I would like to know the steps and process on how to copyright my articles to help against autoblog thieves who intercept your original work and post it to get traffic. thanks
Easiest way to do it is via a Creative Commons license which can be found here http://creativecommons.org You just have to select the type of license (read their site for more info on different licenses types), then they'll give you the links/banners to implement on your site. That's the one I use: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/ ... "Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5"... meaning that you allow people to copy your work but ONLY in entirety (including all links you have embedded in your original article/page), ONLY for non-profit purposes (so anyone running an AdSense site with your content is out of luck, cuz he makes money off it), and ONLY for your entire/full articles (=non-deriviative) Dennis
Unfortunately, that isn't recognized by any country's copyright laws ... not even in the United States.
In the US start here: http://www.copyright.gov/eco/ Please note: this does not stop people from copying your works (nothing can actually stop them) but it gives you options to seek damages (that you don't need to prove) on successful defending a claim.
what I noticed is on some of these blogging thieves they put a disclaimer saying they dont own the rights to the article and never claim to own the rights they are just aggregating the pics and articles and if someone wants to have them removed they can request it. Does a disclaimer like that save them from being in trouble of copyright infringement?
And the source for that is???? Mine is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_commons The CC license seems to be fully enforceable, if you've got information to the contrary why not update Wikipedia?
Fully enforceable to do what? You've "SUGGESTED" it can be used to successful launch a DMCA Takedown Order... OK but you can successful launch a DMCA Takedown Order base solely on DMCA provisions. So what can you actually enforce?
In my case, I live in Canada, hence DMCA does not FULLY apply to me if I have to deal with local (Canadian) businesses. However a LOCALIZED Creative Commons license for Canada does - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/ So I net both local (Canadian) rules enforcement (in case the company is located in Canada -- and not in USA) and the standard DMCA copyright laws in USA. Creative Commons in Canada allows me to protect my materials without filing for copyright. Furthermore, for USA, it allows for some "secure" guarantee to fall on to, in case someone from the USA decides to get fresh and take over my content, as opposed to me NOT being a resident of USA (hence not falling under American jurisdiction). And you really want to tell me that CC license isn't worth implementing? As for enforceability, please read the Wikipedia page again and you'll find that CC license was successfully enforced as far as in Europe (where DMCA has no effect whatsoever since it's an American law). Dutch --not American court-- Now, that's what I call enforceable! P.S. I seriously can't believe that you claim to work in copyright law... God knows I wouldn't want to have you or anyone from your company as my copyright adviser based on the level of knowledge you have ... that's in regards to Check again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_commons
The moment YOU put a works into tangible form it is protected my your COPYRIGHT... you don't need anything at all. http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/wr00090.html?OpenDocument#no6 Do I have to do anything to be protected? No. Since you obtain copyright automatically, the law automatically protects you. However, it is still a good idea to register your copyright and to indicate notice of copyright on your works. do not own the copyright). So what else does it do that you don't need?
I've just answered your question above, regarding enforceability, and regarding , etc.... Now let's say the infringer is from European Union and not USA/Canada....
From what I see of CC it is a great tool... it offers you that what you already have. (it's like an ad for healthy living... "...and free air to breath!" WOW that's simply amazing!) I'm sure you can be use to help prove copyright... it is a 3rd party reference that probably denotes a reference date... but so does archive.org... or handing your lawyer a sealed envelop with the original (or copy) on a specific date so again what do it do that you don't already have?
Copyright is copyright - you don't need CC to protect your rights... I'm sure it is better than having zip (but useless in the USA). But you don't need it to prove your rights and your don't need it to prove fair use.
Mate, I agree with you that in IDEAL WORLD I would not need to prove this. However we live in our, sometimes really unfair world. Now, the whole point is that it takes archive.org about A YEAR to update a new page, and you would've known that if you knew what you are talking about.... ....and some people would rather avoid lawyers since not everyone has $100/hour to pay them. The facts are that: #1) I do EVERYTHING I can do in order to be proactive about content copyright infringement prevention. This is why I choose to carry Creative Commons copyright on my site and my feed, in order to explain users/readers their rights. #2) Creative Commons is actually a very good license. I specifically permit non-profit republishing of my articles, as long as they are attributed and unchanged, under my CC license terms. I do believe in free information flow, I just do not believe that those that republish my articles should be able to make money off my content or remove my links from it. My CC license specifies exactly that = http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/ #3) So far I've had a 100% success rate "bringing down" infringing sites while going through Google and referring them to my CC license as an argument. Basically if a site even removes my links I can immediately state that copyright was broken. And Google listens. I do not know if this is due to my CC license, but I do suspect that it helped. That's about all I can say. I'd rather not get involved in lawyer action on American, European, etc... soil, so this way of working together with Google to remove sites that steal from me seems to be the perfect plan of defense action. And it seems to work.
Here's the part I find so unbelievable... You are such an avid defender of your rights to protect them but only so far as it doesn't cost you anything. The amazing part... in what world would you ever file suit and it not cost a cent in legal fees?
I s'pose I'm one of the last believers of the American Dream. The lone gunman protecting his house. No (live) lawyers in sight Seriously though, you advertise your "advice" in copyright law, but you've been proven wrong on previous posts you've made (if you wanna catch me on my words, here it is, I didn't say this, you did) Proven wrong link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_commons Yet you claim to be some sort of an expert (? ...if this word applies?) in copyright law that feels free to give his qualified advice while advertising his site in footer? Seriously, if there's one reason why I don't believe in "legal fees" is because they're collected by people that know no better than you.