There are many who are positioning the fight over Planned Parenthood as different types of battles. Some say it’s government versus women, the so-called “war on women” that Republicans are allegedly waging. Others say it’s Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice with the future of abortion law hanging in the balance. Still others look at the divide among lawmakers and conclude that it’s right versus left with the Democrats wanting to fund it and the Republicans wanting to defund it.
All are partially correct but mostly wrong. This is a fight about criminal activity. It’s a battle over whether or not the United States government is willing to continue to fund an organization that has been publicly questioned over morals and inquired about from a legal perspective. We don’t have all of the answers. We need the answers before we can decide whether they are worthy of taxpayer money or not.
It’s for this reason that the fight is about good versus evil. There’s a distinction that should be noted: we’re not saying it’s about right versus wrong. In that debate, one’s perspectives on abortion come into play. Whether one believes that it’s right or wrong is not the question. Have they taken taxpayer money and used it to break the law? People who are on the side of good and lawfulness, regardless of their political affiliation or perspective on abortion, will want to know the answer before continuing to fund this organization. Those on the side of evil would fund without prejudice and willfully ignore the allegations without investigating them.
Am I accusing people supporting Planned Parenthood funding of being evil? No. Good people can be swayed to do evil things based upon their values. Just as many support Planned Parenthood regardless of their potential criminal activities, others would support conservative institutions if they were accused of breaking the law. If a conservative organization such as National Right to Life received federal funding and videos were released demonstrating that they may have broken the law, everyone with a conscience should demand defunding while an investigation is performed. Even though they might match a conservative ideologically, our values would demand that we probe first before continuing with funds.
The same should be the case with Planned Parenthood. The allegations are serious and the video evidence is compelling enough to demand an inquiry. Citizens paying half a billion dollars in taxes to fund the organization have a right to know the truth about whether they are breaking the law or not before we give them another dollar. That’s not political. It’s lawful. If you are pro-choice and believe in two things -the quality of work that Planned Parenthood does for women and the sanctity of law in the United States – then you should not be opposed to defunding. In fact, you should be demanding that the organization be defunded as quickly as possible and that an inquiry is made because you’ll want one of two things: the truth to come out in favor of Planned Parenthood or the reassignment of the funds to an organization that helps women without breaking the law.
It’s okay to be pro-choice and pro-lawfulness at the same time. It’s time to put the politics aside in this issue and discover whether or not Planned Parenthood is breaking the law or not. Blind support is dangerous.
“Content curation” is a powerful tool for marketing. By sharing someone else’s relevant, helpful content, you prove to your audience that you care about helping them—not just boosting your own site traffic.
But when does “curation” turn into copyright infringement? Too often, people will copy/paste an entire article onto their own site, then become indignant when the original author asks them to take it down.
This is from an actual email exchange with an agency website that did just that:
If you feel this is somehow in violation then feel free to waste your money and have your lawyers contact me. But be assured that its [sic] a two way street and I would advise you contacting direct next time before slandering us with a false statement like you did on our blog.
I am honestly shocked at your discord, the usual response we get is a ‘thank you’ and often an offer of a guest blog. We have provided both valuable links and distribution through our channels.
You’re “shocked” that someone didn’t thank you after you copied the entire text of their article and posted it on your own site? I find that difficult to believe, but let’s assume that some people genuinely don’t understand curation, copyright, or fair use.
In our litigious society, you MUST understand the difference between helpful curation and using content in a way that breaks the law. It boils down to understanding the concept of fair use.
What is Fair Use?
Fair use is a defense to a claim of copyright infringement. Just because you give somebody credit doesn;t mean it’s legal. Many people say that their use of someone else’s creative work is “fair” in a disclaimer post on the bottom of the page, as though that will shield them from liability. Only it won’t.
You only get to raise the “fair use” argument once you’ve been sued (and spent money on legal fees to defend yourself against the copyright infringement claim).
If you’ve never been sued, let me give you a visual: think about what it would look like if your business started hemorrhaging money, and nothing could stop the bleeding. Not a good scenario.
Keeping your content safe
There is no specific amount of someone else’s copyrighted work that you can always legally use. There are many “copyright urban legends” asserting things like “you can use 30 seconds of any movie without worrying” or “you can use 10 seconds of any song before you have to worry about copyright.” There simply is no magic number in a regulation somewhere.
For text, there is no set percentage of a work you can use without permission: whether the use is “fair” (and therefore legal) depends on the nature of the use and the specific facts of each case.
Bottom line, you can’t know at the outset whether your use of someone else’s copyrighted work constitutes “fair use” in the eyes of the law.
Once you’ve been sued for infringement, the court applies four factors to the facts of your case to assess whether the use was “fair:”
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
The nature of the copyrighted work.
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.
Here is the big concern: Did you profit from using the other person’s work? Did you sell posters of an artist’s painting, or publish a book that’s really just a compilation of other people’s blog posts?
And how much of the other person’s work did you use? A few key phrases to entice people to click the link to the original post, or the entire text of the post, word for word?
The court will also look at whether your use of the content undercuts the market for the creative work. If you’re selling prints of someone else’s photo, you’re obviously impacting an opportunity to sell the original prints.
But if I re-post your entire article on my website, there will be no reason for anyone to visit your website. I’m essentially hijacking your site traffic. And linking to your original post in my carbon copy doesn’t make up for that: no one’s going to click that link when they can read the entire article without clicking.
Reposting someone else’s article word for word is not curation: it’s copyright infringement.
THIS is curation: I publish a blog post in which I say “Ann Handley raises an important point about brand bias in storytelling today on her blog,” with a link back to her site.
In this instance, I might use a small snippet or quote from Ann’s article, but I’m clearly not trying to steal her traffic. In fact, I’m actually trying to drive more traffic to her article. This is a use of content much more likely to be deemed “fair.”
Using parts of someone else’s work to criticize it or comment on it is also more likely to be fair use. It’s the copyright equivalent of saying “this stinks: smell it.” You’re not trying to take credit for the smelly stuff in the jar: you’re just commenting on how smelly it is, and warning others.
Fair use and visual content
Be especially careful using someone else’s visual content (pictures, videos, infographics) without permission. Some people post their copyrighted photos online and strategically optimize them for search so that people will easily find them and probably use them in their own digital content.
As soon as someone uses the content, the copyright holder pounces, threatening a lawsuit and demanding a financial settlement. Basically, it’s a trap!
Only use other people’s photos or visual content if you have their written permission.
Or, avoid the whole mess and use your own photos. It’s easier than ever now, with smartphone cameras taking such high-quality images.
You could pay to use stock photos, but your content will express your own personality and style better if you use your own.
The benefit of Creative Commons
Some authors and artists choose to release their work under a Creative Commons license. These licenses allow companies or individuals to use the work, provided people comply with the terms of the license.
Some Creative Commons licenses require only that you give credit to the author. Others are more restrictive, specifying “no commercial use” or “no derivative works” (new works based on the original).
One caveat: you can’t be sure that the person who uploaded the “Creative Commons” photo and chose the license actually owns it! So, once again, taking your own pictures and creating your own visuals is the safest option.
And for those who think copy/pasting is curation, I quote Dr. Peter Venkman from Ghostbusters: “My friend, don’t be a jerk.”