Writers reusing Clients Articles after Sold

I am wondering how common this might be.
A month ago I purchased 2 articles from a writer here on DP, it now seems they have reused them as they appear on a blog.
At the time of purchase they were checked with copyscape and sentences from the article searched for on Google etc. They were not published elsewhere and were unique at the time of purchase.
I did not have time to use the articles purchased in the last month and having come to use them now but have found they are published word for word on a free blog (both articles published by the same person on the same free blog).
So has anyone else found articles they have paid to be written being resold or reused by the writer.

 

When you purchased the articles did you stipulate that you wanted the author to surrender their rights to them? I have had buyers include that stipulation upfront.

 

It sounds to me like either it wasn't clear who retained the rights, or your writer didn't understand who owned the rights after purchase.

There might have been assumptions made. They could have resold or reused the the articles themselves.

Next time you hire a writer, make sure you make it clear if you purchase all or first time web rights or whatever you need.

 

Well, at the time you bought the articles from the mentioned writer, you should stated that you want him/her to give up the full copyright to you, that's means you will earn the full copyright for the two articles.

Did you ever did the above step, if not then you're can't blamed anyone...

Always remember, that you want the unique content and also the full copyright of the article, so that you can totally control over the articles you've bought...

Wilson.

 

This practice is both wholly unethical and at the same time understandable. The promise is that many writers don't understand the significance of uniqueness in SEO. Some think that unique content is that which is not copied from any other source; they don't understand that it must not appear subsequently either.

That said, if your pages got indexed first, you probably don't have to worry, as it is a filter, not a penalty. If the other way around, contact the writer and explain the situation. I'm sure they'll be happy to comply.

The use of our work presents a dillemma for most freelancers; we can't show samples of a great deal of our writing. Linking to the published version poses privacy issues for the client; what if I'm writing for a competitor?

I think you should PM the writer and politely ask them to remove the articles.

 

If you didn't stipulate (you should have it in writing / email / etc.) that you would retain full rights, then technically the writer still had rights to the article even after the sale. That's not uncommon in the slightest. So if you didn't make that clear, take it as a lesson learned. If you did, it was agreed upon at the rate you paid, and you actually paid in full, then you should contact the writer privately and find out what happened.

 

I think this is a prime example of why you need to have an agreement in place when buying the articles that says they cannot be used by anyone else but you. Obviously, if you did have such an agreement in place and the seller chose to ignore it, then what they're doing is completely wrong and it's worth emailing them about.

 

I think I would assume if I paid for an article that is belonged to me.

 

It was stipulated that the articles had to be unique. But not specifically stated that the we should have the full copywrite.
But surely this is assumed by the writer. After all what would be the point of asking a writer to write a unique article specifically for me if they are going to sell it or publish it elsewhere after they have sold me the unique article. The writer was writing a unique article for me on the subject I requested, I didn't imagine that they would use it theirself after they has sold it to me as unique.
I think that this was totally unethical for the writer.

 

I agree with you on that. As a writer, I personally go into each project with the expectation that upon completion (and payment), the articles I wrote are no longer mine to use. The only time I have ever used articles I wrote for a client is when the client decided to cancel the project and not pay me for my work. I would not dream of reusing exclusive articles that someone else already paid for.

I would suggest that you contact this writer and ask why they went against what you agreed on. I'd also ask them to remove the articles from their blog.

 

As Jenn mentioned above, if you did not get it in writing that FULL rights should transfer to you upon completion of the articles, the writer still retains the copyright.

Writers do not and should not have to make assumptions about who owns the copyright to the work if it's not agreed upon in writing prior to completing the project. There's nothing technically unethical about it at all.

The next time you hire a writer, make sure you stipulate IN WRITING that the rights will be transferred to you upon completion.

 

If you read what the OP originally said, you'll see that it was never SPECIFICALLY agreed upon that full rights to the articles would transfer to him at the end of the project. If that was never stipulated, the writer still technically owns the copyright and can do whatever they want with the articles, even if they've already been sold.

The only way to protect yourself is to agree in writing up front who owns the rights after the work has been completed. How hard is this to understand?

 

I write a lot for print, as opposed to the web, and reprint rights are commonplace. If the buyer does not request all rights, then they do not receive all rights. Last year I wrote an excellent article about U-boat attacks for a publication and resold it this year to a publication with an entirely different audience.

Naturally, I told the editor where the article was originally published and when.

 

It's fine that that's how you choose to operate as a writer, but it's not what the law says (and not how deals with writers are usually worked out in publishing). Whether or not what this writer did was wrong or not in any way is entirely dependent on what was stipulated between the client and writer before the work was done. I'm not saying what the writer did was "right" either, because I don't know what was or wasn't in writing when the work was contracted, if the payment was ever made and received, etc. If they used it when they'd given up the rights, then they're violating the copyright and should certainly be held accountable.

 

I agree with that, which is what I said in my first post in the thread before the OP posted again and I made my second point. Obviously, the lesson learned here is to have a definitive agreement in place. But wouldn't you assume that, when a client says they want unique articles, you can't use them again yourself after you've completed the transaction? I mean, that's the assumption I make, and I realize that every writer is different, so maybe some other writer wouldn't think the same way as I do.

 

I do understand what you are saying about making a contract stating all copyrights etc. But if I ask a writer to write a unique article for my website content on DigitalPoint I would imagine most members know it needs to be unique and that the customer doesn't expect it to appear on other websites shortly afterwards.



Exactly what I am saying TerrifficContent
Writers on here generally know what your using the articles for (website content)

 

You seem to be neglecting the LEGAL point of this entire issue - what you assume everyone should know isn't what the law assumes.

Copyright law assumes that, unless stipulated beforehand, the writer retains all rights to the work - plain and simple. You've learned now that you must have an agreement written beforehand that explains all rights transfer to you once the articles have been completed.

 

Absolutely not. Buying first rights to publish it would give them search engine benefits of being first indexed (and therefore the "original source" according to the search engines). Having them unique when they're purchased simply means they shouldn't be indexed anywhere else yet... therefore first rights... not necessarily the full copyright.

 

I never reuse articles that I've sold to clients, whether rights have been mentioned or not. It's my own preference, as I want an unusually high ethical reputation. Like I said, it's just my own thing that I feel right about doing, but it is not something that I have to do.

If I were a client, I would definitely be asking for first rights before handing over the job.

 

wherever we ask for a article, we ask it to be unique.

what part of unique can misslead and one asume he can sell it again?

jesus...