Hello All…
If I copy some content from another website and modify it by using synonyms, or change in grammar.
After that I use online plagiarism checking tools for copied content
and my contents are found to be fresh content
so can i upload it on website?
Is there is any issue like copyright or anything else?
Please tell me your opinion. . .
You already doing a fair bit of work. like reading, copying, modify, checking grammar and spelling mistake then why you don’t write the fresh contents. Reading, Searching and write…
There is no such thing as “well copied content”. A copy is still a copy. From the US Government Copyright Office:
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another’s work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner’s consent. See Circular 14, Copyright Registration for Derivative Works.
If I steal your car and repaint it, put on new tires and rims, change the license plate, redo the inside upholstery, add a dvd player is it my car then?
If I steal your car and repaint it, put on new tires and rims, change the license plate, redo the inside upholstery, add a dvd player is it my car then?
To the people who have $5,000 in torrented music, a “Free” copy of Adobe Creative Suite from University, and use Google image search like a clipart library, your argument doesn’t get much traction.
They aren’t here asking the question and if they were, like the op, if they don’t pay attention to what is appropriate, they will end up in the ditch or worse!
Wait, what? NO!
See post #3
Don’t give advise on things you have no knowledge in!
Interesting case in point; in Germany a chancellor just quit because he had delivered his doctorate and was found out for major plagiarism. I was a real scandal. Just goes to show copying stuff can really hurt. Badly!
Do not copy without consent of the original author. Period.
This is a very ill-informed position to take. Have a read at this article on the BBC today to illustrate the scale of the problem.
Definitely NOT.
Copyscape is one automated tool that looks to see whether it thinks you’ve copied the content from anywhere else. Automated tools like that are not infallible, they rely on certain algorithms that are by their nature limited and imperfect. Just because you have changed enough words to pass one such checker does not mean that you haven’t copied the content or that it is legitimate to use. You know if you have copied the content. If you have done then you have done, and pretending otherwise is nothing short of fraud.
If you have something to write about, write about it yourself. If you don’t have anything to write about, either do some genuine research or keep quiet. The last thing the web needs is more scammers and plagiarists churning out rehashed versions of other people’s work that add no value to it.
The title of the article is Plagiarism: The Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V boom. It is about a copy and paste – scraper – mentality pervading everything.
Perhaps if we dismiss BBC reportage as jaded, that somehow invalidates the article. Then, the next step is put on a Shirley Temple movie and see how everything comes out okay in the end.
If you have done then you have done, and pretending otherwise is nothing short of fraud.
You won’t get anywhere with this line of reasoning, straight out of the SEO ‘See no evil’ handbook.
What will work? Why the Google “Content Farm” update, of course.
The search giant on Thursday announced a change to its algorithms designed to “reduce rankings for low-quality sites—sites which are low-value add for users, copy content from other websites or sites that are just not very useful.”
– New Google algorithm takes aim at content farms
Search giant says change affects 12% of search results in U.S.
I am truly going to miss [sniff] the SEO industry. They have given us so very little for so long. Maybe now we can go back, read the lip service, and figure out how to research and write and article without Craigslist installed like a printer driver on the SEO operating system.
The SEO industry is a mutant strain, it was always a small part of legitimate marketing, purely a product of those who want to game search engines. You can post tsk, tsks here daily – it won’t staunch the regular, recurrent, regurgitation of these threads – all right at the top of this section.
This is a rorhshack moment. You are seeing what you are seeing For A Reason. Acknowledge the web dev world view and change it, or perpetuate the current dark ages. Google management knows if SEOs win, Google loses – it’s Google or the SEO industry.
What we are talking about is a true renaissance. Writing with actual target readership, information value, style and substance. It could happen.
One thing I see from the “Search Giant” is that their percentages seem to be a bit low. 12%? Really, now.
“content” is not the words you use it’s the MEANING of the content. Lets say I take an image, convert it from a png to a jpeg. Does that mean it’s ‘fresh content’? Copying is copying. It doesn’t matter how you’re doing it.
What a strange question to ask. I wonder what reply yashsaxena expected?
Wow… so is this the “lesson” people learned from the recent Google algorithm changes?
What the OP is asking would only be acceptable if the original is out of copyright. Since copyright varies between countries it is safest to check that the author died at least 75 years ago before you consider that the material is out of copyright and therefore acceptable to use as the basis for your own derivative work. You would then own the copyright on your version.
What you are doing is called PLAGIARISM…
Debbie
You should never copy content for anyone - write your own!
I was working with one of the more prestigious art colleges, certainly among the most expensive to attend.
One of the questions asked by senior students, “If it’s royalty free, why can’t I just download it.” I had to explain what a royalty was, and why royalty free isn’t Free.
Senior art students …and stock photography.
What a strange question to ask. I wonder what reply yashsaxena expected
Twenty “nos.” And one “Yes.” She got what she wanted – sanction to do what she wanted – and left. She might have been hoping for a scraper forum, but you take what you can get.
Why does anyone not trying to accomplish a specific narrow task ever come to a forum. They do it to have people agree with them. They go to forums to have their fragile, flimsy world view buttressed with consensus.
When someone wants to do something attrocious with Flash, of Jquery or whatever, they want people to shut up about larger issues and give them what they ordered from the drivethru. After all, you don’t discuss philosophy with the person handing you your sack of burgers and fries. Why discuss larger strategic issues which would force you to rethink your task.
Going to a Flash forum is only sensible when you have a question about Flash. The added bonus is never hearing “Flash is evil” after investing time and effort learning it.
People use forums for validation – not information. A forum is a store where you shop for opinions, excuses and rationalizations to justify what you were going to do anyway. You go to a writing forum in a web dev site looking for consensus on how web devs treat text – with tongs and a nose clip. You know, so’s none of the writin’ gits on you.
Exactly right. The problem we are talking here is the same problem that is plaguing the web. Why can’t someone just do the research and make his own content/articles whatsoever. That’s not really a hard thing to do, is it? rewriting someone else’s work is a total crime. plagiarism is piracy!
Like Addy said, I think you’d be better off writing your own content. There’s no reason you can’t reference back to that original content - and if you’ve got your own unique spin on the subject you’d be doing some good link building. You can write an article saying you agree (or don’t agree) with the original author or talk about how interesting or relevant the subject is, and they or one of their readers would link back to you. But copy/paste/replace will more generate negative attention - the internet does not take kindly to content nabbers.
And my bet is that if the content is online (not just a digitized, out of copyright book from Project Gutenberg or archive.org) then it is current and within copyright.
I think your bet is a winner, at least according to US Copyright laws.
You have made some great points here as well in your answer about putting a new spin on an old subject. That’s the way you build authority on a subject… not by copying what someone else has already written. This also applies to writing in general. Instead of writing for a subject “off the top of your head” or using just one source, find other authoritative works and use references to them to validate your own ideas and opinions on a topic.