Examples of Great Content Creation/Curation/Traffic Leaks

Discussion in 'Marketing' started by doublethinker, May 12, 2017.

  1. doublethinker

    doublethinker

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    62
    Likes:
    29
    Degree:
    0
    Every day we encounter great examples of content creation, curation, and leaks. Why don't we share them here as a library of exemplary work that a bootstrapped builder can apply?

    What worked

    Engaging writing, while using the hands-on reviews of three leading tech sites to generate more content and create authority via brand association. Well used paraphrasing which blurs the lines between the author's voice and the voices of the other tech sites.

    What it costs

    Time to research, the effort to write.
     
    Jeteye and CCarter like this.
  2. darkzerothree

    darkzerothree DunkelNullDrei

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2017
    Messages:
    127
    Likes:
    101
    Degree:
    1
    The interesting thing here is how they got to use the images (something that would be more difficult for a lone webmaster)

    PCMag and Extremetech are both owned by Ziff Davis.
    Engadget is AOL
    TheVerge is Vox Media

    How those are connected, I dunno.
     
  3. doublethinker

    doublethinker

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    62
    Likes:
    29
    Degree:
    0
    @darkzerothree Either licensing, fair use or part of a paid media campaign.

    Paid Media POV

    It's highly possible that Blackberry engaged in a paid media campaign to publish these articles. I was in a tech company prior and it's usually almost always the case.

    Fair Use POV

    In consideration of fair use, it's not a commercial page (for profit). Nothing on the page has a call-to-action to monetize the page except for a content discovery plugin. The content in itself more journalistic in form and attribution is given clearly. If you consider that it is an investigation of 3 reviews to form a new point of view, one might argue that it is transformative and not derivative. (read up on copyright and fair use if unfamiliar with these terms)

    These are not indicative of any legal ground to use though (that can only be decided in court) and no one should haphazardly follow the same without making some effort to justify/defend the use- or don't at all.
     
    darkzerothree likes this.
  4. darkzerothree

    darkzerothree DunkelNullDrei

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2017
    Messages:
    127
    Likes:
    101
    Degree:
    1
    I'm aware of all those and they don't apply if you use the pictures 1 to 1.

    Fair use is not gonna fly. The site is clearly commercial, not a non-profit or charity.

    Transformative also does not apply to the pictures as they weren't changed.

    I think the bug boys are just sharing or throwing money around.

    However, the concept is still great!
    If doing this, I'd go for official press release pictures. The companies want to have those distributed.
     
  5. doublethinker

    doublethinker

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    62
    Likes:
    29
    Degree:
    0
    Hey @darkthreezero, your understanding of copyright and fair use seems different from mine.

    1. The site is commercial yes, but note that I said page and not site. News sites have to make money too, that doesn't stop them for 'fair using'. The page does not have a clear method to monetize from the image. Indirect sources (other pages, unrelated plugins in page) would normally not be considered. That would be unlimited liability if so.

    2. Transformative does not have to be literal, e.g. I changed the image. There's also the intended purpose, or use of the media. For example, seller has a picture to sell pizza. Pizza creates mass diarrhea. I use same unaltered picture in my public service article to show what diarrhea inflicting pizza looks like. This use is as I may argue, transformative.

    That said, again fair use is a very gray area. Your suggestion to use official pictures is the safest and surest.
     
  6. darkzerothree

    darkzerothree DunkelNullDrei

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2017
    Messages:
    127
    Likes:
    101
    Degree:
    1
    @doublethinker

    Yes, our understanding is very different.

    As I am not in the US, I am taking this as primary source
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

    However, we got similar laws here.

    So, there seems to be some central toughts

    While you could say that this is "news reporting" - taking an image from the review/news article about a new phone to use in your article on the new phone is hardly news reporting.

    Different, for example to picturing an art installation that was vandalized to talk about that event - that is news.

    It also seems that the transformative nature is part of fair use.

    Transformative means turning lyrics into parody, or photos into sketch, etc...transforming the very nature of the work.

    The case they cite is an artist using part of an ad in a collage.
    Now THAT case had to be decided by a court.

    You think that if a court has to decide if a piece of art is fair use, literally using the same picture for the same purpose is even debatable?

    I would also not buy into the "but my page is not for profit, even thpugh the site is" I dont think any judge would fall for that.

    But...

    dont take all this too harsh.

    In fact, I think you got a great strategy laid out. I just thin, ypu should use official press release pictures to navigate around pesky lawyers and you are golden!
     
  7. doublethinker

    doublethinker

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    62
    Likes:
    29
    Degree:
    0
    @darkzerothree There is no subject that cannot be considered as news, even if the type of news is not well respected. Say entertainment, a news report about Kendall Jenner, is still news. "It's not news" is a personal view that it does not deserve being called that, but news is news.

    Yes, whether the usage is transformative is a large part of deciding fair use (during a dispute in courts). We are on the same page here.

    What we disagree on is the purpose of the article or but I'm not too sure if I am reading you correctly, so here is an oversimplified table.

    Oversimplified Copyright Equations
    - Same picture + same purpose = Infringement
    - Same picture + different purpose = Fair use
    - Altered picture + same purpose = Depends on the amount of alteration
    - Altered picture + different purpose = Best defense of fair use.

    Correct me if I am wrong, you maintain that the content of the article is not transformative, hence the usage of the pictures are derivative. I posit that the commentary and the combination of various sources to form that commentary is transformative in nature.

    A commercial site is not a decisive factor that indicates a clear infringement. Fair use guides tend to confuse readers with this. What will be more substantive argument (besides the other factors mentioned) is:

    a) whether the alleged infringer tangibly benefited from the alleged infringement;
    b) the copyright owner suffered a tangible loss (or can it be argued as a benefit).

    Just because the commercial site got more traffic from the article (hence a benefit), is in my personal opinion reaching too far and a weak argument at best. Consider the implications of free speech if this is actually true and enforceable. Every blogger with an ad banner, content discovery tool are criminals just by having a voice on something that they don't own.

    So going back to the article in question, Extremetech does not seem to have a clear monetarily benefit from the article. The copyright owner similarly, does have a clear method to monetize the article.

    The problem with fair use guides

    The problem with fair use is that the people who read the "factors of fair use" tend to take the factors too literally. The watered down non-conclusive lawyer guides only serve to push that confusion. Which makes perfect sense, they need confused people to provide a service to. That's not dissimilar to what builders do. DON'T FALL FOR YOUR OWN DAMN TRICKS!

    The point is, just because one factor doesn't check doesn't mean you will lose. The factors are a layman's super-general guide to fair use and it's a bad guide at that.

    It's like that ridiculous misinformation for a period of time that caused people to have disclaimers about being liable for giving bad advice to people, and then being smug about it. You can't warranty or be liable for free advice, period. There's no consideration (a term in contract law).

    Everything we've said here is not conclusive until it goes to court. So I may be flat out wrong. I do have some legal experience (in a real law firm, but not a lawyer), that's unfortunately not in copyright, so I have a heavy opinion on this. You (general you as in any builder) should not believe what I say just because I said it.

    At some point in this refreshing and frankly enjoyable debate, I must confess that we are moving into armchair expert territory. I hope this serves as a starting point for builders thinking of copyrights though.

    Food for thought: Using official pictures makes you equally exposed/unexposed to copyright infringement. The safety is only in knowing that a publisher would likely be more trigger happy to send a legal letter your way than the advertiser/merchant who wants more exposure.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2017
    Ryuzaki likes this.
  8. doublethinker

    doublethinker

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    62
    Likes:
    29
    Degree:
    0
  9. darkzerothree

    darkzerothree DunkelNullDrei

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2017
    Messages:
    127
    Likes:
    101
    Degree:
    1
    true.

    I am also coming from a way different background (middle Europe)

    IN Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, a cease and desist will already cost you money.

    Copyright is also handled VERY strictly.

    There is an infamous couple in Germany making insane amounts of money because people are using their food pictures for recipe's etc. VERY bland food pictures - as in "put tomato on table, snap pic with phone"

    http://www.marions-kochbuch.de/index/0837.htm

    They get thousands and ten thousands of bucks awarded by the courts.

    That is why I am so reluctant.

    What I meant was pictures published by - for example - Samsung FOR redistribution.

    but yeah, while I enjoy this discussion, I am no expert - my advice would be to be careful.
     
    doublethinker likes this.
  10. doublethinker

    doublethinker

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    62
    Likes:
    29
    Degree:
    0
    That's very interesting, I have pondered about steps to incorporating a builder business overseas as a simple means of risk mitigation against copyright trolls (if there's such a thing), but I'm unfamiliar with international copyright laws and governing laws/jurisdiction. I also don't live in Europe which as you've said is very strict.

    I did a quick search. Israel, Kenya, Nigeria, Venezuela, Monaco, Bolivia do not have copyright treaties that are in force. I.e. ideal candidates to protect your business. Future thoughts.
     
    darkzerothree likes this.