Is it legit for websites to steal other website's stories?

Kermit.de.frog

The Journal has to be the worst for this. There are 3 or 4 articles today alone that are basically lifted from the Irish Times and printed differently.

As far as I know these sites don't do the journalistic work that major newspapers and broadcasters do and don't have that expense.

They are basically taking stories from other media who do work for the stories and republishing them in a different format.

I can't believe this is legit because it is so blatant. The Journal, for example, may be a reasonably popular site but the way things are going I can see real journalism disappearing eventually because it won't be worth it.

bpmurray

If this can be proven, sites that do that are guilty of infringing the copyright of the original site. So, no, it's not legitimate.

paleoperson

bpmurray wrote: »

If this can be proven, sites that do that are guilty of infringing the copyright of the original site. So, no, it's not legitimate.

I wasn't aware that news can be copyrighted.

Kermit.de.frog

bpmurray wrote: »

If this can be proven, sites that do that are guilty of infringing the copyright of the original site. So, no, it's not legitimate.

Mix and match stories from the journal to independent.ie and irishtimes.com - it's verging on copy, paste, edit.

Kermit.de.frog

paleoperson wrote: »

I wasn't aware that news can be copyrighted.

Not really the point though. If a popular website simply takes stories off the backs of media that actually do the journalistic work then that's not good for journalism long term.

It's parasitical, no?

irish_goat

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Not really the point though. If a popular website simply takes stories off the backs of media that actually do the journalistic work then that's not good for journalism long term.

It's parasitical, no?

If it's getting people, like yourself, to go on their website, why would they stop?

Kermit.de.frog

irish_goat wrote: »

If it's getting people, like yourself, to go on their website, why would they stop?

That's why I don't go on their website. I was searching Google news for an article and the Journal came up.

Out of principal I try to avoid those sites, not only the Irish ones either.

Dial Hard

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Journal has to be the worst for this. There are 3 or 4 articles today alone that are basically lifted from the Irish Times and printed differently.

As far as I know these sites don't do the journalistic work that major newspapers and broadcasters do and don't have that expense.

It happens the other way around too. The Journal contacted me for a story earlier this year and ran it. The following day, the Indo covered the same story, including direct quotes from me that I'd given the Journal.

The Irish Times is pretty much the only thing left even resembling real journalism at this stage.

Billy86

If it was in any way enforceable, Joe.ie, The Journal, Buzzfeed, the Daily Mail and so on would have been sued out of existence long, long ago.

dreamers75

A lad in the job was in Kerry the weekend, he made a video. Numerous websites asked him for permission to "share it" and make it go "viral" it did.

I had to inform him they uploaded it to their own youtube FB accounts for €€€€€

Has a fair few views now.

paleoperson

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Not really the point though. If a popular website simply takes stories off the backs of media that actually do the journalistic work then that's not good for journalism long term.

It's parasitical, no?

You're saying this like it's some sort of profound insight or something? Like you just worked it out?

Talking to young people is really hilarious sometimes.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

paleoperson wrote: »

I wasn't aware that news can be copyrighted.

It can't, but specific stories can. Kermit.de needs to link to somethign specific to say, and even then journal.ie could have paid for the useage.

Freelance journalists can also sell stories to multiple buyers if the first customer doesn't pay for exclusivity (I think - open to correction)

Dr. Mantis Toboggan

dreamers75 wrote: »

A lad in the job was in Kerry the weekend, he made a video. Numerous websites asked him for permission to "share it" and make it go "viral" it did.

I had to inform him they uploaded it to their own youtube FB accounts for €€€€€

Has a fair few views now.

What was it? Burning arse hair with a lighter?

Duggy747

Joe.ie is basically just posts from Reddit a day or 2 after they appear there.

suicide_circus

Ears are burning over at thejournal!

Could be freelance journalists, press releases, news wire services etc. generating the stories.

There isn't much in the way of investigate journalism in this country.

Bulbous Salutation

It’s a parasitic model. These bottom feeders steal stories from the handful of struggling media outlets who still gather the news. The Journal is a classic case. A team of self-regarding hacks rewriting others work, releasing press releases almost verbatim, creating lists like “10 reasons you know your cat is trying to kill you, and what you can do about it!” and occasionally letting one of their insufferable mates write an opinion piece on whatever cause they’ve latched onto at that moment. Then opening up the floor to a comments section frequented by some of the stupidest and pettiest people in Ireland.

You’ll then have punters giving out about the lack of quality journalism. It’s a completely unsustainable model.

Dr. Mantis Toboggan

Bulbous Salutation wrote: »

It’s a parasitic model. These bottom feeders steal stories from the handful of struggling media outlets who still gather the news. The Journal is a classic case. A team of self-regarding hacks rewriting others work, releasing press releases almost verbatim, creating lists like “10 reasons you know your cat is trying to kill you, and what you can do about it!” and occasionally letting one of their insufferable mates write an opinion piece on whatever cause they’ve latched onto at that moment. Then opening up the floor to a comments section frequented by some of the stupidest and pettiest people in Ireland.

You’ll then have punters giving out about the lack of quality journalism. It’s a completely unsustainable model.

On the contrary Bulbous, it's perfectly sustainable as long as idiots keep going to these sites.

cowboyBuilder

Sure the Irish Times do the same - eg some news story and it will say from Reuters or NYT / whatevrr , I think as long as they credit the source it's legal.

Billy86

Bulbous Salutation wrote: »

It’s a parasitic model. These bottom feeders steal stories from the handful of struggling media outlets who still gather the news. The Journal is a classic case. A team of self-regarding hacks rewriting others work, releasing press releases almost verbatim, creating lists like “10 reasons you know your cat is trying to kill you, and what you can do about it!” and occasionally letting one of their insufferable mates write an opinion piece on whatever cause they’ve latched onto at that moment. Then opening up the floor to a comments section frequented by some of the stupidest and pettiest people in Ireland.

You’ll then have punters giving out about the lack of quality journalism. It’s a completely unsustainable model.

Is it me of is clickbait getting worse/more desperate lately? I think people are slowly building up an immunity to it (tends to happen to most/all forms of advertising eventually) and lately I've been seeing clickbait titles that are less of the same old nonsense, and closer to "please please please PLEASE click on this link, it will only take you a minute!!"

Bulbous Salutation

Dr. Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

On the contrary Bulbous, it's perfectly sustainable as long as idiots keep going to these sites.

Good point, Dr. Mantis. You'll then have the same blowhards mouthing off about the lack of impartiality, and how everything is 'spin'. It might not be the esteemed organ it once was, but I still intend to read a physical copy of the Irish Times over breakfast. Don't mind paying for some real news.

Chips Lovell

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Sure the Irish Times do the same - eg some news story and it will say from Reuters or NYT / whatevrr , I think as long as they credit the source it's legal.

They pay the likes of Reuters or the Guardian for those stories.

Dr. Mantis Toboggan

Bulbous Salutation wrote: »

Good point, Dr. Mantis. You'll then have the same blowhards mouthing off about the lack of impartiality, and how everything is 'spin'. It might not be the esteemed organ it once was, but I still intend to read a physical copy of the Irish Times over breakfast. Don't mind paying for some real news.

On the journal in particular there seems to be a lot of 'professional commentators' cornholing their moronic agendas and opinions into every possible subject.

There could be an article about the fcuking moon and they'd still manage to get a whinge in about water charges.

cowboyBuilder

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

They pay the likes of Reuters or the Guardian for those stories.

And the Journal don't pay the IT ?

Remember most of the stories are probably taken from IT that IT have allready taken from another source...

Pink Lemons

Billy86 wrote: »

Is it me of is clickbait getting worse/more desperate lately? I think people are slowly building up an immunity to it (tends to happen to most/all forms of advertising eventually) and lately I've been seeing clickbait titles that are less of the same old nonsense, and closer to "please please please PLEASE click on this link, it will only take you a minute!!"

Could you post the link to that? Sounds interesting and I have a minute to check it out

Chips Lovell

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

And the Journal don't pay the IT ? .

I don't think the Journal has a syndication agreement with the Irish Times.

TerrorFirmer

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

And the Journal don't pay the IT ?

Remember most of the stories are probably taken from IT that IT have allready taken from another source...

The way media works is that most reputable places generate their own content but also sometimes pay for access to/right to use others content. It depends on the particular outlet, most of the time its just supplementary though - for example a website might write its domestic stuff, but some of the foreign news would be via a news service provider.

What the Journal does is just steal stuff and paraphrase it to make it appear like it's original content. It's pretty sickening and a ****ty thing to do.

I've found a story I've written in a national before. In this case, it was a freelance writer that just copied my local story, changed a word or two, and submitted it as their own to a national and received payment for it.

It's the reason I don't so much as look at the journal, full of stolen articles, lazy writing and click-bait rubbish.

Mother Brain

From a legal perspective a news article must serve a copyright notice with the original work in order for it to fall under copyright protection.

This almost never happens. And even when it does, as long as the work is properly attributed to it's original author / source then it falls within the bounds of fair use, due to the expectation that material disseminated on a public facing website is freely accessible to the public anyway.

It's a scum sucking practice to be sure, but very little "legally" wrong with it as far as i'm aware.

Cool Mo D

Mother Brain wrote: »

From a legal perspective a news article must serve a copyright notice with the original work in order for it to fall under copyright protection.

This almost never happens. And even when it does, as long as the work is properly attributed to it's original author / source then it falls within the bounds of fair use, due to the expectation that material disseminated on a public facing website is freely accessible to the public anyway.

It's a scum sucking practice to be sure, but very little "legally" wrong with it as far as i'm aware.

That is absolute bull. Everything anyone writes is automatically copyrighted, no need to register or provide notice, or do anything at all. Fair use is a very, very limited right (there's no such thing as "fair use" in Ireland, there's a similar thing called "fair dealing") , and it never ever covers simply copying an article in full on a for-profit website. The posts you write on Boards.ie are under copyright - although note that in the terms of use you agree to it says:

You own all of the Material you post on Boards.ie and we do not claim ownership of that Material. However, we need your permission to be able to display that Material and in some cases to modify it for best display – for different browsers, for our mobile site, and so on.
...
by posting any Material on or through Boards.ie, you grant Boards.ie Limited a limited licence to use, modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Material. The licence you grant to Boards.ie Limited is non-exclusive, royalty free and fully paid, sub-licensable, and worldwide. This licence applies only to use of the Material for the purpose of providing the Boards.ie service. You also waive to the fullest extent permissible by law any moral rights in such Material. You are responsible for making sure that you have all rights to what you post, including the rights necessary for you to grant the licence above.

Everything you read online is under copyright, including news articles. However, facts cannot be copyrighted. So it is perfectly legal to use information published somewhere else to write a new article saying basically the same thing. As long as the new work is sufficiently different from the old one, no payment is necessary.

The_Valeyard

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ears are burning over at thejournal!

They do not have ears over there, just slimey tentacles and leeches.

DareGod

The Journal often gathers and re-tweets completely random tweets and presents them as an article - using said tweets as "evidence" of a "widely-held" opinion.

It is absolute trash, filled with grammar and spelling mistakes, and atrocious writing.

It's a disgrace to journalism.

Mother Brain

Cool Mo D wrote: »

That is absolute bull. Everything anyone writes is automatically copyrighted, no need to register or provide notice, or do anything at all. Fair use is a very, very limited right (there's no such thing as "fair use" in Ireland, there's a similar thing called "fair dealing") , and it never ever covers simply copying an article in full on a for-profit website. The posts you write on Boards.ie are under copyright - although note that in the terms of use you agree to it says:



Everything you read online is under copyright, including news articles. However, facts cannot be copyrighted. So it is perfectly legal to use information published somewhere else to write a new article saying basically the same thing. As long as the new work is sufficiently different from the old one, no payment is necessary.

Fair point.

TiGeR KiNgS

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Journal has to be the worst for this. There are 3 or 4 articles today alone that are basically lifted from the Irish Times and printed differently.

As far as I know these sites don't do the journalistic work that major newspapers and broadcasters do and don't have that expense.

They are basically taking stories from other media who do work for the stories and republishing them in a different format.

I can't believe this is legit because it is so blatant. The Journal, for example, may be a reasonably popular site but the way things are going I can see real journalism disappearing eventually because it won't be worth it.

Ok, but the Irish Times do this as well. That's why they don't kick up a fuss about it.

I'd rather the Journal lift stories off other sites than the pure ****e their own 'journalists' put out there. The spelling, grammer, unsourced material, made up statistics, polls upon polls is tragic.

PS
The totally not made up in 10 mins 'Top 9 Things .... ' is a journalistic abomination.

speedboatchase

DareGod wrote: »

The Journal often gathers and re-tweets completely random tweets and presents them as an article - using said tweets as "evidence" of a "widely-held" opinion.

It is absolute trash, filled with grammar and spelling mistakes, and atrocious writing.

It's a disgrace to journalism.

It is trash, but people aren't vocal about demanding higher standards, and in today's era of ad-blocking software and declining newspaper purchases/digital subscriptions, they aren't putting their money where their mouth is. The likes of JOE.ie and The Journal serve to curate other people's work, usually in a lowest common denominator style that emphasises sensationalism and viral appeal over all else. Unfortunately, it's remarkably effective and even the likes of TIME's Facebook and Twitter accounts have started to focus on list-based articles and celeb nonsense.

People's standards and expectations for journalism have - consciously or not - been lowered. I'd wager that most people I know get the bulk of their news from Facebook rather than dedicated websites/newspapers. Worst of all, I see that this trend moving in only one direction.