What’s the difference between reposting content on a weblog and a public aggregator
someone asked me based on a recent post expressing irritation about the way certain people repost my content on their weblogs.
This public aggregator, first of all, is completely different from a weblog where someone is reposting content just by the fact that it is an aggregator and says so very clearly. It’d be like me complaining to Bloglines that they’re reposting my content (which I don’t do because I understand what Bloglines is/does).
The aggregator also has a very large disclaimer explaining its nature and making it clear that these are external sources for which I am probably not editorially responsible:
"This page lists the most recent stories from news feeds that the Managing Editor of the site has subscribed to. Each hour the news aggregator scans subscribed feeds for new stories, which are displayed on this page from newest to oldest."
Part of my irritation with blogs reposting my or other people’s content is when they don’t make it clear that the content is coming from another source: it’s not their original writing, thoughts, etc. I like it when I can easily tell who wrote something. That applies to more than just weblogs.
For a long time, I was very irritated with how Frassle handled external feeds. When it first started displaying a mirror of this weblog, it didn’t have anything on it explaining its origin or authorship. That was frustrating because I like having credit for my work. Looking at a page like Librarian Blogs could be very confusing because my content is mixed with lots of other content, but there’s nothing explaining where the content comes from, what it is, etc. Now that Frassle has a disclaimer and a clear link to the original source, it’s much less confusing.
Linking Not Writing gives the source of each post. The name of the blog implies that it’s going to give a lot of links. It isn’t completely clear at first glance what the purpose of the site is or that the content comes from other places.
Sure, the purpose of syndication and providing feeds is to easily share content. Whether that gives someone the blatant right to repost content without prior permission could be a gray area. However, much content could still be copyrighted, like mine is, or it could be available under many different kinds of licenses. My license is at the bottom of each page:
"Using an occasional quote or a post or translating that into another language is fine with me. I ask that you cite this blog and link back so people can find the original source and I can get credit for my words. Please contact me for information about licensing and reusing this content, if you’re planning anything more involved than just quoting me."
May 13th, 2005 at 11:54 am
I agree with all that you said. Along a similar line, each of your posts is signed j Baumgart– a lot of bloggers either leave the signature blank or use something like administrator. This is really annoying when you’re reading the feed off of a blogdigger group or something.
May 13th, 2005 at 11:58 am
yeah I copy that
I’ve seen a guy copy a zdnet newsletters from my blog. The catch version still had my email on it.
I think posting text in images is way under rated. Even allows the use of various exotic fonts. And who really cares about search engines nowadays? I do find blogs in google but always forget to subscribe to the feed.
You’ve given me an awesome idea for a full post link pointing at a nice bitmap. tnx
May 13th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Interesting thoughts.
Linking Not Writing is an holdover name from when it was a test WordPress site (was thinking of converting from Moveable Type). I’ve renamed it.
It is an aggregator–there is no original content, so it’s clear from attribution and links that it’s not authored by a single person. My own personal weblog is behind a username/password, which effectively prevents the reuse of my content. If someone notes a ShareAlike license (The licensor permits others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the one that governs the licensor’s work), then I wouldn’t republish their feed. Also, it contains no ads, thus it doesn’t monetize another’s work.
If you’re irritated by your content appearing in places other than your own site, you may want to consider shortening your feed to summaries or publishing two versions, full and abbreviated (http://ask-leo.com/what_rights_do_i_retain_when_i_publish_an_rss_feed.html). Also, I find your license vague when compared to Creative Commons, which is quite explicit about an author’s intentions (http://creativecommons.org/license/). Your weblog is cited in the footer of each post and all links point to your content, so in fact your license is being followed according to the letter, if not the spirit.
Even kottke.org has gotten into the act– waxy.org, Gawker, the NY Times, and Boing Boing are published with his own content.