Conference Reports - Copyright Violations? [Archive]

mcanerin

03-21-2005, 01:23 PM

As we all know, not everyone has the ability to go to all (or any) search related conferences such as SES.

Thus, reporters (like our own RustyBrick) provide a valuable service in reporting what goes on in these events.

But what happens when you take it to the next step and start charging for that information? What if you attend an SES, take a bunch of notes, then charge people for it?

You could argue that the time and effort put into collecting the information and presenting it makes it valuable and therefore charging for it is appropriate.

You could also argue that copying down someone elses work and repackaging it for sale is a copyright violation.

There is a site (not Rusty's, BTW - just want to make that clear) that is currently offering to sell an 11 page report on the information and seminars given at the recent NY SES for $15.

The site mentions that there were "1500 people who paid $1700 each" and implies you can get the essential parts of it for only $15 - a great deal, unless you happen to be one of the speakers whose work and research are being reprinted for profit, or Jupiter Media, whose $1700 seminar is being repackaged and sold without permission for $15.

I've spoken before at SES conferences, and although I did not speak at this one, I know all my presentations include a copyright notification for a reason. This would annoy me to no end.

It's one thing to contribute to the general knowledge of the SEO community, but quite another to have your contribution taken and used for someone elses commercial purposes without permission.

Any thoughts? While you are thinking about this, what (if any) difference would there be between this and (for example) news reporting like Rusty, news reporting for a paid subscription site (like a newspaper) or other types of reporting or condensed news such as forums like SEW or High Rankings, blog sites like threadwatch, and so forth?

Is there a difference? Is this a wrong thing to do? Is there any harm done? Does it even matter? I'm also interested in what other speakers think of this, as well as the opinions of SES attendees who paid their money, and people who did not go.

Useful report or copyright infringment? At what point does one become the other?

Ian

rustybrick

03-21-2005, 01:46 PM

I guess I should chime in.

(1) I would not feel comfortable charging a fee for my reports simply because they are unedited and probably are very hard to read. So they are unprofessional and thus "priceless."

(2) On the other hand, I do have a blog, I do have advertiser's at the blog, and indirectly, people come to the blog for that coverage, and also forum coverage. So I am making money off of it indirectly. Still, the ad revenue minus the travel expenses, hotel, etc. probably come out to be even or so. But I don't look at it that way, I enjoy it - so I do it.

(3) If I was Jupiter, I would be upset. :)

(4) If I was quoted or copied in that coverage (the one charging the $) I would be upset.

(5) If a speaker was upset about it, I would be upset. If I was the speaker, I doubt I would be upset.

Overall, it is a bit disturbing.

orion

03-21-2005, 01:49 PM

There is a site (not Rusty's, BTW - just want to make that clear) that is currently offering to sell an 11 page report on the information and seminars given at the recent NY SES for $15.

This reminds me a problem I faced back in the early 90's while working on my PhD and lecturing. Planted students were attending my and other colleagues lectures, taping them or taking notes for the intended purpose of selling these to outside companies. The problem was so widespread that even regular students soon were selling their own notes.

The university took action and pass guidelines in the sense that planted writers or reporters infringe on the copyright of both, lecturers and the university. After that, the problem ended as a legal dispute. The problem ended but I'm sure is still resurficing from time to time across state univs.

I'm sure Jupiter Media and SES speakers may want to have a say on this matter. This is not good.

Orion

PS. BTW, Ian did you get my emails? We need to chat a bit.

WilliamC

03-21-2005, 02:24 PM

I agree that this could easily become an issue quickly. But what are you going to do when someone does not use any of your own exact phrasing? They distribute the facts and the knowledge without quoting you in any fashion. I would care more about these people as they are giving your information and ability away for a fraction of the cost the seminar would charge, and you get no compensation at all. Yet at the same time, they are not breaking any copyright laws in existance.

David Wallace

03-21-2005, 02:27 PM

If this company/site owner :

1.) Did not get Jupiter Media's permission to sell a product that is related to their event,

and

2.) Is not somehow sharing the profits earned with Jupiter,

then I think they are going to be in a bit of hot water. :eek:

Besides that, did each SES speaker have an understanding that the information they presented could be packaged and sold by someone else besides Jupiter Media? Most likely that wasn't disclosed because it wasn't expected that a third party unrelated to Jupiter would re-package and sell the info for profit. It is then up to Jupiter to protect each speaker and the info they presented as well as its own rights.

I don't see this as any different than someone taping a broadcast of an NBA game, a NASCAR event, etc. and then reselling their edited version for a profit. A person that did that would surely invite a lawsuit by the original owner of the program or product.

randfish

03-21-2005, 03:19 PM

Like Barry, I wrote my own write-up of every session I attended. I'm also of the opinion that selling that material would constitute a violation of the spirit if not the letter of copyright law - and US judges do consider both!

If someone were to re-package that information and simply noted that one source for the information was the SES conferences, I believe that would be legal - after all, that knowledge has now become their intellectual property and they have created the text/graphics/etc. There's a fuzzy line here, but it's one that shouldn't be crossed by anyone who wants to stay reputable in this industry.

orion

03-21-2005, 03:51 PM

Well put randfish and posters.

Revisiting my own experience at the university -if I recall well- one question that surfaced was if it would be ok if students tape or repack lecture materials and give them away for free.

The university made clear they will take the very same position even if the broadcasting/distribution of lecture material or any sort of college's copyrighted material or lecturer's copyrighted material was done for free or for monetary gain.

Their position was that when student register for a course, registration is a contract agreeement between the university and students. The students were obligued to all terms and conditions and university policies. Consequently, students not using lecture material for the intended purpose, that is, to be prepared for classes were violating the TOS.

I found many similarities with the broadcasting or distribution of Jupiter Media' SES. Ultimately JM may need to revisit any TOS and take care of these issues before this practice becomes symptomatic with other SES or conferences in the industry.

On a different note, I often receive anonymous material from many sources, including lectures and exams from universities and always my position is not to broadcast these by any mean. Why would anyone running a company would want to extend an invitation to troubles?

My advice to others is that if in doubt, always ask the original source of the material before making it available to anyone. So if you receive any repacked material from a SES (but from not from JM), a university or a search engine (Google), you may want to rethink the whole distribution/broadcasting thing before making it available on the Web.

Orion

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

03-21-2005, 04:45 PM

Ian, thanks for bringing this up - I wasen't aware of it taking place like this. You ask a lot of valid questions.

Let me start by saying that I definately do not like if the content I have prepared as a speaker for the attendies of SES are abused and sold in detail, in whatever form, to others. I haven't read all the small print of Jupiter terms for the events but I am quite sure Jupiter agree with me that it is unacceptable behaviour for attendies to collect information for resale during the event. To me, it is much like bringing a video cam to a concert or sports event and reselling your recordings. Off course you are not allowed to do that.

Many people missunderstand the idea behind copyright and what it is you actually buy when you are grantaed a license to the work. When you buy a ticket for a concert you have the right to see that concert - nothing else. You are not allowed to record it, film it or sell anything off the event. The same logic applies when you buy a CD. I would think that goes for a conference like SES too.

I think there is a huge difference between reporting on an event and collecting detailed information for resale. It looks like the product you mention, Ian, is in the last category. To be allowed to report you still need the permission by the owner of the event - in this case Jupiter but we all - speakers and Jupiter alike, want the good PR printed media, online magazines and bloggers can bring. Media coverage in general is a "fair deal" but reselling detailed information is not.

> Useful report or copyright infringment?

As a lawyer, you probably know that in order to get copyright on any creative work, that work has to meet a certain level of originality. Collecting others information is not enough. That would be like compiling a CD of music I like - that dosen't make it my copyright :)

As far as I can tell from what I see this product does not meet the requirements for original work and therefore violates the original copyright owners rights.

Another thing to note is that the copyright of the work of the speakers belong to them and are protected by the law in their own country - not by the country in which they present. So anyone that reuse such information should be aware that they have to comply not only with US copyright law but also other. In my case, my work is protected by Danish copyright law so even if the US law dosn't cover US speakers in this event it may cover me.

I hope that Jupiter take actions on this. After all, it's not too hard to find out the name behind this publication.

Chris Boggs

03-21-2005, 06:53 PM

I cannot believe that this company is doing this. I hope they aren't using any of our free write-ups in their "for sale" material. That would be a copywriting violation in its own right. I would bet that Jupiter Media will likely put a stop to this practice soon.

Jill Whalen

03-21-2005, 07:06 PM

As a speaker from the conference, I am appalled. However, I'm having a hard time thinking that what she's doing is illegal in anyway.

To me, it is much like bringing a video cam to a concert or sports event and reselling your recordings.

No it's not. If she taped it, or videoed it and sold those recordings, then it would be just like that.

But it seems she just took notes and is selling her notes, no?

I don't even like it when people take notes on my session and then basically write an article that provides every exact detail of what I said in my session, and do it for free. I don't mind articles that summarize what was said, but it troubles me when everything I've said at a conference is made public. It completely devalues the conference, imo.

A few years ago, Ms. Ochman (the person selling her notes) did that with my session, for free and I wasn't very happy about it. I figured there wasn't anything I could do about it though, and I'm not sure that there's anything that can be done about her selling her notes now.

I'm sure Jupiter's lawyers will look into it, as they should, and who knows, maybe they'll find that she is violating something.

mugshot

03-21-2005, 07:09 PM

But like was mentioned, what if they give credit where credit is due?

So let's say (forgive me Rusty :) ) mentions in his sessions that "Keywords are good" and in this person's package he uses that quote such as "Keywords are good" - Rusty or "Rusty says Keywords are good" and in addition has a credit page at the end of this package...would that still make it illegal?

Ethical or not is another issue I suppose?

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

03-21-2005, 07:12 PM

Jill, it all depends on what is actually inculded in the PDF on sale. I interpret "Resources" as something more than just notes. She don't have to video film us, record our voices or directly use our power points to violate our rights. What about if she was just writing off what the slides said and redraw the images?

I don't know what is in that PDF but I sure don't like the whole idea - for many of the additional reasons that you mention too, Jill.

randfish

03-21-2005, 07:35 PM

A few years ago, Ms. Ochman (the person selling her notes) did that with my session, for free and I wasn't very happy about it. I figured there wasn't anything I could do about it though, and I'm not sure that there's anything that can be done about her selling her notes now.
Barry and I both have fairly detailed reviews of each SES session we were attending, including what I would call a fair repetition of many if not most of the important points that were discussed.

Jill - I can understand your perspective, but disagree on the result. It was Barry's write-ups that made me so interested in SES at first and it was the detail and coverage he provided that convinced me it was worthwhile (along with the influence and suggestions of others). I really believe that in-depth point-by-poin coverage of the sessions is a great way of promoting the conferences and doesn't devalue them at all. If I thought that my write-ups were hurting SES attendence I would take them down.

oilman

03-21-2005, 08:54 PM

so someone go buy it already and tell the rest of us in the peanut gallery what's in it ;)

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

03-21-2005, 09:05 PM

I tried, but the buy links just lead me to a blank page ... maybe it has already been taken down?

rustybrick

03-21-2005, 09:39 PM

I don't even like it when people take notes on my session and then basically write an article that provides every exact detail of what I said in my session, and do it for free. I don't mind articles that summarize what was said, but it troubles me when everything I've said at a conference is made public. It completely devalues the conference, imo.

Interesting, I had no idea.

Marcia

03-21-2005, 10:25 PM

I think a couple of points need to be clarified about how this works, though I'm wondering if there is a clear answer.

First, it's my understanding that for something to be copyrighted it has to be some sort of tangible, original, creative work. Sure, that covers articles, web pages, ebooks, books, etc. (and forum posts, BTW). But does it apply to the concepts and ideas contained in the creation, or does it apply just to the means of expressing them?

For example, if someone says that breadcrumb navigation is helpful for optimization and "publishes" it, whether in a book, paper or at a speaking venue, does that mean no one else can ever say breadcrumb navigation is good? Or does it just mean that other people can't make a copy or a derivative work of a particular article, etc.? It's my understanding that it's the medium of expression or specific instance of a given work that's protected by copyright.

Part of the point is that ideas can be held by many people at the same time, but each would express them differently. There can be an idea presented, for example, either orally or written, that wasn't even the person's own findings or idea in the first place. They may have learned it from someone else - like by reading forum posts, for example. Yep, I've seen someone obviously *not* know something, then read it in a forum post (obviously, because they replied) and go on to post what they read a dayor so later as though it were their knowledge - when it was not their own knowledge that they had, but had only learned it a day before. So in that case, does the person have the right to copyright the "concept" - or just their specific expression of it?

It also gets into fair use, as well as how much can be quoted verbatim (4 or 5 sentences, for example) or paraphrasing and attribution.

Added:
Now that I think of it - can someone grab a bunch of forum posts, re-write them some or condense them, and publish them in a book, calling it their own knowledge and claiming copyrighted ownership?

Another after-thought: Whether or not it's violating copyright (which is on shaky ground I'd think, unless concepts can be proven to be original or transcripts are too close), I believe in this instance there's a clear-cut case of TRADEMARK infringement by the woman selling a tangible product for profit using any of Jupiter's marks as a selling point without express prior written permission.

PhilC

03-21-2005, 11:05 PM

It seems to be my day for swimming upstream, so here goes...

It seems to me that the only difference between reporting what is said for free, as Barry & Co. do, and selling reports of what is said, is the money - and that's no real difference at all, because they are both providing the same reports about the seminars. Do the terms of attending the seminars expressly forbid "unofficial" reporting? And does everybody who writes reports in the various forums have express permission to do so? Unless "unofficial" reporting is expressly forbidden, I don't see how there can be any complaints when what is said in the sessions is made public, whether the reports are sold or given away. I imagine that most of the speakers, especially those from the engines, actually want what they say from the platforms to be spread far and wide. That is surely why they are there. I can't imagine Jill not wanting that.

So it seems to me that this discussion is just about money, and I don't see that as making any moral difference at all.

debraM

03-21-2005, 11:07 PM

The links still work and the pages advertising the "special report" are still up.

I went ahead and purchased a copy of the "special report" and if anyone wants a short and not-so-sweet opinion of it's contents, pm me. This person has legal disclaimers all over the document asking the work not be reproduced in any fashion so I'll honor that request.

Will say that the "special report" doesn't mention anyone by name, or a session by title. I don't see this as any kind of copyright issue after reading what's in there but then I am NOT a lawyer.

Personally, I think it's a crummy way to make a buck. I know that's not a very eloquent comment and no where near as insightful as what the rest of you have written but it' how I feel.

I also think Jupiter has some thinkin' to do....

rustybrick

03-21-2005, 11:19 PM

Just to clarify...

I do not want to cause trouble, I really didn't think anyone would have an issue with my coverage. I know Jupiter does not have an issue with it.

Anyway, if any speaker does not want me to cover their sessions or specifically quote them, feel free to PM me and I will not.

Again, I am deeply sorry if I caused any trouble.

Jill Whalen

03-21-2005, 11:24 PM

Jill - I can understand your perspective, but disagree on the result. It was Barry's write-ups that made me so interested in SES at first and it was the detail and coverage he provided that convinced me it was worthwhile (along with the influence and suggestions of others). I really believe that in-depth point-by-poin coverage of the sessions is a great way of promoting the conferences and doesn't devalue them at all. If I thought that my write-ups were hurting SES attendence I would take them down.

No, Barry's write-ups are not the same as what Ms. Ochman wrote up a few years ago. She had a point by point of a whole bunch of my presentation. It's not the same as the overview most people do in their articles. I didn't bother to say anything about it at the time, because I figured it goes with the territory, but I really didn't like it.

I've never had any problem with any other article I've read that covered my sessions or any other ones.

PhilC

03-21-2005, 11:28 PM

The last thing your reports do is cause trouble, Barry. They are *very* welcome by everyone, as far as I can tell. If they were a problem for Jupiter, I am sure that they would have been in touch already.

From what I've read in this thread, it's just somebody making money from her report that seems to be being objected to, and not the fact that reports were written.

rustybrick

03-21-2005, 11:40 PM

Good to know, I would hate to cause trouble. Ok back to this trouble maker. :)

Nacho

03-22-2005, 01:26 AM

Great post Ian!

As you know, I'm also a regular SES speaker. During these times I've seen a few stories break out about our session that covers "Search Marketing for the U.S. Hispanic and Latin America". I'm actually happy to see when the word spreads around. That's the main reason why I wanted to become a speaker in the first place. Sometimes those stories help bring in a bigger crowd to our session the next SES when we present, so it's a good thing because notes don't tell the entire story. I also don't mind if a journalist writes a story about it and the website is making money of advertisments as Barry points out, which is almost unavoidable these days. However, if someone is making direct money selling a copy of my presentation with knowledge tips then it's a different story. Simply put, I just don't like it.

mcanerin

03-22-2005, 01:30 AM

Barry, I consider your reports to be a good example of reports being done properly (randfish's are really good too, as are others).

I value the reports because they are exactly that: reports and news.

My personal issue with the 15 Page report was (and is) making money off of someone elses copyright.

It doesn't matter if it's given for free (it's not, really - speakers get free tickets, so that's compensation right there) you also can't take open source software and sell it.

You can sell services related to it, but not the open source itself. The amount that was originally charged is not relevant. If I give a present to my kid or a friend, it does not mean that the present is worthless and therefore can't be "stolen". It can. The fact that I choose to allow attendees access to my intellectual property does not mean I revoke all rights to it.

From Debra's description, it appears that the report isn't nearly as thorough as it is implied to be (which may have other legal implications not covered here). It appears that it's basically a news report for sale. Assuming that, I would guess there is no copyright issue based on the description Debra gives.

You cannot copyright ideas or information - only the tangible expression of them. This can get muddy in some cases, but it's fairly clear here.

I think this was a valuable discussion nonetheless, as it brought out a fair amount of information, feelings, and ideas about the subject, and of course it addresses any future issues similar to it.

Ian

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

03-22-2005, 06:09 AM

What may confuse a few here is that as far as I can see we have at least three legal areas here that might be violated:

1) Copyright law - the speakers
2) Trademarks law - Jupiter media
3) Marketing law

What even complicate it further is the fact that in the US some things are covered by patent law that is in Europe covered by Copryright law. Concepts and ideas fall under copyright law in Europe and, I believe, under patent law in the US. So, if you and I, Marcia, both present concepts and ideas on the same session we may in fact be covered by two completely different kind of laws because we are not from the same country.

There is a big difference between quotes, that are allowed under most jurisdictions, and then transcripts. In most copyright law it is not the way you copy something that is important but the fact that you do it.

I think it is important that Jupiter set the rules straight on this. I don't think it will benifit the conference if speakers now have to consider that what they present might be repacked and sold by others. It may limit the kind of information that comes out. Jupiter have the power to set the rules for the conference and they should, in my mind, focus on making it the best for the paying attendees and the many good speakers. A PDF like the one we are talking about now doesn't do any good for the show, the speakers or the attendees as far as I can see.

dannysullivan

03-22-2005, 06:39 AM

FYI, word is from Jupiter that this is probably legal. They've come across things like this before, and they seem to be OK legally.

Personally, I have very mixed feelings. I know everyone can't attend for both logistical reasons and financial reasons the conferences we do. But I feel like SEW itself puts out a lot of information from them via our SearchDay reports. In addition, Barry does his great live reports, and I usually try to point to a number of wrap-up reports.

I feel like these give people some sense of what went on and key points, though as you obviously would guess, I don't feel they replace actually going to a show or are necessarily as good.

So this guide, which I haven't read, I still wouldn't see as a replacement for going to the show. It does have that feel of stepping over a line, of someone making money off the show while not really being an official part of it. Anyone on a press pass to the show is doing this to some degree -- after all, the coverage elsewhere usually carries ads. And legally, everyone's probably fine. But the fact some don't feel it seems right probably indicates that line has been crossed, for those individuals.

I went ahead and purchased a copy of the "special report" and if anyone wants a short and not-so-sweet opinion of it's contents, pm me. This person has legal disclaimers all over the document asking the work not be reproduced in any fashion so I'll honor that request.
There's a bit of irony in assuming it's OK to summarize and reprint the content of a four-day show but then presume that others can't summarize or even fair use quote the report you produce. Suffice to say, you're probably on firm legal ground if you wanted to summarize what you thought of the report and even quote small portions to support what you are saying or finding within it.

dannysullivan

03-22-2005, 06:45 AM

I think it is important that Jupiter set the rules straight on this. I don't think it will benifit the conference if speakers now have to consider that what they present might be repacked and sold by others. It may limit the kind of information that comes out. Jupiter have the power to set the rules for the conference and they should, in my mind, focus on making it the best for the paying attendees and the many good speakers. A PDF like the one we are talking about now doesn't do any good for the show, the speakers or the attendees as far as I can see.
I'm curious what others think about this. I don't think it would fly to say you can't cover or report out of the show. Even the speakers want this. But we could have terms of attendance that say you will not produce show summaries that are sold. That would have the natural result in reducing the amount of work someone is likely to sink into making up a report.

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

03-22-2005, 07:11 AM

Danny, personally I think that open press coverage is a "fair deal" just like search is. They may not technically be allowed to use our content but because it's not a full transcription and because we (Jupiter, the speakers and You) benifit from the PR we all, I guess, think it's a fair deal. To me it has very much to do with the details of what is reported - is it "quotes" or "transcripts".

If what we see here is allowed what will come next? Why not bring 4 "reporters" next time and write down everything from all sessions, redraw all images, then go download the presentations from the Jupiter site and add anything you missed and finally print it all as a book and sell it. There has to be a limit somewhere and as I said, I think it is important that Jupiter set that limit straight.

PhilC

03-22-2005, 07:37 AM

My personal issue with the 15 Page report was (and is) making money off of someone elses copyright.I've never attended any search engine conference of any kind, so correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't believe that copyright is the issue. If it was, then no such reporting should or would be allowed.

What is said on those platforms isn't copyrighted. Disseminating a recording or a print of it may fall foul of copyright laws, but summarizing, or even explaining in detail what was said has nothing to do with copyright. The speakers have no claims on the topics or ideas when presented in those circumstances - otherwise they simply wouldn't present them there. They are presented for public use and awareness.

Not only that, but nothing of what was said was the sole property of any of the speakers in the first place. As I said, correct me if I'm mistaken, but the speakers merely passed on what was already public seo knowledge, ideas and opinions. Perhaps the engine reps shared some hitherto unknown information about their engines, but, if they did, they did it with the intention of telling the world.

So the objections come down to whether or not it's ok to make a profit from a report. It's about money. Barry indirectly makes money from the reports. Professional reporters make money from them beause they are paid to do it. Newspapers make money from them because they sell the newspapers that the reports are printed in. The report in question is the equivalent of a newspaper that is devoted to that event - that's all. I really don't see any problem.

you also can't take open source software and sell it.No, but you can sell the service, which includes packaging, presentation, delivery, payment for work, etc.

In this case, somebody attended the sessions, gathered all the information, and wrote it down in a presentable form. All that took time and money, and compensation is justified. Whether or not it's worth $15 depends on the quality of the person's work, but that's not what the issue is here.

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

03-22-2005, 07:54 AM

The speakers have no claims on the topics or ideas when presented in those circumstances

PhilC, I think you are missing the point of how copyright works and what it covers. As I explained, it is not even the same for different countries.

If I do have copyright on my material, that is, if it meets certain levels of originality and fall under copyright law in my jurisdiction, then I won't loose that copyright at all by presenting at a conference - or even in full public. I still keep my copyright. This is indeed a very comon missunderstanding - I've seen it even at lawyers! (however, those kinds of lawyers allways loose such cases :))

If I write up some original code and present that code at the conference as a way of solving a problem, that code could be protected by copyright for me, because I am from Europe, but should most likely be patented by americans to be protected. In any case, just because I present that code in public dosen't remove my rights to it - whatever they are. It is basically the same as if I use priginal code on my webpage - anyone can see it but that still don't give them the right to copy it or make a detailed transcription of it for redistribution or resale.

It could also be, that the code, text or other copyrighted material I present is copyrighted by others but that they gave me the rights to use this material in my presentation. I remember a conference (not SES) some years ago where they wanted to compile a CD and video with the presentation and sell it and wanted me to sign a release form. I could not do that because I had copyrighted material in my presentation that did not belong to me but only given to me on a limited license to use it at that specific event. At the SES NY the publisher of the PDF in question never asked me that (or any other speaker, Jupiter or anyone else involved) ...

robwatts

03-22-2005, 08:22 AM

Whilst its understandable to hear the concerns, especially those of the speakers and contributers at SES, I cant help but feel that at the end of the day people are entitled to report what they want to report. This person paid her money to attend, took her notes and has I assume, provided her take on it all. Its not as if there was a disclaimer somewhere saying "This is priveldged info, thou shall not utter it outside these four walls.."

Some might think its a little bit stinky to write it all up and directly profit by it, but like has been said, she isnt too dissimilar from a reporter, who by and large does exactly the same thing, well, the same in the sense of writing stuff up and putting it in a readable format for purchase at a price.

Take Dannys articles for example, Danny goes out and researches, draws conclusions gives a considered view and his subscribership reads it, but at a price. Does Danny own the info he finds and evaluates? In most cases of course not. He gives an accrediation for the works referenced, usually by way of a link, but Id say thats about as far as it goes, he doesnt give x % of any income derived from his subscriber list to the owners of the sources he has used to build his piece,and neither should he .That would be patently absurd. People are happy to pay for the simple reason that they value what he has to say, they are in effect paying for access to his commentary because it gives insights and stimualtes thought/debate, the info he's used in most cases is already out there, its what he does with it that counts.

Not a popular view maybe, but with the proviso that this person has actually provided some valued commentary and hasn't just reeled of MC said x, TM said Y, DS said Z then I really can't see why people would feel so upset over it all.

I guess the proof will be in pudding. Anyone spent the 15 dollars yet?

PhilC

03-22-2005, 08:25 AM

I don't know copyright law, Mikkel. I'm just taking my own common sense view of it. If something that a speaker truly has copyright rights to is reported on, to the extent that the copyright is violated, ok, but I don't think that's the case. The way I see it is like this:-

If one of the whitehats had spoken at the event (probably did), he would have said things like, there's no need to use spam methods to get top rankings - you can get them by doing this and that - spam clutters the serps and spoils the experience of surfers, etc. He wouldn't have presented any new discoveries of his own, or anything that wasn't already in the public domain, or anything that he could conceivably claim to own. And it's the same for everything that was said from the platform. Please correct me if I'm mistaken about that.

I'll ask the question:- was any information stated on the platform, by any of the speakers, that was the exclusive property of the speaker or of his/her company? Was anything said that should not have been repeated in public?

You see, I don't believe that anybody got up there and stated things that were exclusively owned, and that was their own property. Who can to say who originated what was said? My understanding is that people are asked to speak at the events because they are well-known for certain things, and not because they present something new and exclusive, over which they have rights.

I'm sure that the speach itself falls under copyright laws, but nobody reproduced the speaches.

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

03-22-2005, 08:37 AM

PhilC, copyright law can often be very "tricky" to deal with and most often common sense just dosen't apply :) The only reason I know copyright law so well is because I used to run my own publishing company for years. I do understand that to most people, professionals or not, the concepts of copyright is very difficult to understand. And they are. But that dosen't make them not valid. They are very much in effect.

If we take Yahoo as an example, a directory such as theirs will usually be protected by the database directives of copyright law. The information in the listings is usually not owned by the directory but the collection of information is. So, in other words, I can take one listing from the directory and use than in my own work - reference the same website. I can probably even take a handfull. But if I take an entire category, or the entire directory, and reuse it in the same form then I am violating Yahoo's right to the collection.

So, to apply this to the presenters, they may not specifically own the copyright of each "object" they present but the collection, or the idea of bringing them together in this form, might very well be. It's a case-by-case and the line is not allways clear.

WilliamC

03-22-2005, 08:46 AM

Actually, here in the US copyright only applies to published works. Speaking at a seminar simply does not fall under that umbrella. Copyright infringement does not touch this issue at all. Since the person who purchased a copy of this report has disclosed what it is, it obviously falls under fair use reporting. The only complaint people seem to have is that the lady is making money from it, which as PhilC pointed out, is really up to her. Barry, and others decided to give their reports for free, while making money off the ads, etc. This lady just decided to go a different route.

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

03-22-2005, 08:49 AM

My material is NOT protected under US copyright law but under Danish copyright law and I know for a fact that there is no publishing requirement for having that copyright. I get the copyright at creation time - NOT at publishing time, and I keep it no matter if it has been published, presented or in any other way used in public. If I "invented" the stuff it's mine. That part is very simple.

Marcia

03-22-2005, 08:50 AM

Setting legal considerations aside,there are certain practices and behaviors that are "clean" and others that are "not clean."

Exploitation of other people's knowledge and presentations for profit, without their consent or even their knowledge, is making merchandise of other people's knowledge, reputation and originality. No way can it be considered clean. IMHO, it's downright dirty.

OK, it's filthy.

PhilC

03-22-2005, 08:53 AM

I was just re-reading what you wrote about a piece of code, Mikkel. I would agree with you that it should not be reproduced, but I would say that a description of the method employed in the code, and bits from it, can be freely reported - and that's the equivalent of what we are discussing.

I don't disagree with you about the Yahoo! example - it fits with my common sense view ;) But it's not an example, or parallel, of what we are discussing. To the best of my knowledge, what the person did is no different to what Barry & Co. did in this forum, except that she formatted it and took more time to write it up. She didn't do the equvalent of reproducing a category from Yahoo!. She did the equivalent of describing/explaining what is in the category.

So, to apply this to the presenters, they may not specifically own the copyright of each "object" they present but the collection, or the idea of bringing them together in this form, might very well be. It's a case-by-case and the line is not allways clear.I don't necessarily agree, but it doesn't matter. If you are correct, then it applies to every report on the event, and not just to one of them. The issue in this thread is whether or not she should be charging money for the report.

Marcia

03-22-2005, 08:59 AM

The issue in this thread is whether or not she should be charging money for the report.Yes it is Phil, it's exactly that.

PhilC

03-22-2005, 08:59 AM

WilliamC

03-22-2005, 09:14 AM

Ok, lets play at devils advocate for a second here....

First off, I dont see why the uproar in the first place as not a single speaker that I have seen to date has really gone onto new frontiers really. They all creatively rehash facts and methods that have been in use by many for years already. So, assuming this, they would fall under the same category Marcia. They are selling other peoples ideas by taking money or considerations to speak.

Unless the idea or method is actually new and has not been in use before, then it is not their idea.

But you will defend their right to speak about it won't you :)

Black_Knight

03-22-2005, 09:20 AM

what happens when you take it to the next step and start charging for that information? What if you attend an SES, take a bunch of notes, then charge people for it?
What happens is you have journalism - the career of writing a journal of the things one experiences, learns, or discovers.

You could also argue that copying down someone elses work and repackaging it for sale is a copyright violation.
Hmm, no. Only by copying a journal as a journal are you truly risking copyright infringement there. At most, this would be a derivitive work. In actuality, what you would be selling is your experience, perceptions, analysis and opinions of the event.

It is just journalism. Journalism is a noble and good thing, and a thing historians have always depended upon.

To even suggest otherwise would lead us to conclude that the Nazi's should have been able to sue Anne Frank for daring to write about her experiences of their original concept, events and intellectual property? :D

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

03-22-2005, 10:44 AM

If you want to make a career out of singing other peoples songs you will end up paying royalties :)

PhilC

03-22-2005, 10:49 AM

Dunno who that was addressed to, but I *did* make a career out of singing other people's songs - during 2 periods of my life - and I didn't pay any royalties, although I should have done :o

But reporting is not singing other people's songs - it's singing about other people's songs, and there's a very big difference.

debraM

03-22-2005, 11:40 AM

you're probably on firm legal ground if you wanted to summarize what you thought of the report and even quote small portions to support what you are saying or finding within it.

Saw thru my angst eh? Ok, I'll bite.

I didn't get to NY until late Wednesday morning since my two sessions weren't until Thursday and I have to maximize my time away with two little kids at home. I missed a couple of great conference days and was excited after I read the report description and thought - 15 bucks, no biggie and I got it. Yikes! :eek: IMO, the best thing about the report was that description.

After three pages of repeating the title of this special report in huge font, the author opens with a short intro and explains the report contains what she learned at SES NY 2005. (This one-time comment is crucial to pick up on and becomes telling as you read through the report. She's a blogger and someone who has worked in the field of media relations so it's what she knows and is comfortable with. It's also most of what she writes about in this report.)

The report opens talking about VERY basic SEO/PageRank (paragraph each)and then jumps into pay per calls and consumer opinions (couple sentences each). No lead in and no explanataions on why the bizzarre switch of category topics. From there it bounces back to organic SEO and then into linking (nothing more than a paragraph). Two biggie issues here for me at this point:

The report states:

"Google generates the most referrals, but MSN generates the most conversions.

First off, Greg made that comment during our Adv Link Bldg session's Q&A and it's a direct quote. Whether you believe that about MSN or not, what's not mentioned is there were differing opinions made on that comment by others on the panel. Someone mentions journalistic liberties above - what about fact checking and presenting both sides? Is this ok to do because it's what she "learned"?

Then it says:

"The best way to generate high quality inbound links still are by writing and syndicating articles and be publishing a frequently updated blog with search engine optimized posts."

Best ways? They are good ways, but not THE WAYS, that's in inaccurate comment. I think it's a miserable representation of all the really really great ideas that were talked about in the link sessions.

The rest of the report focuses on press releases and blogging. She takes the liberty of linking to her site to support an example(s) as well as linking out to other resources. She does mention Jupiter Media and Danny Sullivan by name in the intro and has a link to SEW as well.

IMO, when you advertise a "special report" on the SES NY 2005, you expect so get something more than a couple of cursory comments on SEO and then a slanted report on press releases and blogging. It's a shame she left out all the great info on local search, keyword rearch, design, paid listings, what is spam, landing pages, branding tactics, redirects, shopping search, site architecture, broach matching, comments from the opening session....etc.

To me, the question is - is she just doing good marketing or is she taking advantage of someone else's name (the conference) to sell her goods?

I think the latter.

Jill Whalen

03-22-2005, 11:59 AM

I agree with both Rob and Marcia on this. I don't think it's illegal or anything that isn't done all the time.

But I do think it's stinky/dirty/icky and don't have to like it.

From Debra's description, however, it doesn't actually sound as stinky as it could have been as she didn't seem to detail exactly what was said in any presentations. Had she done that, it would have been worse (although more valuable to the reader).

Since it's really only her impressions, and what she personally learned, I don't really see a whole lot wrong with it. (But I haven't read it myself.)

debraM

03-22-2005, 12:06 PM

No, she did not detail any sessions by name or use a speakers name at all except for Danny and that was to credit him as producing the show. She just wrote a couple of sentences on a couple of topics and then wrote a LOT on blogging and press releases. Which to me, gave the impression that's what the conference was about.

Reliable reporting ? I don't think so.

Everyman

03-22-2005, 03:47 PM

I think the problem here is that there is little or no precedent for determining what is legal or acceptable concerning the Internet.

Journalism has evolved over many decades. For example, a journalist is generally expected to identify himself/herself as a journalist to whomever they approach or question when working on a story. There are exceptions with undercover journalism, but these are tolerated only on rare occasions, when the public's need to know is especially important.

If the person being interviewed does not stipulate that the conversation is "off the record" or on "background" then the reporter is free to quote. This stipulation has to precede the statement -- the person interviewed cannot claim "off the record" hours later as an afterthought and expect the reporter to be sympathetic.

If some entity issues a press release, and it is stipulated in the release that it is embargoed for a period of time, then journalists are expected to honor this.

Many times public figures who give speeches in certain forums lay out press ground rules before the event. Other times the forum itself has its own ground rules for all events. All seminars held for members by the Council on Foreign Relations, which frequently feature important world leaders, are off the record. It's written into the CFR bylaws that after 25 years the records can be released.

The onus is on the conference sponsors and participants to lay out the ground rules. The default setting for these issues, in my opinion, is that anything goes short of an audio or video tape, or exact transcript of the event or speech, that is sold for profit.

If the search engine conferences had ground rules that were violated, then it would be a different story. But I'm not aware of any ground rules. Furthermore, I don't think the information made available there will be worth much 25 years from now -- or even 25 months from now, for that matter.

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

03-22-2005, 04:13 PM

Very good post, Everyman!

What it all comes down to is that I think Jupiter should work out some easy to understand ground rules for the event. This will make it "safer" for all - speakers will know what to expect and bloggers, journalists and reporters of various kinds will know the limits.

I am very loyal to Jupiter on this issue and I trust they can work out rules that we will all like. After all, I beleieve the speakers and Jupiters issues are very much alligned in this.

bhartzer

03-22-2005, 05:03 PM

For argument's sake, I just pulled out a copy of the Conference Handbook (you know, that large spiral-bound handbook given out at all of the conferences).

At the bottom of every page there's a copyright notice that says:
(c) 2005 Jupitermedia Corporation and Individual Authors.
I looked back at several conference handbooks (at least 5 of them) and they all say essentially the same thing (except, of course, for the year). The fact that there's a copyright notice in the conference handbook is enough to indicate to me that I don't have the right to take notes from the show and sell them.

I personally have attended many shows as a member of the press--and I have taken a lot of notes, created articles, and re-published them. Taking those notes and re-selling/re-packaging them goes far beyond any journalistic morals that I have. That's just outright wrong.

PhilC

03-22-2005, 05:05 PM

I am sure that the copyright notices apply to the pages of the handbook, and not to the sessions themselves.

bhartzer

03-22-2005, 05:30 PM

True, but go ahead and look at what that large conference handbook contains--a lot of presentations and titles of sessions.

PhilC

03-22-2005, 05:43 PM

I don't have a handbook, but a copyright notice is common at the foot of a page, and it refers to the page itself.

Marcia

03-22-2005, 06:42 PM

is she taking advantage of someone else's name (the conference) to sell her goods?That is exactly what she is doing! Could she sell a handbook written by herself with her own content, or are people buying her offering based on the fact that she's piggy-backing on the reputation of others? It's exploitation in my book.

It isn't a legal issue, that isn't the point of it. And SELLING a downloadable commodity for $$ is NOT journalism it is marketing a product. Besides, what it sounds like is that instead of an accurate representation, what she's selling is a sales pitch for herself.

It's flat out cheesy.

eurotrash

03-22-2005, 06:44 PM

If you want to make a career out of singing other peoples songs you will end up paying royalties :)
If you record other people's songs then you pay the royalties. Live musicians sing in pubs, clubs and even arenas nightly without paying royalties :)

I have read through this thread. I totally agree with PhilC. Because this person has done this, she is a journalist or reporter. Rather than selling her story to a 'recognised' publication, she made her own publication and put it up for sale. If she put all of the content of these pages in a supplement of the NY Times people would be happy to buy the newspaper - and she'd probably have gotten more money and the publicity would have been good.

I still think, what she did is (as I said on Threadwatch) a bit Ghetto-Fab.

PhilC

03-22-2005, 06:57 PM

If she put all of the content of these pages in a supplement of the NY Times people would be happy to buy the newspaperWhat a coincidence. I was thinking that exact thing earlier - if it had been a newspaper supplement, everyone would have been delighted.

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

03-22-2005, 07:19 PM

If it had been a newspaper supplement we would not have had to guess about what she put in the report, how she might have quoted or copied stuff.

If you record other people's songs then you pay the royalties. Live musicians sing in pubs, clubs and even arenas nightly without paying royalties

Just for the record, unless it is an illegal club the owner will pay to the copyright owners for the music being played - no matter who plays it. Any use of music in public, especially for commercial reasons, can be charged for by the copyright owners and do so. I do know that in the US the copyright owners do not collect money as well as they do in some countries - here in Denmark you pay royalties even for having the radio on in your taxi (for the entertainment value of your passengers)! However, the same principles applu nevertheless. If the music is recorded the record company pays. If a film maker want to use it he pays. Thats how the music business works - I've been in it for 15 years so I do know how money float around here. It's called publishing - the more your work get published (in whatever form and shape) the more you make. If you perform, record or have your own music broadcast you make (A LOT) more money than if you sing others songs.

Anyway, my only point about this was that it pays to be original :)

mcanerin

03-22-2005, 07:26 PM

Some facts about copyright - use them as you see fit. These apply to all members of the Berne Convention (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html), which include pretty much every country - including all European ones (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?country_id=ALL&start_year=ANY&end_year=ANY&search_what=C&treaty_id=15) :

1. You don't need a copyright notification for copyrights to exist - they exist the moment that the information is recorded in some manner.

2. Copyright would NOT apply to journalism style reports. It would apply to verbatim or near verbatim reports, including slides from powerpoint presentations unless the usage was very minimal.

3. You can't copyright information, just it's presentation. If you write down a report of a conversation and use your own skills as a writer to do so, then the copyright of that report is YOURS. If you photocopy or transcribe MY report of a conversation (or other recorded work) then the copyright is MINE.

What does this mean to me personally in context?

My impression of the original sales page was that it was very clearly an "SES in a Book" and would give you the same information that you would get if you attended, including "resources" which are typically reports and presentations in context of a show such as this. This may or may not be the impression intended, but it surely was the one recieved by myself and others.

To make matters worse, it appeared to trade off Jupiter Medias brand to the advantage of the author and the disadvantage of JM (ie the $1700 worth of info for $15 implication), which would be an issue under trademark law, I suspect.

For the record, she has (since the start of this thread and related ones) changed the text so that neither of these implications are present any longer.

From Debra's description, it's clear that the report is NOT a verbatim attempt, but rather a report based on experiences and information gathered, writen by the author for the authors purposes, which means copyright would fall with the author, in this case.

It would have been a very different story if slides and reports formed the basis of this document instead, of course.

I don't own or claim copyright on most of the information in presentations I give. I, in turn, have received that information from many sources, including books and forum posts. Information is not protected unless there is a contract in place that protects it as proprietary and it is not available freely elsewhere. (ie an NDA regarding trade secrets).

But if I started quoting forum posts, or reproducing presentation slides, that's a very different situation. Especially if I put my own name on them, but even if I gave proper citation. The fact that you cite the original author does not mean it's not a copyright infringment. An exact duplicate of a music CD (which of course would contain proper citation, and even copyright notices) would still violate copyright law.

At this point, it appears that the original issue that prompted this thread has been resolved.

There have been several point to come out of this, however:

1. It's apparently generally acknowledged that many people are touchy about doing work that others profit from, so make certain that you do not reproduce their work while reporting it - use your own words (or short, fully attributed quotes) only.

2. It would be a good idea for JM to set out clear guidlines regarding copyright and reporting issues for both SES and this forum.

3. Be very careful about promotional language related to your work - implications that appear to trade on someone elses trademark, brand, or work can backfire.

4. Apologies and quick action works wonders. The original author of this report has issued an apology (http://www.threadwatch.org/node/1998) and changed the text (http://www.whatsnextonline.com/search_strategies/) of the sales page. It was done quickly and without needless fingerpointing or defensiveness. That's a very classy way to handle things, and pretty effective, too.

Ian

PS: I did not directly identify the author (B.L. Ochman) in the original post in respect to SEW's policy of not naming names unless necessary, and I felt that the description given was enough to discuss this. Now that a public apology has been made and there are other threads detailing the name and site, I don't believe that is an issue anymore.

eurotrash

03-22-2005, 07:29 PM

If it had been a newspaper supplement we would not have had to guess about what she put in the report, how she might have quoted or copied stuff.

Just for the record, unless it is an illegal club the owner will pay to the copyright owners for the music being played - no matter who plays it. Any use of music in public, especially for commercial reasons, can be charged for by the copyright owners and do so. I do know that in the US the copyright owners do not collect money as well as they do in some countries - here in Denmark you pay royalties even for having the radio on in your taxi (for the entertainment value of your passengers)! However, the same principles applu nevertheless. If the music is recorded the record company pays. If a film maker want to use it he pays. Thats how the music business works - I've been in it for 15 years so I do know how money float around here. It's called publishing - the more your work get published (in whatever form and shape) the more you make. If you perform, record or have your own music broadcast you make (A LOT) more money than if you sing others songs.

Anyway, my only point about this was that it pays to be original :)
You are of course right Mikkel. In the UK, the places pay an "entertainment licence" which goes to some body (whose name I can't remember at the moment) to pay copyright owners. It would however be interesting to refuse to pay that and only get unpublished singers to sing their own songs. ;) - I have been happy about the royalties since the 80s even though they keep going down.

I also totally agree that it pays to be original, something that is really missing in today's music business - and obviously the SEO business now as well :D

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

03-22-2005, 07:37 PM

It would however be interesting to refuse to pay

There have been several cases on exactly this. Most of the time the copyright owners win such cases and the company that did not want to pay in the first place just end up with a bigger bill :)

If you play, or your music is played, on a lot of large events, such as outdoor rock concerts and such, you actually do end up making quite a bit of money just from that. It's definately not pennies :D

But, I think we are getting a bit off track here ... :rolleyes:

mcanerin

03-22-2005, 07:37 PM

One issue that has been raised several times is that "profit" has nothing to do with copyright law.

It does.

One of the defenses for copyright infringment is "fair use". This includes photocopies of personal research, backup copies for personal use, and so forth.

It does not cover selling the copies for profit. The same would also apply if there was no profit, but there was non-personal distribution, especially mass distribution.

The worst case scenario, of course, is mass distribution for profit.

Therefore the acknowledgment that a copy was made for profit (or distribution) removes the "fair use" defence as an issue and is therefore important to acknowledge, as it directly affects the outcome and treatment of the case.

A classic example of this is the "Happy Birthday to You" song. You can sing it at your kids birthday party, but if you record and sell it in recorded format (movie or CD) you owe royalties: http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm.

Ian

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

03-22-2005, 07:49 PM

Thanks Ian for a good summary on copyright law!

As you said, most (at least western) countries have signed the Berne Convention but some countries have gone further than that. I can't recall the name of all the other agreements on top of my head but I do know that there are some great differences to how copyright law is implemented in Europe versus the US. The basics are still the same but there are certain details that are different. For example, your protection of databases in the US (collection of data) is different than ours in Europe. As earlier pointed out the US also handle some suff under patent laws that we currently protect under copyright law (such as computer programs and code).

Anyway, the more chances we get to discuss these issues the more people will hopefully learn to better understand the differences in copyright law, trademark law and marketing law and how they work ... :)

eurotrash

03-22-2005, 07:49 PM

One issue that has been raised several times is that "profit" has nothing to do with copyright law.

It does.

Ian
Oh yes it DOES - IT REALLY DOES. Copyright law is almost purely about profit.

PhilC

03-22-2005, 07:51 PM

I also totally agree that it pays to be original, something that is really missing in today's music business - and obviously the SEO business now as well :DI know you're just chatting but I have to disagree with that statement. It's not that originality is "now" missing in seo - it was *always* missing most of the time for most people. We all learned what we know from other people. Once in a while someone may discover something new, but it doesn't happen often, and, for most people, it doesn't happen at all :p

BL Ochman

03-23-2005, 03:00 AM

It certainly has been interesting to listen to people discussing my report here, especially the ones who haven't read it.

In the interest of transparency, I have responded to these comments on my Blog, What's Next Blog, at

http://www.whatsnextblog.com/archives/2005/03/my_response_to.asp

To that response, I'd like to add one important note to *Jill Whalen:*

The presentation of yours that you were disturbed about my covering a year or so ago verbatim was for the blog from AdTech New York -- where I was part of a team of bloggers invited by the show's producers to blog the conference live.

If you have an issue with your content being blogged, you need to take it up with AdTech, which continues to invite bloggers to their shows. Why? Because the more people learn about the shows the more interested they become in attending them. I'd have to guess you weren't aware of that fact. Because if you were, I can't imagine you'd have made your comments about my stealing your presentation by blogging it.

At Search Engine Strategies New York I blogged live from the show for MarketingVox and my own blog.

The most interesting thing you said at this show was "Don't get your information from search forums. You'll get lots of misinformation."

And you've certainly proved that true in this thread.

Black_Knight

03-23-2005, 03:59 AM

This is tangental, as has been a lot of the discussion about copyright law, but there seems to be a danger that some equate profit only with direct monetary transactions. That is not the case. If you boost your reputation by reporting something, you have profited. The law does not base profit solely on direct financial gain. Nor does the law base damages purely on financial loss.

Everyman made some interesting comments about the evolution of journalism, and in how the law has changed. The law is always a living, evolving thing, adapting to the mores of the time of the society. The interesting note about journalism laws is that writing a biography is not treated the same way. Before writing a biography, there is no need to recontact all those involved and identify that you are about to produce a profitable written journal of events as a journalist is expected to in many cases.

It would probably be worth some folks taking a look at why the need for NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreements) arose in law, because copyright alone is not alone enough to protect ideas that you willingly disclose to others.

Chris_D

03-23-2005, 08:27 AM

What qualifies me as a search engine optimization expert is the SEO work I have done for clients for the past 10 years, optimizing sites for natural and paid search.

Wow BL - that's pretty impressive! "10 years, optimizing sites for natural and paid search". Geez - Danny's only been a search guru for 9 years http://calafia.com/about/resume.htm and Yahoo! only had their 10th birthday a few weeks ago.

Marcia

03-23-2005, 09:01 AM

My clients' sites consistently rank in the top of their categories and I have written extensively on SEO topics in my newsletter and blog and in articles published in MarketingProfs, ExpertPR and several others.Then with all due respect, if there is a work you want to distribute for compensation then there should be no problem doing so on your own, comprised of your own original materials, using your own name and branding in order to market it, rather than utilizing the name, branding and credibility of an organization and persons other than yourself to attract customers.

I was part of a team of bloggers invited by the show's producers to blog the conference live. And that, right there, demonstrates the crux of the problem. Blogs are open to public view, and widely distributed through feeds and inter-linking, in the true spirit of the open web, as well as being somewhat akin to open source/gnu/creative commons licensing. Reporting for public consumption to be freely distributed and widely read can be considered journalism.

Gathering materials, however, that cannot be seen except by buying a downloadable paper, which is much like selling an e-book, is NOT anywhere near being journalism, not in spirit or in concept.

So again with all due respect, if the fact that bloggers were invited to an event to be freely and openly reported on out in the blogging community is being brought up as a comparison with scraping information to sell before anyone can see it, then I'm afraid that is the root of the problem at its core - then someone just does not have the comprehension to see the difference between the two.

That IS the problem.

Black_Knight

03-23-2005, 09:52 AM

Reporting for public consumption to be freely distributed and widely read can be considered journalism.

Gathering materials, however, that cannot be seen except by buying a downloadable paper, which is much like selling an e-book, is NOT anywhere near being journalism, not in spirit or in concept.
Sorry, Marcia, but I have to disagree strongly with that over-simplification.

The web has been around (as the WWW) only since 1991. Journalism is far older by thousands of years. Indeed, much of our knowledge of the ancient world has come from the journals of ancient Greek travellers who created the first travelogs.

Tell me what career reporters for the The Times, LA Times, NY Times, The Guardian, Washington Post, et al are engaged in? Are those Newspapers (in full) freely distributed or do you have to pay for them?

Sure, some newspapers have made some of their news available for free. But only some, in general. Most keep stories and features back and use only selected stories as loss-leaders to make you admire (and eventually buy) their more in-depth content. That may remind you of another example of journalism (http://searchenginewatch.com/benefits/article.php) far closer to home right now. ;)

Let's go back to the travelog (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/27/) format tho, which is still alive and well all these centuries later. A person travels to some place or event and documents it, reporting their experiences. It is published to a book and sold. This is journalism in one of its oldest and purest forms. The keeping, publishing and sale of a journal.

Biographies (http://www.bookrags.com/biography/) are another ancient form of journalism that is still alive and thriving today. The only twist with a biography (not an auto-biography) is that these are typically a journal of someone else's travels, events and experiences.

So, I argue that reporting for public consumption to be freely distributed and widely read can be considered amatuer journalism, and the greatest threat that professional journalism has seen since the invention of first Radio, and later Television, and finally Video/DVD. Each of which presented new methods by which journalism could be given away to the end consumer, thus potentially eating into the demand for print.

[Edited to add links to sellers of travelogs and biographies for emphasis/illustration of the point - BK]