Page 2 - Writing Articles - The SEO benefits

This is something I was not aware of. So even tho we are paying for the posts by hiring a freelancer, we do not even own the content that he/she produces? That sounds kind of dangerous. What if you come across a disgruntled blogger and is demanding their posts be taken down after they have been paid? Is that legal?

A friend of mine wrote an article on copyright laws. He is not a lwayer but it was for a class he was taking
Copyright Law

Interesting. I will give that a read.

Thanks.

The "word" in the United States.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

"Most" people that write for a fee don't appreciate copyright law...

A knowledgable blogger [if me] I would write for you, and then sell it to as many competitors as I could find... if that's $50/post x 199 competitors that's $10000 for a single works - and I still own the copy.

...if you desire protection...

1. get them to sign a copyright transfer order
2. immediately register the content with the US Copyright Office [$35 for a web-version]

...course the mention of copyright transfer the blogger can 'research the specifics' and their price can quickly go up...

This is why content tends to be cheap... the writers either know the value or they don't - but the law protects those that did the work regardless.

That article is a little skrewed... website design [templates] do not fall into copyright works... the code fall under fair use... pictures and text copy are protected...

But the article suggests Creating a Copyright Friendly Website

...and implies that the graphical design is a literary work...



but that isn't what "works made for hire" with respect to copyright defines in section 101 of the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 10, and used in 17 U.S.C. § 201, on behalf of the Company, and Company shall own all right, title and interest, including the worldwide copyright, in and to such materials."

This section is specific to "literary works" which are classed as:

written, audio, video ...and I would likely add to those multimedia applets like flash & shockwave... "IF" there are distinct components like written text, audio, or video

...but "design" is purely [mostly] code... and code isn't protected under literary works made for hire.

Yes I believe you are right. I always understood website and programming code to fall under Patent Laws, not copyright.

Since the same codes are reproduced over and over to create a specific reaction they are not uniquely created by the individual.

However any images, used to build a website do technically fall under the designers ownership, and what good is the code without the images? Therefore it is necessary to include transfer of ownership language in a development contract. Perhaps more specifically but it doesn't "break" the rest of the clause to include the website code within that statement

hmmm... well that's a problem as well... 99.99% of all web designers are not photographers... and tend to use stock photos as "royal free" or royalty paid"... neither of which are a copyright claim or a patent claim... 99.99% of the time.

In a real example: if you designed a website for me... and I didn't pay you can take me to small claims court and possibly charge and win a claim for breach of contract whether a written or verbal aggreement...

but if you attempted to sue under copyright or patent law... you wouldn't ever get to court PERIOD! ...without proof of your claim to start with and that's a valid copyright or patent certificate number.

You can't use 3rd party material and claim it's yours under false pretense... to validate a claim against another.

Sure but I am talking about images like nav bars, shadowing, click boxes, headers (even when you use stock photos manipulating it into a unique web header turns it into your own work). This is where intellectual property vs copyright ownership lines blur

Your "DEAD WRONG"!

...you're assuming alot...

Intellectual property of a nav bar, shadowing, click boxes, and even headers doesn't exist... these are not "works of anything".

If you remove everything that belong to someone else... the final work isn't a complete work... to start with and unless you can show proof that a nav bar, on it's own, has some intellectual value [e.g. resold by you as a standalone component] your fishing without the bait, and you don't even have a hook or the line either.



The burden is on you to prove this has value for a claim... and if you haven't submitted a claim to protect what you think is your rights... that's proof that you don't believe there is any value in your own headers what-so-ever.

This isn't an academic discussion like SEO where it may or may not be true... "web design" work has ZERO intellectual property rights on its own merits.

I understand what some of you are saying about submitting your articles and the benefits compared to hosting them on your own site. Where do you start though? Do you submit a few articles to get the ball rolling and show other sites that your own site has expanded? If you keep the content on your own site, how else will people find out about it?

What about putting articles on your site and submitting a variation of your work? Does that help? How much do you need to vary your original article compared to the one you are submitting to avoid duplicate content issues? What is the best way to make articles work for your site if submissions are not a solid recommendation?

Sorry for the 20 questions. I always thought that submitting articles would provide a benefit and I don't feel completely sold on it after reading this thread.

This is a question about "value". If the article is worth "a lot," it will attempt links naturally, no additional effort requires...

If the article is remotely worth anything, then social bookmarking will likely do the linking job...

If the article is crap... well best to put it on a crappy article site with a link and hope for the best.



At the days end, social bookmarking does this and you don't need to give anything but a title and destination url.