It's funny sometimes how we sometimes come to discover things. Someone emailed me concerning an article I had written. Their question led to the discovery of a typo/misspelling that inadvertently introduced a "new" but incorrect technical term in my original article. In reviewing the issue I found a number of folks who had basically copied, word-for-word, my work and posted it on their sites, on forums, and on blog comments. I've been sending DMCA notices to those folks and two folks have already responded and removed my article from their sites. The error has also become something of a breadcrumb trail as I seem to have become the origination point for this "fact". Along with the 100% copies there are more than a few derivatives of my work being distributed online - identifiable due to the misspelling and quite often additional word-for-word phrasings and paragraphs lifted from my work. My question is how does one differentiate between an incorrect fact being used as source material and a copyright infringing derivative work? Does using even a single sentence of the original constitute infringement or is there a percentage/point where it rises to infringement? Am I correct in my understanding that use of my "fact" alone does not constitute infringement as that would not be protected under copyright in the first place?
That sucks bro, I really can't help you, but it does prove why they shouldn't allow people into advertising if all they do is steal work or link to your website. It's so dumb that people can't write things on their own. After a while someone will copy the place where it was stolen from you and put it on their own website making it less of a quality article. Consider this a free bump.
No, there is a fair use clause to copyright law. Basically, they can use a small portion (not defined, determined by a judge) of your work. It can and must be used as a source to a completely new piece of work. And the source must be predominantly displayed.
"The source must be predominantly displayed" Does that mean if they claim the work and make no attributions at all they are liable?
If they had copied word-for-word then yes, its certainly copyright. If they rewrote it and didn't copy a single sentence from you (just facts), then in my personal opinion that is legal. I assume that in your case, ppl must have been copying it word for word.
Folks copied word for word, multiple sentences throughout (not necessarily contiguous) and used my work as source material. As far as I know, mine was the first article on this topic that had so much information in one place and none of my original sources had as extensive a list or one that was as clear and simple. Unfortunately, even the ones that used my work as pure source material have diluted my article since none of my original sources contained as many items as my list and those posted by the copy-cats. It is information that every dog or cat owner should know, I just didn't realize how tempting it would be to steal.