when their long and shameless history of stealing Web content came to life over a single pilfered article about medieval cookery.
     
    If you’re inspired by something you read online, write you own spin or commentary on it, and reference the original. You see this all the time in online news magazines and the blogs and columns of professional websites, like Advertising Age. You can gracefully (and legally) reference the original by saying something like this: “James T. Kirk’s excellent article in Starships Today got me thinking: Are we really ready for the next generation of warp drives?”

How can I legally use images from other sources?

The rule of thumb for images is even simpler than the rules for text: Don’t use any image unless you have the rights to use it. This includes photographs, illustrations, maps, graphic buttons, bugs, and other artwork.

The reason for caution is that a simple image can have many layers of ownership. Let’s say you find a photo of a celebrity that you’d love to use on your website. Here’s who might have usage rights over it, and/or the ability to grant rights:

  • The subject, or, if the subject is deceased, the subject’s heirs or estate
  • The photographer
  • The entity that commissioned the photograph. For example, a magazine, newspaper, movie studio, advertising company, etc.
  • A stock photo agency contracted to manage the image. Getty Images and Shutterstock are two stock photo houses that license editorial images.

You don’t want to tangle with all those who have a vested interest in protecting their work—and protect it they do. In fact, when it comes to images, not much is in the public domain. Even works that you think might be safe usually are not.

Take the Mona Lisa, for example. Da Vinci died almost 500 years ago, long before the invention of copyright law. What could be more in the public domain than that? You’d think you could use that image with impunity. And you’d be right, to a certain degree. That’s why you see it on everything from coffee mugs to mobile phone covers to the seats of folding chairs (I don’t really get that last one, but, whatever).

The image itself is in the public domain. But a new work derived from the Mona Lisa—including a new photograph of it— is probably not in the public domain. Copyright of that particular photograph belongs to that photographer (and/or to the museum that commissioned it), and you might need permission to use it.

Once I have rights, can I use images for any purpose or medium?

No. When you commission a photograph or illustration, or buy a stock image, that purchase usually comes with some specific reproduction rights, but not others. These rights may range from very limited to very generous.

Limited rights might include something like the right to post a celebrity photo in editorial content on a website for a certain period of time. Extended rights may include the ability to reproduce the image in multiple media many thousands of times, and to use the image virtually forever. As you might expect, extended rights usually cost more than basic rights.iStockphoto’s licensing page is a good primer on how licenses work.

(Tip: If you’re hiring a photographer or illustrator to create original artwork for you, you’ll save money by negotiating up front for all the potential uses you’ll have later.)

What if I’m broke/a small business/a student/creating a personal website or blog/just starting out/not making any money/a non-profit/doing God’s work?

Sorry: The same rules apply to you, too. Some image sources may offer discounted rates for non-profits or educational purposes; it never hurts to ask.

What if I’m creating a parody?

Oh, well, then, knock yourself out. Mostly. Carefully. You’ve got a whole lot more leeway, as this PDF from the American Bar Association explains very well. But your use has to really be parody, and “transformative”— in that it creates something genuinely different and new out of the original idea. It doesn’t count if you’re creating ordinary content that you plan to call a parody in the event that you get a cease-and-desist letter from a copyright owner. (Interestingly, the Supreme Court gives much more leeway to parody than to satire. Read the ABA article for more info.)

Give me some good news: what images can I use?

Lots of stuff:

  1. Your own original images— photos that you take, pictures that you draw. Of course, you still have to follow copyright law with regard to the subjects of the photos; that’s why reality TV shows blur out logos and brand names on T-shirts.
  2. Original images that you commission: photographs, illustrations, logos, etc.
  3. Stock images. There are dozens of great resources for stock photos, illustrations, animations, even videos. Some of them cost as little as $3 each; some cost hundreds of dollars. Just be sure you buy the right license for your use. The small investment is worth it, and you’ll usually have access to images that are higher quality than anything you can snag for free. On this blog, and on the C3 Advertising website, we use stock photos, original art, and commissioned illustrations.
     
    Some of our favorite stock photo sites are iStockphoto, Veer, BigStock Photo, Getty Images, and Shutterstock.
  4. SOME images on file-sharing sites, like Flikr. Occasionally, designers, illustrators, and photographers will generously share their work under a Creative Commons or similar license. Read these licenses carefully for each image. Creative Commons licenses come in several flavors, and you must abide by the rules. Some allow sharing only on the web, some only for editorial or educational purposes, some only with attribution or if you promise not to alter the work.
  5. Free stock images. I include this resource for due diligence, but with rare exceptions, you get what you pay for. You also have to be cautious about the provenance of your free image sources. You don’t want to get in trouble because somebody else lied on the Web. Not that anybody would ever lie on the web…oh, wait…nevermind.

I’ve included a lot of detail here, but the rules are actually easy to follow. Until you get the hang of it, bookmark this page as a reference. And when you’re feeling frustrated that you can’t just copy and paste to fill your online bucket, remember this: Copyright laws are a good thing, especially for you. If you’re reading this, you’re a content creator of one stripe or another. The original content you create will benefit from copyright protection, too.

Disclaimer: The guidelines offered here are based on our experience in following copyright law as content creators across multiple media, and in helping our clients stay compliant as they create their own content. But since my formal legal education consists mostly of watching Law & Order, if you have a specific copyright question or issue, contact a lawyer.

Should You Be On Facebook?

Smashing Magazine had a very useful posting yesterday on how to create effective fan pages on Facebook. It turns out that creating an effective Facebook fan page takes just as much effort, design sense, good copywriting, and marketing savvy as any other advertising effort. Most of all, like the “real” web, an effective Facebook fan page also takes carefully crafted content with a high perceived value.

To that I say: duh. Too bad, but, duh.

(What’s a “fan page”? Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, Facebook believes that people are different from business entities. This means that your business can have a  ”fan page,” but not a “profile”.  There are more restrictions on a fan page than on a profile; for example, you don’t have the ability to add friends.  The penalty for confusing the two is abrupt and ignominious removal from the Facebook universe. Ironically, that means it’s easier for a business to be tossed out than for an individual to erase their Facebook presence voluntarily.  So if you’re having trouble closing your Facebook profile account, I suggest you try changing your name to Giant Corporation, Inc. and see if they’ll close it down for you.)

Should your business even have a Facebook Fan Page?

It’s probably worth a try, if…

  • You’ve got a consumer brand that customers regularly engage with, or get passionate about.  Cars. Trendy clothing. Starbuck’s. A rock band. Organic knitting wool. Artisan olive oil. Boutique wines.
  • Your target market is a heavy user of Facebook. Examine your market closely. There is a big difference between “has a Facebook account” and “lives on Facebook”.
  • You offer a lot of coupons, short-term offers, or events. Facebook lends itself well to these kinds of programs.
  • You do it right, both creatively, and as part of a thoughtful online strategy.  This is not a task to leave to the summer intern.
  • You have all your other marketing ducks in a row. Facebook is cheap — however, as I’ll show in a minute, by no means free — but it’s no substitute for a real marketing program.

It wouldn’t hurt, and might help, if…

  • You’re a business-to-business marketer with an offbeat brand.
  • You have a cutting-edge product in an emerging field where there is a lot of discussion between product creators and end-users/consumers. But be cautious — where Facebook might be a good forum for interaction and brand-building if your product is a highly experimental surfboard, I’d steer clear if it’s something like commercial-scale green energy technology.  Facebook is, after all, a social network, and can appear frivolous.  If you want to be taken seriously, a blog is a better choice.
  • Your consumer customers are on the cusp: some of them live online, some don’t. Do some real testing to see if the results are worth your time and effort before committing to a program.

You probably shouldn’t, if…

  • You’re going on Facebook only because you keep hearing that you should.
  • You think it will instantly make your solid, traditional brand look hip.  It won’t.
  • You’re a traditional b-to-b with traditional sales channels. Hardly anyone we know develops fan-like zeal for a particular brand of rooftop tarring materials or network-management software.  Customers may love your products, but they almost never feel compelled to shout “Hinkley’s Industrial Packing Tape rocks!” Nor are they likely to visit you on Facebook.
  • You don’t have the resources to maintain it.
  • You want to protect your content.

And that brings us to…

The Great Facebook Content Hitch

Quick quiz: Who owns your Facebook content?

A. You do.
B. You do, but Facebook co-owns it as long as you’re a member.
C. Facebook does, forever and for all time.
D. You do, but Facebook can borrow it as long as it’s on your page.

Most people think that the answer is (A).  It’s actually never been (A).  For most of Facebook’s history, it was (B).  Except for a strange, unsettling period lasting from February ’09 until just recently, when it was (C).  In fact, during the megalomaniacal fever dream that was Policy (C), the company claimed “unending and irrevocable license to use any content uploaded to its service”. (Read more: Concern over new Facebook content rules – Wichita Business Journal)

Scary. Creepy. And with the potential to collect all user-posted content into some giant Wikibook or Faceipedia.  (One can only imagine the lengthy entry on uses of the word “dude”, or the photo essays on the topic, “Me and My Friends at a Party.”)

Facebook’s policy is now (D), to wit:

“You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:

  1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (“IP content”), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (“IP License”). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.”

(Read the full statement on Facebook.)

As far as I know, Facebook has not ever used these considerable powers over content, let alone abused them. But the potential for such unlimited (albeit temporary, as long as Policy D is in force) power over content makes me nervous.

This is a big deal, because content is expensive. If your content is created in-house, you may think it’s cheap, or even free, but it is most definitely not.  This content, for example, took me a dang long time to write. In my opinion it’s a worthy investment, but it’s still a cost.

Of course, the best way to maximize that investment is to re-use your content. Facebook’s content ownership policy has the potential to diminish or dilute your ability to do just that. How? Here are two hypothetical examples of what Facebook could theoretically do under this policy:

  1. You have a line of clothing that you market to pre-teen girls.  Every week, you liven up your Facebook page with a clever, quotable saying.  Eventually you decide to put these sayings on your back-to-school tees.  Only Facebook has already loaded them into a highly popular rotating widget and printed them on bumper stickers, none of it tied to your brand. Now you’ll look like you got them from Facebook, not the other way around.
  2. Your company is the world’s leading expert on dust-repelling heating ducts. To save money and time, you use your Facebook fan page as a blog instead of setting up a real one.  You post answers to customers’ FAQs. You and your engineers write about how to achieve smooth installations and why your ducts are the best ducts of all time.
    After a while, almost without trying, you have the makings of the kick-ass white paper that you’ve been putting off for years.  You have loads of text and pictures to enrich your content-starved website.  Only by now, Facebook has launched Faceipedia, and the article under “Dustless Ducts” has all your accumulated wisdom. Nobody needs to go to your branded site, or to download your white paper.

I don’t know that Facebook wants to do any of these things. They probably don’t. But the fact that they might be able to should give you pause about what kind of content you post there.

It would be lovely if Facebook could make you instantly cool, drive millions of new customers to your door, and allow you to eliminate all but a pittance of your marketing budget. But the fact is that it’s pretty much like all marketing tools: valuable for some, highly effective when used with skill to the right target audiences, and no magic bullet.