Comment 55 – “We’ve grabbed a complete copy of this page for our own legal team to review since you are allowing people to libel my name without any idea of what’s been said between you and I offline and/or knowledge or facts of the topic. All of the web sites and libelous statements will be kept for review.”

“This just isn’t so and I can prove it with our tracking software. It doesn’t lie and neither does your IP address. So why would you say the above statement? I don’t get it.

Also, why would you not share this important piece of information on your post above? I’ll post this on our site once we get approval from our attorneys to show everyone, but I don’t lie so I don’t feel like I need to defend myself unless we’re given approval to post it.”

“I will be more than glad to post more on our site either today or tomorrow upon approval from our attorneys.”

How’s about that for a start? If you’re going to say that you legal team were only going to get involved because of the “libelous” comments made then why would you need to get approval from your attorney to show that Maki had been on your site?

It seems to me that your beef is about him possibly using your screen grabs. At what point did you ask the site owners permission to generate the screen grabs and post them on your site?

But as you’re not going legal with this, it doesn’t matter does it?

I click on dozens of links all the time whilst surfing, opening multiple tabs, which stay open while I go downstairs for dinner, and which are sometimes closed again without being read if I get bored/run out of time etc. I have yet to see any solid evidence that justifies the accusations of theft that you made publicly against Dosh Dosh.

There is no copyright on inspiration for articles – no text was cut & pasted, no original images were hotlinked or stolen (Sorry, but I just don’t see that at all)therefore no attribution was owed.

ANSWER: Until you do wade through the comments then, does it really make sense to make inaccurate comments on things you don’t necessarily know. There were absolutely ZERO threats. Your memory doesn’t serve you right and if you don’t take the time to wade thorough the comments to find the truth then why suggest me making threats? That’s why I’m pursuing this!

ANSWER: I got bent out of shape by him when he denied being on our site hours before posting his story about the same topic (and for 20-30 minutes on that page), answering me by email befhand saying he was not on our site at all, diligently saying to give credit where credit is due “even in doubt,” (quoted from him on his site on this topic of copying), and then the extreme similarities of images to the exact pixel.

First up the IP logging statement was not made by me. Maybe you were skim reading too, eh?

Secondly, I haven’t got time to wade through the initial discussion that took place on Dosh Dosh but my memory suggests that you made veiled threats regarding legal action. If that is not the case then why are you still pursuing this?

Finally, can you answer the question I asked you directly? Is it content theft in terms of the words used in the article or using the screen grabs from the article that you’re unhappy about?

So, why you insinuate that I was going to take someone to court or even sue is way off base.

Lots of what you guys have mentioned above is only going off of partial comments and remarks but you seem to only get the story about half right.

Mike:
“IP logging is no proof of a particular person reading an article, but really very little of this bears up at all”

Mike, about the IP issue – you have it all wrong here. IP logs and the exact IP address from a computer and which pages they were on is VERY valid and used primarily for tracking within legal cases. Why do you think the law uses it, police use it, and SBI or FBI use it within any prosecution or court hearings dealing with the Internet. How exactly can you dismiss this being the truth??

Mike:
“Brian – I’ve watched the debate over at Dosh Dosh and now here and I still don’t quite understand exactly what it is that has annoyed you to the point of legal action.”

I never said I was seeking legal action. Please show me anywhere where I said I was seeking legal action! I said that I may have my legal team review the defamatory remarks because I did not know the law. And, I also pointed out several top online legal references where some very similar cases were won that were very similar to remarks by commenters like Susie, who was one of the first people name calling. Lots of people also jumped right in and did the same. Perhaps b/c they are just angry people trying to get out their aggression – I don’t know.

And, for the IP logs we have, DoshDosh was on our site the day he posted his blog reviews post but yet he forgot being there even though his post was the exact same topic? Going even further, his initial email to me while this was discussed via email only he says clearly that he was never on our site until well after his story was posted.

Very strange indeed!

Jonathan, the reason I got really bad vibes from this is that DoshDosh says in several places on his site was when in doubt about outgoing references, give credit. Seems odd to not follow your own advice, asking that I don’t display his IP tracked through our site page, staying on that particular blog review page for nearly 20 minutes, and then saying stuff like he didn’t remember ever being on the site at all but that it could’ve been someone at his house… another very strange coincidence I suppose.

Jonathan:
“Those who go public with such complaints either A) Don’t understand copyright law B) Don’t feel they have a strong case or C) Are seeking publicity.”

and

“Hopefully, if that is the case, this will be a lesson learned. I will happily help with this if I can.”

Please do, I’d like to see you help, because that doesn’t make any sense to me.

I’m not looking to gain anything from this happening. If I did I would not have tried to get in touch with Maki a few times before posting on our site.

I really hope the whole thing will just blow over. It does neither side any good having this public slanging match and, equally, taking it legal would only result in one winner. The lawyer.

In my experience, those who go public with allegations know the least about copyright law. Those who know more realize that the DMCA offers the chance to require hosts to remove the infringing material. It also offers severe penalties for those that misuse that power.

Those who go public with such complaints either A) Don’t understand copyright law B) Don’t feel they have a strong case or C) Are seeking publicity.

The first is understandable as copyright is nuanced and complicated. I definitely sympathize. Hopefully, if that is the case, this will be a lesson learned. I will happily help with this if I can.

The others though, I have a problem with. Using shame to either bolster a weak case or gain publicity is immoral and, possibly, illegal. It opens up the possibility of libel suits.

I have a strict policy to never encourage my clients to go public with accusations of plagiarism. I only even mention the possibility after all other methods, including legal, have been exhausted.

The case itself, from a legal standpoint, is weak. The images themselves are not copyrightable. They are derivative works of the sites they were taken from, which are in turn copyrighted by the companies that own them. Fair use allows their use for commentary or criticism, but they are derivatives.

You also can not copyright facts or an idea. Thus, neither the idea for the post nor the list of sites obtains no protection.

Thus, all that remains is the broader, ethical charge of plagiarism. I’m not going to comment on that too much, but the idea itself has been around for a long time and there are many other articles on the subject.

Could Maki have gotten the idea from SEOPosition? Sure. But he also could have gotten it from anywhere else. Simply visiting a similar article before posting one does not equal plagiarism.

The problem that I have is that there is so much serious content theft going on right now between RSS scrapers, verbatim plagiarists and copyrwriters with bad morals, to let something like this become such a big deal.

I’d much rather spend my time worrying about the real bad guys than whether or not another site took my idea, which had already been done before, or a few images that were trivial to create and aren’t even mine.

In the big scheme, even at its worst, this is minor. I’d rather put all hatchets aside and start dealing with the real bad guys. There are plenty of them out there.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, though I am very familiar with these issues. If you need legal advice, please seek an attorney.