I’ve received a request regarding a tutorial article I wrote, asking for permission to repost it on a blog (with attribution and link).
My initial reaction was that I wouldn’t want the whole thing just copied like that, but then I wondered if I’m perhaps just a bit behind the times - maybe everyone just accepts that sort of thing now, and the person did ask permission (when they could have just done it and I would probably never have found out)
Does it seem like a reasonable request to you?
Isn’t the point of publishing things online so that they will be seen by people? What exactly is your problem here? Unless this tutorial is only available via a pay subscription I don’t see the problem. Sounds perfectly reasonable.
Well, my ‘problem’ is that the content is my own original work. It’s freely available for anyone to view, but allowing it to be copied and presented out of the direct context of being my work is what felt a bit wrong.
If I was sure my position on this was sound, I wouldn’t be asking the question though.
Well, it’s your work so what’s reasonable is what feels good to you. That said, if I was being properly credited (and linked to) then I’d be happy to let someone use the entire tutorial/article/whatever. Especially if they had the class to ask first.
This is from someone who has had entire website contents ripped off from him and placed on other sites (including typos, grammatical errors, etc; an obvious copy & paste) and then had the other webmaster deny taking anything before accusing me of stealing their work.
Yeah, I think I’ll go ahead with it - as long as it’s clearly credited and linked, it’s free advertising at worst.
Considering it’s a tutorial and you published it online, it seems odd to me that you would have any reticence about someone sharing it (assuming it was properly credited). If you were so concerned about it being taken in context then you could have published it via more traditional means. Having work you publish online quoted or shared on other mediums is kind of par for the course.
Quoted and shared is one thing. Copied verbatim is, or seems quite another. Publishing something, in any medium, doesn’t, in my experience constitute an invitation to copy it.
Your view doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. I think it would be perfectly legitimate to say that you’re not keen and request that they link to your site instead (assuming you’re happy being linked).
Your reaction seems reasonable, but then again, so does his request. It does seem quaint, I have to say, to refuse permission if a proper citation and link are included (unless, of course, your content is for-pay).
The thing is… copying verbatim your entire article is still a matter of quoting – just more of it. Think of this way: He likes your stuff so much that he wants the full context of the article to present to his readers, and not just one or two isolated paragraphs. You’re still you and you still have your other articles to show for it, so it’s not like he’s stealing your individuality or life and work altogether. And sure, a link might work as well, but (pragmatically) what’s the difference to you? Either way, people are going to be reading your stuff and either way they’re going to know it’s you who wrote it. Why does the particular website on which it appears matter at all?
Is there an artistic element to your discomfort, perhaps? Does his publishing method make your work less seem attractive (maybe you have your article themed a certain way to match the rest of your webpage, or maybe it’s one in a long series that you’d prefer readers to read holistically, or…?). That might make more sense as a point of contention.
Pragmatically, there is a small difference - the ad revenue I get from the page views. If someone views my content elsewhere, I don’t get paid. It is a novel enough topic that my site is the only relevant search engine hit at the moment - so a duplicate could potentially divert a fair bit of traffic away.
However, I’m not particularly worried about this, in this particular case.
There have been others where I guarded my content more fiercely (because the rewards were higher and the people copying the content were not actually interested in it, beyond trying to take a slice of my pie).
There are probably elements of all of those factors, but I guess it’s mostly that I see the thing as my baby and I’m just being a bit over cautious about who gets to hold it.
I’m going to consent to the idea and see where it goes. As long as it’s linked and credited, it may actually come out as a net positive because of the new traffic it could bring.
I see no reason to allow it at all. Tell the blogger to learn how to do a link.
Allowing copying can only increase the chance of trouble. Who needs that?
You have both principle and principal at stake here: a link and selective quoting should be as far as you allow him to go without payment.
It is your decision on where you want your work displayed. If you don’t like the idea, then say “no.” If you don’t mind, say “yes.”
You can make the counteroffer of allowing him to link to your page.
It’s more typical in my experience, if you’ve already published it elsewhere on the net, for a blogger to quote portions of it, make a commentary, and make a link and attribution. I wouldn’t post the whole thing unless it was considered an actual contribution to the blog. This would be appropriate if your were a regular or guest contributer for that blog. But still kind of odd if you had already published it on your own blog.
I wouldn’t let him copy in it its entirety. Sure, this blogger had the courtesy to ask permission, but some bloggers who find it on his blog will assume that they also have permission to copy it in its entirety. Soon enough it will be copied on dozens of blogs without attribution.
I used to run a satire site and had many requests to reproduce content.
Generally, I’d ask people to just link to my site, but there were one or two who I allowed to reproduce in full for various reasons (such as a very high traffic site I wanted pimpin… exposure on).
I’d allow them to reproduce if they gave proper credit and linked your original article, but you might also be negotiate a static link on his front page or some such. It all spreads the word.
Is it possible that this persons site would spark an interest in viewing more of your work, and then going to your site to find it? If so, it’s possible this could be a net benefit.
It’s entirely possible - the article is in keeping with the theme of the blogger’s site, so there may well be an untapped reservoir of visitors there.
I wouldn’t allow a complete copy. I’d allow a paragraph or two, then a link to your site to read it in full.