Follow the CWAs
RSS contact us CWAs on Twitter CWAs on Facebook
See what the 2014 CWA nominees are saying on Twitter!

Follow by email:

2014 CWA Calendar
January 1 – September 30, 2014
Nominate your favourite Canadian weblogs.

November 1 – November 12, 2014
A volunteer jury chooses the top five weblogs in each category using our ten criteria for content and design.

November 15, 2014
The Ninjamatics' 2014 Canadian Weblog Awards nominee shortlist is announced.

November 16 – November 29, 2014
The volunteer jury chooses the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place winners in each category using our ten criteria for content and design, plus points for category fit and a registered domain name.

December 1, 2014
The 2014 Canadian Weblog Awards winners are announced!
Link to the CWA
2014 Canadian Weblog Awards
<a href="" title="2014 Canadian Weblog Awards"><img src="" alt="2014 Canadian Weblog Awards" height="150" width="150" /></a>
This website is for entertainment purposes only. Advice by trained professionals should always be sought in place of any recommendations or information provided herein.

Opinions expressed on this website do not reflect the opinions of Elan Morgan's employers, family, or friends, unless otherwise noted.
Don't Steal, Please
Copyright © Canadian Weblog Awards 2010 – 2014. All rights reserved.

Please do not take any of the text or images from this website without express permission, because it's not nice, and it makes everyone sad for you.

Powered by Squarespace

Copyright, Fair Use/Fair Dealing, And Hotlinking: What You Need To Know

The internet is often looked upon as a Wild West, a new frontier not bound by traditional rules. It seems an apt metaphor, but in truth it's overly simple, and to treat the web as a place where anything goes not only shows how very ten-years-ago your thinking is but also belies your ignorance of the very real social, professional, and legal implications of your actions.

I have been giving this some very serious thought since I received the following alert in my e-mail inbox two days ago:

I have Google Alerts set up to notify me every time "Canadian Weblog Awards" is mentioned on the internet, and because the Canadian Weblog Awards are my baby, my pride and joy, I was pleased to see that they had been mentioned somewhere. Or at least I was until I followed the link in question to a particular page at

If you look at the url of that particular page, you can see that it once led to an entry featuring an interview with 2010 Canadian Weblog Awards winner Laura of Mindful Merchant, a page whose screenshot you can see at the left (click on the image to view at full size). That screenshot shows a copy of the interview I originally did on the Canadian Weblog Awards site, a copy which's Allan Janssen saw fit to publish in its entirety without acknowledgement of me or the article's place of origin.

I sent the offending link to both Aidan Morgan and Redneck Mommy, because I wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing my being acknowledged anywhere, and I needed to pick their brains to know what to do, because, lo, they are very wise.

Although I was livid at the blatant repurposing of my content, content that I had worked hard to create along with another blogger whom I hold in high regard, I chose to send Janssen the following e-mail, which e-mail's wording, I think, exhibits a great amount of restraint:
My name is Elan Morgan, and I am the founder of the Canadian Weblog Awards. An interview that I wrote, conducted, and published on the 2011 Canadian Weblog Awards site has been republished without permission and acknowledgement, pictures and all, on here:

The original article can be found here:

Please remove the offending article immediately. I expect this to happen within the next 24 hours.

Thank you.
Shortly thereafter, I noticed that Janssen had not removed my content as requested, but he had instead added a link to my original interview's url. Although the issue had now moved from one of possible plagiarism to one of copyright infringement, he did not remove my material as I had requested. My irritation was only compounded when he replied to my e-mail about the matter. (I have chosen not to republish his e-mails here, as I do not want to copy his words without permission, so you will have to take me at my word that there was no tone of apology or good will.) To paraphrase, he asked me what the hell was wrong with me and claimed that links he had posted to my content in the past on were a public service to me.

For serious reals.

Does anyone remember the ridiculous debacle that was Cooks Source's blatant plagiarism in November 2010? Because this incident immediately brought it to mind. Cooks Source republished an original online article written by Monica Gaudio without permission, and the magazine's editor, Judith Griggs, in a great display of both ignorance and unwarranted condescension, sent an e-mail passage to Gaudio that, rather than make any apology for her theft of the material, claimed that the web is considered public domain and that Griggs had been doing her a service.

The truth is that what is on the web is not, as a whole, considered public domain simply because it is on the web. Unless bound by a contract stipulating otherwise, you own your own works, even if those works are on the internet. While fair use (United States) and fair dealing (Canada) allow for the limited reproduction of an author's work, wholesale reproduction of your work without your express permission is not acceptable, and it is considered copyright infringement.

Obviously, I was not satisfied with Allan Janssen's simple addition of a link at the end of my complete article, not only because he had republished my entire article without permission but also because he had republished photographs which I had been granted permission to use by Laura of Mindful Merchant who, in turn, had been granted permission to use them by the photographer, Sara McConnell. Janssen was trampling on copyright left, right, and center at, and he seemed to think that not only was it acceptable behaviour, but also that I was ungrateful for pointing it out.

Again, I showed great restraint when I sent him the following second e-mail:
Allan, there is nothing the matter with me.

I have truly appreciated your linking to the Awards. Thank you for that. An excerpt and link back to the Awards is always appreciated, but there are three major things that are wrong with your recent choices in publishing my interview:
- republishing an entire article without permission is never okay anywhere either on or off the internet.
- you did not initially attribute this article with a link back to the original content. (You only added it after I emailed you about it).
- when you published the images with the interview, you used the links to where I have the images hosted. This is called hotlinking, and it chews into a person's bandwidth.

I am perfectly happy with excerpts and links that send people back to my site where I have the full content I work hard to create and maintain. Republishing entire articles without permission and hotlinking to someone else's images are quite another matter, though, and neither are considered good practice. They are called copyright infringement and theft of bandwidth.

Please remove the article in question ( immediately.

If you choose to remove all content relating to the Canadian Weblog Awards, that is your prerogative.
Did I mention the hotlinking? Hotlinking is when you link directly to another site's hosted images and other files, which means that every time someone views that image or other kind of file on your website, that file is still data being transferred from the other website's host, which then incurs extra charges for that other website's owner every time your site is loaded. Someone else ends up paying for your content to be seen which is why hotlinking is considered bandwidth theft.

When I viewed the code for my stolen article on, it was apparent that Janssen had simply cut and pasted the code from my original article without bothering to host the images himself (which I am glad he did not, because that would just have compounded theft upon theft):

Janssen finally removed my article from after I sent my second e-mail request for him to do so. He has let me know that he will no longer link to the Canadian Weblog Awards and will now only publicize the Canadian Blog Awards, which is another weblog awards program in Canada that is run by popular vote.

We at the Canadian Weblog Awards are more than fine with this arrangement, but we do think that it is extremely important for Allan Janssen at and everyone else, for that matter, to have at least a general clue about what copyright and fair use are and how to go about republishing works by other authors both on and off the internet.

If you value your relationships online, both personal and professional, it only makes sense to brush up on your knowledge of copyright, fair use, and hotlinking. In the name of being a good netizen, I am sure most of us can agree that copyright infringement and bandwidth theft are not the way to any website owner's heart.


Before You Republish Another Person's Material On or Off the Internet

  • Familiarize yourself with copyright.
  • Familiarize yourself with fair use/fair dealing.
  • Unless otherwise noted by the work's author, assume copyright is in place.
  • Secure an author's permission before republishing their content.
  • When sharing an author's file, such as an image, do not hotlink.

  • What Is Copyright?

    "Copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. Copyright does not protect ideas, only their expression." (see the full Wikipedia article)

    What Can Be Copyrighted?

    In Canada, "...[copyright] protection is effective even without registration" and is generally held until 50 years after the creator's death, as long as the material meets the following requirements:
  • the material is literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic,
  • it covers the expression of the idea but not the idea itself,
  • the expression of the thought must be original if not the thought itself, and
  • the creator of the work must be connected with "...either Canada or a member of any number of other international trade or copyright treaties, including the Berne Convention."

  • In the United States, the following works are copyrightable: literary works (articles, stories, journals, computer programs, and pictures and graphics), architectural blueprints, music and song lyrics, plays and screenplays, audiovisual recordings, and sound recordings. Further information about copyright in the United States can be found here.

    If you are unclear about copyright, there are two good rules of thumb that you should follow to keep you in the clear:
    1. Unless it is otherwise noted, assume that an item is copyrighted.
    2. If you did not create the material you want to use, then obtain permission from the material's owner before you copy either a large portion of it or copy it in its entirety.

    What Is Fair Use?

    "...[Fair] use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work," and it can be done without the copyright owner's permission.

    In Canada, fair use is referred to as "fair dealing".


    Capeesh? Capeesh.

    Now go forth, good netizens, and respect thy neighbours!


    ADDENDUM: You can find further and more involved information about internet law in general at the Internet Society. Thanks for the tip, Justin Caron!

    I also think it is important to make clear at the 30-comment point that, while Allan Janssen's excerpting and linking to my content in the past at was more than welcome, I never gave him carte blanche permission to republish my works in full, as he is claiming in the comments here.
    « The Ninjamatics Weekly Roundup: What We Did Over the Last Two Weeks | Main | I Designed A Pair Of Pop-Up Banners For Saskatchewan Publishers Group, And I Am One Proud Mama »

    Reader Comments (60)

    Every time I read about online copyright infringement I wonder what the hell these people are thinking. I'm glad you got your article taken down.

    And good job on the thorough explanation of online copyright.

    February 23, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMarilyn @ A Lot of Loves

    What he was doing was republishing your RSS feed. I've had that happen many times with my blog. Contacting them is good (though I always threaten legal action). There are some people who just don't know any better, and others who are just stealing your content so that it looks like their blog has fresh content which gives them better seo and they are usually making money off ads. It's a constant problem, but if you make sure that in every post you create a link to another page within your site. That way you are potentially directing people back to your site.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterkickpleat

    kickpleat, he regularly publishes excerpts with links from an rss feed, which is fine. This sort of thing is another matter, and someone purporting to have his hand on the pulse of the blogging community in Canada should know better.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterschmutzie

    Tell it sister. Seriously. We've had this happen a number of times - both the republishing in full without permission or credit and the hot linking ... oh, and the telling us that they are doing us a favor.

    A few things to add: another reason you should not hot link (apart from it being bad) is that if the person you are hot linking to changes or removes the images, it results in broken/different imagery on your own website. In one of our situations, we purposely changed our images when the offender wouldn't remove them from the helpful graphics they were to: "X Company Steals Content" - that got them to take the article and images down post haste! Yeah, so if you're already stealing someone's content, linking to images stored on their server = a risky proposition.

    Also, duplicate content also potentially damages your SEO cred. To some degree (and we're not really sure to what degree because companies like Google are cagey about their algorithm) we know that search engines can detect duplicate content and may slightly penalize sites that have duplicate content as being lower quality or less authoritative. Unfortunately, these same engines probably have no way of telling where and with whom the content originated so even the creative person who put it together in the first place has the potential to see their search rankings penalized, even if ever so slightly, just because someone saw fit to completely reproduce their content.

    All around badness.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterAmy

    Also, can I just say: the fact that he's threatened to not link to you anymore, despite the fact that the CWA is obviously right up the alley of his target site users is 1. bitter, 2. childish and 3. bad business. Okay and 4. doucheyness bordering on bullying.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterAmy

    I was gonna say, but someone beat me to it, to change the images to a white box with "Allen is a thieving asshat." But you tend to be much more big-girl-panties than I, because that's how you roll.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterDory

    This is brilliantly written and should be read by just about everyone. I'm going to post this verbatim to my blog right now!

    (kidding, kidding)

    Amy alluded to hotlinking in the comments (as you did in the blog content itself). I recently read an interesting piece on BoingBoing: (See what I did there? I'll be paraphrasing their content while allowing those interested to click through!) A web-comic by Zach Weinersmith was deemed relevant by the National Organization for Marriage (which advocates against gay marriage rights) -- and they decided to hotlink to it. Zach discovered this and decided to change the image of his comic to something a bit counterproductive to NOM's mission statement. :) It's yet another reason not to hotlink without permission: you never know what someone will do with that content without notifying you first. :)

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered Commentershiny

    I find this type of intellectual stealing very sad. And I say this as someone who openly admits to have swiped a few photos from Google Images in the past. But I am a lazy blogger doing this for a hobby, and if I would get an email for my mistake, I would apologize three-fold, and send flowers. I hate the arrogance of profit-sites thinking they are doing YOU a favor by stealing an entire post from the individual blogger. I saw the original post on BlogsCanada, and there was no way to really know that this was material published on another site, even when the small link was added at the end of the post. It read as if THEY did the interview and that the Blog Awards was part of their own site.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterNeil

    while I don't think I have ever infringed on anyone copyright I am glad for the education about it, especially hotlinking.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterdomestic extraordinaire

    Have I ever mentioned that you're my favoritest internet person in the world? I don't think I ever have. Aidan's in the top 5, but you're #1. True story. Sorry for not having said something before.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMayoPie

    Some people shouldn't blog touch a computer. Thanks for the really well thought out article. (This one, although the Canadian Weblogs article was great too!) I get lost in the code and I'm still not POSITIVE I could explain hotlinking to someone else, but I understood this - thanks for taking the time to create an article that explained things without being too technical or dumbing things down.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterdaysgoby

    Well play E. Was a good read and you managed to keep my head from exploding when I thought of the situation all over again. Twas a fine piece of writing you done did.

    I promise if I ever decide to steal it, I'll link to you afterwards. If I'm caught.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRedneck Mommy

    Elan if you don't stop with these lies I WILL take legal action.

    When I first added your stuff from Canadian Weblog Awards last year we had a conversation about using your articles to promote your site, and it was fine with you at the time!

    I have featured and promoted Canadian Weblog Awards hundreds of times,, with excerpts and links back to your site.......... and now when I legally (with permission) take one complete article and forget to put the link in with it, you go apeshit!

    The thing that amazes me is that the article in question was all about theCanadian Weblog Awards and a complete promotion of your site, so I can't see how this is stealing from you.

    Stop the slander immediately or I will be forced to take other measures.!

    Oh, and by the way, you're barred from

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterAllan W Janssen

    Is that real? Someone send that dude a rickroll.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterKBO

    Well-said and much needed.

    I'll be posting this word-for-word on my blog to help you spread the word.

    That's how it's done, right?


    @Allen W Jansen - "You're barred from Blogs Canada" - Way to build community dude. So basically you've built a social network for people who don't disagree with you or challenge your practices. Better rethink that because if this story (and your comment above) go viral, you may find your network is a bit smaller.

    It is stealing if you didn't have explicit permission and you didn't attribute the article. The fact that you've promoted the CWA doesn't give you blanket permission to repurpose its intellectual property. If there was some genuine misunderstanding and you believed you had permission, why not just be a human being about it in the email correspondence?

    @Elan - if you need a lawyer, let me know. I might have someone who would go pro bono on a case like this.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterAmy

    Maybe you can answer this. I find the material on Tumblr to be confusing with copyright. For example, I'll see a post on tumblir of a funny picture or .gif. If I want to post it on my blog, I've been downloading it then uploading it to my blog and including a link to the first tumblr blog that posted it since there is often not a link to the original picture taker or gif maker. But I haven't been sure if this is correct because I certainly don't want to steal anyone's stuff.

    PS. I had a post taken and I sent a similar email to yours and the blog took it down immediately -- thank goodness. I only knew because I went through my spam and had a trackback from them because I had linked to another one of my posts in the stolen posts.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterAlex@LateEnough

    Thank you for explaining this so succinctly. I will be bookmarking this, and sharing it with people I know that are starting out in blogging. For some reason, because I *read* blogs, they ask me questions!!! Now I know where to send them for the rules. ;-)

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJoy

    Reason #347 why I think you are stupendous. Fight the dumb, lady.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRené

    At Cool Mom Picks, we went a few rounds with a guy who actually swiped and altered our logo to use in a post slamming us. Some people are determined to be right, even when they're wrong. Thanks for helping guide the rest who really want to play fair.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJulie @ The Mom Slant

    I have been blogging for almost 7 years and no one has ever mentioned these issues to me which means;

    1) I have no readers
    2) My writing is crap
    3) All my content is original
    4) I'm lucky

    I'm just not sure which one it is!

    Thank you for posting all this information in detail and it real-world speak. I'm an much wiser for having read this.

    You might want to flip this to someone like wordpress who always have articles on correct blogging procedures. I think everyone should sign a disclaimer before blogging so they know what the liability could be for stealing someone's work.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterurban daddy

    So if someone took part of your entry or lifted comments from your site and then posted them on their site that made a LOT of money, you'd call that copyright infringement right? They never asked for your permission and it stated VERY clearly it was owned by you.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMichele

    Michele, quoting an excerpt from an entry likely falls under Fair Use, which means that they can quote you and use that quote to comment on what you've written or to expand upon some idea. Whether they make money or not on it is probably another matter. I would check with a lawyer to make sure.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterschmutzie

    Great post, my dear Schmutzie.

    And dear @Allan W Janssen, if you run a site about Canadian blogs, it might be a good idea to befriend Canadian bloggers. One way to do that? Admit when you make a mistake. Take the post down (or change it to just an excerpt), post an apology, and never steal content again.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMrs. Wilson

    !. The post was taken down 2. No, I don't make any money from my site - I'm thirty thousand in the hole 3. If you read my answer you will see that I got permission last year 4. Elan is making stuff up and biting the hand that feeds her, or cutting off her nose to spite her face, etc. etc. and 5. She will never to be mentioned on again because she is such a nasty little bitch.
    I will, however, continue to promote and feature stuff the winners of Canadian Weblogs Awards post under Creative Commons by ginving an excerpt of what they write, with a link back tro their site, which is what I have been doing all along! There is no reason they should suffer for her stupidity!

    Allan Janssen

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterAllan W Janssen

    Well said.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered Commentermagpie

    @Allan W Janssen

    How did you get permission last year for a post that Schmutzie wrote this year? Getting permission for a specific post does not mean that you have permission for EVERY post she writes. Please do NOT slander or call my friend names publicly, on the internet, on her own site.

    You are really not doing yourself any favors by writing the words you write.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMrs. Wilson

    We had a conversation where I told her I was going to promote Canadian Weblog Awards and use material from her site,. I wasn't about one article Mrs. nitpicker, it was about Canadian welob awardds in general and she was finewith it at the time and now , out of the blue, goes on a rant. I don't like dealing with irrational and stupid people and that's why she is banned!

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterAllan W Janssen

    @Allan W Janssen

    1. Telling her that you are using her material is not the same thing as her GIVING you permission.

    2. This is not out of the blue. You stole a post from her.

    3. If you would like your site to be successful, it would be better to stop the SLANDER and apologize (publicly or otherwise) to Ms. Morgan (not Mrs. Nitpicker).

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMrs. Wilson

    Wow, I'm not sure I've ever seen such a public display of ineptitude by a "businessperson". Offering profanity and fighting with your peers is a ticket to the business graveyard.

    Allan, there is a lot of room on the internet for everyone who wants to build a business there to prosper, but there is no room for any of the actions that have been attributed to you, or those that you have done yourself in this situation. I sincerely hope you'll find a way to turn your business around, take on a new attitude, and prosper.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMike

    Mrs. Wilson, if you read the comment properly you would see that I had permission AND DID NOT STEAL IT AND Mike you're absolutely right, arguing with this group is like bnging my head against the wall so this conversation is over as far as I'm concerned!

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterAllan W Janssen

    @Allan W Janssen

    1. You did not have permission.
    2. You did steal it.
    3. I dare you to find one person who agrees with you.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMrs. Wilson

    To be clear, in an addendum to this entry, I have explained that I never at any time gave Allan Janssen carte blanche permission to republish my works in full.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterschmutzie

    Just a quick point of order:

    "Slander" refers to verbal or spoken defamation, while "libel" refers to defamation in a written/print context. So, in this case, taking someone to court with charges of slander would not be valid.

    I would suggest checking the local statutes concerning libel and intellectual property should you choose to pursue this further, but I would recommend not pursuing this further as it likely will involve more time and energy than it's worth. But that's just me.

    DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. Nor am I Canadian. But I like Tim Horton's.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered Commentershiny

    Not sure why this guy is 30K in the hole with his website. I thought I was a bad businessman with my blog, but I've only lost maybe $1600 on hosting and domain names and attending BlogHer twice over a six year period. Clearly he is doing something wrong as a businessman. Maybe calling others "nasty little bitch" is bad PR.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterNeil

    Is it just me or is it getting hot in here??

    I have to say that this was very well written and if anyone is displaying unprofessional behavior, it is Allan Janssen.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterAnne Y

    You republished an entire post. In full. Without even giving due credit until you were told to do so. This is not the same as highlighting someone else's work, nor should they be "flattered" that you did. It's stealing.

    Just because you say in a comment that you had permission means nothing. I'm saying in this comment that I'm a millionaire but that doesn't make it true.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMrs. Jen B

    @Allen W Janssen

    When you resort to name-calling and brining up things that are irrelevant, you look like a child. It would have been better for you to publicly apologize than to throw a tantrum and continue to point the finger elsewhere when it is clear who the guilty party is here.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterSunny

    Oh Allan. You've really fallen into a PR nightmare here and it gets worse every time you say something.

    Your FIRST response should have been something like this:

    "I am so sorry for the misunderstanding. I will take down the post. Thank you for letting me know."

    And that's it! No harm, no foul, but your response combined with the comments you've left here have really hurt you .... AND that website you say you've sunk $30,000 into.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterandrea from the fishbowl

    Very helpful and well written post, ma'am! I must say you showed a LOT more restraint in your emails than I would have, which is why you are well-known as a classy and intelligent netizen. I'm sorry you had to deal with something like this, but I'm glad you could turn it into a "teaching moment" for the rest of us :)

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterKeely

    As a person who is still finding her legs in the blog world, this was a very good article. Thank you for helping me understand.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterWendy [mapsgirl]

    I just had this happen to one of my websites this morning. Four hours of work later and the offending website has been suspended by the hosting company. If you want to know what I did, just email me.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterSheri

    Great article, and it inspired me to explore the Terms of Use on — just to see if Mr. Janssen puts his money where his mouth is vis-a-vis free usage of his content by other websites.

    Nope. Oh, the irony.

    I'll take "Hypocrisy for $200," Allan.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterTwoBusy

    Allan- how exactly is she biting the hand that feeds her (which I know would not be your hand) or cutting off her nose? You think that by pointing out your misuse of her property she is doing these things? I think she's doing the Internet a favor by pointing out how unhelpful you are. By coming to her site and publicly calling her childish names, you are proving how little class you have.

    Everyone else- it's obvious he will not be able to apologize because he's dug himself quite a hole that even the longest ladder will not be able to help him out of. I'm not one to read a lot of blogs but you can be sure that I will never read his blog for any reason than to read his very public apology that I expect will never show up.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterAngie_stl

    I am sorry this happened to your article, and i am sorry that the offending side does not have more class.
    Seriously, what the heck is the harm in kicking back full credit to someone? Give credit where credit is due.
    Are people honestly that neurotically needy for 'greatness' these days ,to use something that does not come from your own hand? - it wasn't your words. Tell the world it wasn't. People respect HONESTY a heck of a lot more. I'm all for someone helping me find great things and great people to read about. I wouldn't have cared that your site brought it to me. But knowing that you did not write it, nor link back as everyone should - every time (it takes only a few extra mins overall), makes me never again go back to that site.

    Shot yourself in the foot, Sir Allan.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterSamiJoe

    What a disgusting way for Allan to handle this situation. He sounds very immature and without any common sense.

    I have had this happen to me several times. Most content thieves don't actually apologize or respond, they simply remove the material. I've only had to contact a hosting company twice in seven years, which given the extent of thievery probably isn't that bad.

    I am glad you wrote about this, Elan. It's an issue that more people should be familiar with. Like Neil, I also use images from Google on occasion, but I go to the source and ask if it's okay. I've only been told no once. It's just not that hard.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJane

    This is a great article and one well worth reading and retracing. Thanks for publishing this excellent information. One quick thing: you misspelled ignorance in the first paragraph.

    However, Allan, the PR person's nightmare more than made up for it by demonstrating his own in spectacularly cringe-worthy fashion.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterGlennMcQ

    looks like the site is a blog aggregator? it probably just automatically pulls your posts from your rss feed and posts them blogscanada. no cut and paste.

    if you can always make sure just to share an excerpt of your posts in your rss feed not the whole thing. i know in wordpress you can set it to just show excerpts. select that.

    you should have hotlinking disabled anyway. get your host to do that if you don't know how.

    did you ever sign up for an account there? i can see when you do you have to add your rss feed. i would assume when one signs up they know their blog posts are going to be pulled and posted.

    you should have a legal and legit boilerplate letter set up if you are a content producer. keep it professional and impersonal. just fill it out and send it to the website, web host, domain registrar, google to remove the post from their index..

    there are probably hundreds of thousands of site aggregating content like this one. it may be frustrating but if you respond to every infringement like this one you are going to have a stroke : )

    if you find a infringement fire off a boilerplate legal letter and move on.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered Commentertom

    I think you should start a blog called Nasty Little Bitch. I'd read that.

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered Commentersabrina

    Wow. Just wow. Nobody calls my Elan a nasty little bitch and gets away with it. Well, maybe Sabrina. :)

    February 24, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterAbigail Road

    PostPost a New Comment

    Enter your information below to add a new comment.
    Author Email (optional):
    Author URL (optional):
    Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>