You read that title correct.
This is not a new concept. More and more blog writers are opening the floodgates and insisting the world steal their content.
If you read something in these articles that inspire you to share it somewhere else, go on and copy and paste it. While it would be nice to receive a contextual link back with a citation of my name to whatever you’re quoting, you’re not obligated. Just take it, use it, share it, blog it, mention it on television, include it in your book, whatever.
This blog’s content policy is specific, quoting in part:
All words, images, video, and other content on this blog are uncopyrightable except where specified as the property of someone else.
That language has been there for many months. I’m announcing it now.
Click that uncopyrightable link to read what Leo Babauta writes about copyrights vs uncopyrights.
Here’s the meat:
Copyright stems from a protective mindset, one that believes the creator owns his work, and must protect that ownership in order to profit from said work. The creator will share his work with others, but only at a price, and anyone who takes without paying, or uses it as a basis for further creations, is stealing.
That’s the copyright mindset.
The uncopyright mindset is that of someone who gives without any guarantee of profit, who lets go of ownership and believes the world owns his creation. He hopes to contribute to the world in a small way, and if others benefit from this contribution, that’s a good thing. And if others use his contribution to create something new and beautiful, that’s a wonderful thing.
The uncopyright creator lets go of ownership, because to hold on to ownership hurts the world, and to try to protect that ownership leads to unnecessary stress.
Christine and David Schmitt want you to steal their picture above from Flickr, too, as long as you abide by this attribution notice.
Why should my blog be any different?
Cognizant so-called scraping websites have stolen my blog content in full or in part for years, I point you once again to the updated list of plugins on this blog and that the RSS Footer plugin has been installed here for over two years. Scroll to the bottom of this scraped page to see the plugin in action, to see my name and my source link in the footer.
Some people cry foul at stolen content. That’s their right.
To the scrapers and to you, I encourage you to consider that stealing is sharing and I humbly ask you to share the social web with me. Use what you want, link back to me and mention my name if you have a good heart but you can use it without mentioning my name if you prefer.
Who’s with me in giving up control?
About Ari Herzog
You state that your content policy is: “All words, images, video, and other content on this blog are uncopyrightable except where specified as the property of someone else.”
One can’t steal what’s being given freely by the owner, Ari.
Yet it happens.
The definition of stealing is the act of intentionally and fraudulently taking another person’s personal property *without permission or consent* and with the intent to convert it to the taker’s use.
The moment you give permission or consent to others to make use of your personal property however they please, you can’t claim that they are “stealing.” Do you see what I mean?
Indeed I do, Elyse. Where’s the conflict?
I didn’t think there was any conflict, Ari. What I do see is that there’s a misinterpretation perhaps of the word stealing since permission or consent granted negates the definition of the word “steal.” Since the word “steal” is negated by way of permission or consent, then it’s misleading to state “Yes, You Can Steal This Blog.”
I think it’s good that you allow others to repost your content in the form of quotes or excerpts, but I really don’t see the point in reposting whole articles.
Give people a snippet, give them a link and let them read it! I often link to other places on the internet on my blogs, as I am sure you well know Ari, as some of the links are to you!
Thing is I don’t think I would ever re-post someone else’s work on my blog… I just don’t see the point…
There is a difference between allowing something and knowing it happens. I don’t differentiate anymore.
The problem is.. do users want to be able to find multiple sites with the exact same content. Obvioussly the odds of seeing the same article more than once is very low, but then the more people steal content, the higher those odds get.
I’m going to keep my content unique. Make the internet a better place – for everyone.
It doesn’t matter when the search engine robots know which source is original and which is duplicated. Keep in mind that comments, backlinks, etc. weigh into search equations for optimized results.
As far as I understand, as long as the secondary producer of the info links to you, it has no negative seo effect.
What if people don’t leave a contextual link? Many people copy my entire posts and don’t give me any kind of credit. What then?
Then you need to make a choice.
A quote and a link = reasonable use = no such thing as bad publicity.
Secondly, your picture is an illustration, found elsewhere on the web. You, Ari, don’t ‘own’ your image in the way that a photographer does, who has waited patiently to capture just that moment! (The cartoons you sometimes show, are they your work?)
‘Stealing’ is no longer stealing, if there is a link back to the original author.
The above picture is linked to the flickr page and there is a separate attribution link, as I always do with Flickr (and other) pictures released to the public domain. As far as cartoons, etc., such as what you see here, the author link is embedded inside the image and is used according to the will of the creator.
I’m not referring to linking, though.
Ari, from your quote of Leo Babauta one could infer that you don’t support copyright at all. Do you think all creative works be distributed for free?
I recognize the necessity of rules to maintain order to avoid a chaotic society but there comes a time when another rule is another form of oppression. Should all creativity be unleashed? How about you ask each creator?
Stealing isn’t the same as sharing. i share my ice cream with you; you steal a car.
I can’t recall the last time someone was jailed for sharing, but I can recall plenty of examples where a prison sentence has been handed out for theft.
i won’t be allowing my content to be “stolen” any time soon. I have a Creative Commons license for my content – I don’t mind sharing, but offer the credit where credit’s due.
That mas my initial reaction Danny but I then wondered if Ari was winding us up. You know what he’s like.
I don’t steal content and I don’t want my content stolen… not that I can do much about it.
I’ve had to ban the IP of a few scraper bots that have stolen both my content and bandwidth.
If you want to use a few lines and use a credit, that’s fine, but don’t steal.
I wonder if anyone reads links I include. I’m not introducing a new concept but one that others have embraced for years.
Agreed, mate. If we’re saying we’re happy our stuff is being stolen, then we may as well give over our other creative juice as well, and let customers, clients, etc, take everything and not pay us.
People pay for expertise; flipping that to content, and people respect the wishes of the blogger, writer, photographer, etc, if they find the content valuable (or at least should – I know I find a ton of value online and always refer people to the source).
Giving up on that seems a strange choice, to me. But, we all have our own approaches.
I don’t ‘know what he’s like’ but he is winding us up. In a ‘don’t do what I say, do what I do’ way ;~)
Why the embedded footnote and link – ‘written by Ari Herzog’ – to accompany ‘steal this, use what you want!’
Which side of the fence are you standing on Ari?
Ari is a naughty boy, but just look at the conversation he’s got going!
Not often you comment on a post that gets moving along like this one.
Goes to show that threaded comments and the ReplyMe plugin are working.
Too true.
Need threaded comments to carry on the conversation.
Without a thread there is no conversation. You can’t converse with someone one on one if other comments get in the way.
Am I winding you up, or are you being wound up?
A bit of both Ari, a bit of both.
I often read your posts, not for the content, but for the layers of meaning. A gifted and talented blogger you are! I do prefer the posts you write yourself, to those by your guest bloggers. I am being amused ;~)
I wasn’t referring to ice cream and cars. I was referring to online content.
You compared stealing to sharing – i shared examples of why it’s not.
Once again, I wrote, encourage you to consider that stealing is sharing and I humbly ask you to share the social web with me. Use what you want, link back to me and mention my name if you have a good heart but you can use it without mentioning my name if you prefer.
Your statement that I “compared stealing to sharing” is erroneous. I didn’t compare the two terms but suggested that one is the other with respect to the social web.
“…consider that stealing is sharing…”
I think you’re tying it into semantics, Ari. Either way, you’re saying you’re opening up to theft, and I disagree on that approach.
I think we both agree we have different views on that.
You say I’m opening up to theft, I say I’m giving up ownership. To each his own.
I’ve seen the others who’ve written before on this. I don’t understand their approach either. But as I mentioned to Keith, everyone has their own approach.
I love the way you have embraced the inevitability of corruption. I should probably take a lesson from your playbook. I would be a lot less stressed. : )
My main concern over this position however is that it is not a sustainable economic model. I would need to write another blog post to explain this more fully (and will) but let me leave you with this: What if nobody paid royalties to a site like iStockphoto? What if they took your position — take my original photos and use them however you like, I don;t care.
Here is what would happen: a) almost every professional photogrpaher contributing their content would fail and/or quit. b) you would be left with photos only from the people who don;t care about the money and probably nont good enough to make it any other profession and c) the quality of the photos would decline substantially.
Yet that is the model you espouse for bloggers? For people who are trying to make a living as writers and content-providers? It doesn’t add up. Perhaps the economy of “free” is inevitable but it will hurt the entire profession immeasurably.
Thanks for continuing the discussion!
I don’t suggest other bloggers do what I do, but that I do what other bloggers do and that it is the choice of anyone else, per my final sentence, whether to join me.
As to your scenario of photography, etc., I point you to a TED talk by Johanna Blakley about the lack of copyrights in the fashion industry. Trademark law exists but copyrights are purposefully not added to lines of clothing. Watch her fascinating video, Mark, and ask yourself again whether your argument is sustainable.
I don’t think I would ever re-post someone else’s work on my blog… I just don’t see the point…
Fair enough, but surely an element of everything you say every day is based in part on what you heard other people say or what you read other people write, no? Or, is your entire lexicon comprised of original thought?
Ah but does Kim Lewis memorize your words, Ari, and then speak them as Kim Lewis’ own so that Kim has no original voice to claim?
I can’t speak for Kim; only she can.
Ari – thanks for this great article! I have, for many of my posts, put a message with my photo and an invitation to reuse the content. I like the idea of making the ideas available to any and all without license. After all, my blog is a conversation with the online users – I’m not saying anything I wouldn’t say in person to a stranger or a prospect, so why not simply let people have access? It’s not like I’m the first person to have an original idea and somewhere in the world there might be another person having the same kind of ideas in their own way. I think copyright stemmed from the “unique” factor – the idea that we’re all unique and therefore someone else couldn’t possibly come up with our “unique” idea (and yet they felt the need to protect said idea).
Indeed. Another way to think about it is people likely retweet your content, but I’m willing to bet that x% include your twitter name in the RT and the other y% don’t include your twitter name. Yet your article is still being retweeted so why not embrace both?
Clever move – accept the inevitable – go with the flow – get back links from the people who are probably those from whom you would want backlinks anyway – live long and prosper.
I don’t think it applies to all online content though.
Some content can form the basis of a business in its own right.
In that case, ripping it off wholesale – with or without a back link – can spell the death of the originator if the other guy is a better salesman.
Hi Ari. I just read your post from my email inbox and thought I would wonder over to see what kind of reaction you received. I skimmed through the other comments and thought Danny Brown hit the nail on the head. As a blogger to be, I wouldn’t mind if people wanted to share or borrow my material, if they wouldn’t mind giving me credit. However, I don’t have any grand illusions (or delusions) of being a great blogger, so I probably won’t have to deal with the issue. Interesting post, Ari.
Hi Ari,
I think i really like this concept if for one reason: why create unnecessary stress? You know the scrapers and content thieves out there will continue, and no amount of bellyaching and fussing will change that. All it does is create a headache for you going back and forth with their web host, and Google, etc., to get their stolen content down, and it’s entirely up to you to provide the proof and do the leg work.
And then what happens? You might win, the site goes down…only to pop up tomorrow under a new name with a new host! Oi vey.
It reminds me of the saying, “Those who mind don’t matter, and those who matter don’t mind.”
Seems to me you’re one of those who matters, Ari.
Delena
Hi, Ari. I have no quarrel with people who post my content on their sites or blogs. Maybe this is because even if they didn’t ask my permission, I still see that put me on the author resource box. Just today though, I noticed one particular article posted of mine posted on a site. While they did say it was written by Wes Towers, they did change the name of my company from Omnific Design to Omnific Style. It was weird, but no harm, no foul, I guess because my link was unchanged.
The concept of copyright first emerged (in protean form) with Geoffrey Chaucer I believe. He was tired of monks writing out his verse incorrectly and so insist they do so exactly or not at all. It meant he took a much firmer stance on intellectual property than almost all preceding writers. Kind of cool that we’re coming full circle now. I guess that reflects the increasingly social nature of text in an internet built on words. Text is no longer sacred – but the stuff of daily communication.