SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 48 of 48
  1. #26
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think you can look for some services that provide a good unique content to your site.

  2. #27
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Copying content from another website is not bad provided some value addition is done by yourself. You must apply your own mind as to what are your target customers looking at.

    So in my mind it is better to get some ideas from otherwebsites but it should be presentable in your own words.

  3. #28
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,862
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pardhir View Post
    Copying content from another website is
    a breach of copyright and is illegal unless you have permission from the copyright owner (in writing so that you can prove it if challenged).
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  4. #29
    SitePoint Enthusiast forumrating's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    BusinessMeet.com
    Posts
    47
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    its a bad idea to copy, i won't recommend, original written content willgive you a higher valuation to your website. Its simple if users find same content else where they wont return to your website again. only thing you can take is facts and figures which cannot be changed. say year of establishment general data of measurements etc.
    BusinessConsultant.net Total Business Consultancy Solution (*beta mode)
    BusinessMeet.com A business Forum

  5. #30
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Using content directly from another website be in wikipedia or any other site is breaching copyright laws. Also, why would you want to have duplicate content on your site? So you can end up in good old google's supplemental index? Use the information you find on wikipedia but change it, add your own words to it, rewrite it so you are still giving the facts but you are not plagiarising. Let's be honest, how much "original" content is out there? The information is pretty much the same, just different ways of saying it. So be creative!

  6. #31
    SitePoint Addict ezwoodz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    269
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think it is a bad idea, everybody knows stealing is bad. This my also result for your indexed pages on google's to be supplementary. But from my opinion its okay to used others content but make sure to put the source of this content and also summarized that content.

  7. #32
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    hi, you can use its content but stealing as you know is stealing so...just try being original!!!
    www.getresume.com
    resume writing
    www.englishforums.com
    Learn English

  8. #33
    SitePoint Wizard samsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    Posts
    5,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kan999 View Post
    hi, you can use its content but stealing as you know is stealing so...just try being original!!!
    Did you read the thread? Comply with a few provisions and it is not stealing to use Wikipedia content on your site.
    Using your unpaid time to add free content to SitePoint Pty Ltd's portfolio?

  9. #34
    SitePoint Member Firefly Wings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The best way to stay away from plagiarism is to understand the content completely and write it in your own words, whether you use Wikipedia or eZines or any other sources.

    But then, since the Wikipedia has user-generated contents, you might want to think about looking for more reliable sources, such as those written by experts.
    Most COMPLETE online marketing program:
    3 hours of FREE money-making videos.
    Visit
    NetWebVideo
    .

  10. #35
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rewriting is always the best option.

    -------------------------------
    Logodiver: Custom logo design

  11. #36
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,862
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by samsm View Post
    Did you read the thread? Comply with a few provisions and it is not stealing to use Wikipedia content on your site.

    unless the Wikipedia content was itself stolen from somewhere else.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  12. #37
    SitePoint Wizard samsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    Posts
    5,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    unless the Wikipedia content was itself stolen from somewhere else.
    Even then it isn't you stealing, it is someone else stealing.

    If you have some reason to believe that the content is stolen then you are potentially jointly responsible, but something being on Wikipedia is no more indication of it being stolen than something being in a pawn shop.
    Using your unpaid time to add free content to SitePoint Pty Ltd's portfolio?

  13. #38
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    75
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by shabooz View Post
    Hi there,

    I was wondering if I could basically copy wikipedia content and use it on my site without citing it? Have any of you had experience with this? Can I do this if I do cite them?

    Thanks,
    Shabooz
    Well......wikipedia is really good source of content related to everything and you can find a lot of information related to any field at wikipedia but totaly copying its content for your site will be a bad practice.

    You can get an idea and information related to your website at wikipedia but you should write it in your own words including your keywords to publish content on your site.

  14. #39
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    130
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I use Wiki as a information sources to write all about content topic I need, Nice to read all comments above, Many of Website done re-write content ( Personally seem by myself)

  15. #40
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    89
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    you can rephrase it or maybe link them

  16. #41
    SitePoint Enthusiast ScottyDM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am not a lawyer.

    First of all, I believe that plagiarism is when you claim you created something, but you did not. For example if you say, "I wrote this," but you really copied it from Wikipedia. You don't even have to explicitly claim it's yours. Not citing your sources could be enough to mislead your readers and therefore is plagiarism. Usually plagiarism and copyright violation go hand-in-hand, but not always.

    Here's a good example:
    It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.
    To claim to have written that is plagiarism. However, since the copyright has expired it is not copyright infringement to post it here, on my website, or even printed in a book of famous opening lines--I could even charge money for the book and not infringe. In fact I can copy the whole chapter, or the whole book, legally. But if I claim it as my own people will universally recognize me as a loser, liar, and wannabe wordsmith.

    Quote Originally Posted by samsm View Post
    Even then it isn't you stealing, it is someone else stealing.
    Oh man is that ever wrong. Sure, you can probably hastily apologize and remove the material to avoid getting sued, but not getting sued is probably as much because lawsuits are a hassle and not because you are innocent. If you'd made money off the infringement the true copyright holder might decide they are entitled to some of that money. It has nothing to do with, "I didn't know."

    Scotty
    "I'm obnoxious and disliked, you know that, sir."
    John Adams, 1776 the Musical

  17. #42
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    75
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigiDiary View Post
    I think you can look for some services that provide a good unique content to your site.
    Obviously.........it will be better if you are confuse about how to write or mangae content for your website.......

  18. #43
    SitePoint Wizard samsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    Posts
    5,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottyDM View Post
    If you'd made money off the infringement the true copyright holder might decide they are entitled to some of that money. It has nothing to do with, "I didn't know."
    Let's say that instead of Wikipedia, it is a book of public domain art you buy from the bookstore. You use the art on your site, the art turns out to be copyrighted, are you really liable for damages?

    Or, you buy a stereo on eBay and it turns out to be stolen. Do you owe someone a new car window?

    Now, let's say a you meet a guy in a dark alley to buy 20 flat screen televisions at greatly reduced prices. Ok, now you are pretty much an accomplice.

    My contention is that Wikipedia is closer to the bookstore end of these extremes.
    Using your unpaid time to add free content to SitePoint Pty Ltd's portfolio?

  19. #44
    SitePoint Enthusiast ScottyDM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt. Perhaps someone with more legal experience could further clarify the issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by samsm View Post
    Let's say that instead of Wikipedia, it is a book of public domain art you buy from the bookstore. You use the art on your site, the art turns out to be copyrighted, are you really liable for damages?
    Good question. The art may be public domain, but those particular photos of the art might be copyrighted. I say "might not" because I think there needs to be a uniqueness factor for a work to be copyrightable.

    Let's say you want a photo of Trevi Fountain for your website. It's out in public where anyone can take one, and millions of photos probably exist. So from a practical standpoint you could probably some random photo off the 'Net and use it. It's unlikely the photographer would find out--even if he/she sees your web page. However, with so many photos available you should be able to find one released under a Creative Commons license, or even public domain. It'd be a bummer if the un-unique photo you "borrowed" happened to have an invisible watermark.

    Quote Originally Posted by samsm View Post
    Or, you buy a stereo on eBay and it turns out to be stolen. Do you owe someone a new car window?
    You lose the stereo, and if you don't have proof you bought it, you could face criminal charges. That the transaction took place on e-Bay is probably enough proof. As for what you paid, you need to deal with the seller to try to get your money back. In a criminal case the worth of the car window is usually not an issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by samsm View Post
    Now, let's say a you meet a guy in a dark alley to buy 20 flat screen televisions at greatly reduced prices. Ok, now you are pretty much an accomplice.
    Exact same issue as buying goods on e-Bay. The dark alley setting is not necessarily proof you knew the TVs were hot. Heck, lots of retail outlets have their receiving dock located in a dark alley. But if the transaction did not take place anywhere near your receiving dock and was of a nature that your suspicions should have been aroused, then I suspect the authorities will use the circumstances to make their case against you.

    Quote Originally Posted by samsm View Post
    My contention is that Wikipedia is closer to the bookstore end of these extremes.
    The information on Wikipedia is published under the GNU Free Document License. There are two problems with this. The first is that you cannot use their text unless you also release your resulting document under the same license. The second is that if one of the authors of the Wiki page you copied did not have permission to use what they posted (they stole it) then neither you nor Wikipedia has the right to publish it. Now Wiki might get away with it, or at least not be slammed with a big lawsuit, because they are considered not-for-profit and an educational resource. But if your use is for-profit you could get hammered. Having advertising on the page might be enough to be considered for-profit use.

    Unlike stolen goods, enforcement of copyrights is usually done under civil law rather than criminal law, so it's up to the original copyright holder to either sue or not. If they perceive that you're making money off their intellectual property they will be more motivated to take action. It doesn't make any difference that you thought the material was okay to use or not.

    Let's say you're a publisher of technical books and you want some original artwork for the cover of a book. You commission an artist and in due time they deliver the art. You print up tens of thousands of copies and put them in the channel and they are selling well. Everything looks peachy. Then some guy pops up and claims the cover art is his original work. A little investigation reveals your "artist" actually downloaded the art from this guy's deviantArt account. So the true artist sues you for some crazy amount like $2 per book, but doesn't bother to sue the "artist" you hired because you're the one with the deep pockets. Your best bet is to negotiate with the true artist, then turn around and sue your hired "artist" to at least get back the fee you paid them. The contract you had with your "artist" should contain the necessary clauses to make your suit against them a cakewalk (they breached your contract when they used non-original material).

    In this example that you purchased the stolen artwork in good faith and had no clue it was stolen, will in no way absolve you from liability to the true artist.

    Scotty
    "I'm obnoxious and disliked, you know that, sir."
    John Adams, 1776 the Musical

  20. #45
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    follow me twitter.com/mobileHolly
    Posts
    47
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you want public domain content for AIDS and you are a U.S. Citizen, I would go to a .gov site and use that content in a way that is modified to avoid the search engines' duplicate content filter.

    It sounds like you just don't want to research and write your own content. Hey, there's nothing wrong with that. So put an ad in the marketplace section and hire someone, and get the writer to sign a legal document that their work is not plagiarism and is not from wikipedia and if it is they agree to bear the consequences.

  21. #46
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What about selling an ebook(PDF format) found on wikipedia?

  22. #47
    SitePoint Zealot Jim Beam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would recommend you to rewrite the content from Wikipedia...

  23. #48
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,862
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Sites like Wikipedia where almost anyone can update the content displayed are more likely than regular sites to be displaying stolen content. I know of many people who are constantly having to issue copyright violation notices to Wikipedia in order to have their stolen content removed from the site. Just because the site is not for profit doesn't exclude them from being taken to court for copyright violations. That they are not for profit doesn't mean that their displaying someone else's content hasn't caused the owner to lose income through their theft. The biggest difficulty with something like Wikipedia is policing all of those updating the site to ensure that they don't post stolen content.

    The web now provides automated processes that make it relatively easy to locate stolen copies of your content and so the likelyhood of content thieves being found out is becoming far more likely than it was in the past.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •