{"id":1797,"date":"2021-04-14T06:16:04","date_gmt":"2021-04-14T06:16:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/uberlin.co.uk\/august-29-2015-uberlin\/"},"modified":"2021-04-14T06:16:04","modified_gmt":"2021-04-14T06:16:04","slug":"august-29-2015-uberlin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/uberlin.co.uk\/august-29-2015-uberlin\/","title":{"rendered":"August 29, 2015 – \u00fcberlin"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
August 29, 2015<\/abbr><\/h5>\n
\n

On blogging: The great “viral content” swindle<\/a><\/h3>\n

by James Glazebrook<\/span><\/h4>\n
\n

\"G\u00fcnther<\/p>\n

You may have seen this dashing fellow on the Internet recently. You might have even seen these photos. If you did, the site you were looking at stole Zo\u00eb\u2019s photos, published them without her consent, and used them to generate traffic and, most likely, revenue. \u00a0<\/strong>
<\/span>
<\/span>It all started when So Bad So Good shared some photos to <\/span>their Facebook page<\/span><\/a>, of the alleged 104-year-old, posing on the platform for the U1 at Kotti. It isn\u2019t clear where they got those images from, as they didn\u2019t include any kind of credit. But we do know that the man pictured, G\u00fcnther Krabbenh\u00f6ft – represented by \u201cagents for unique characters\u201d, <\/span>We Are Unlike You<\/span><\/a> – isn\u2019t 104. More realistic estimates put him at around 70. <\/span><\/p>\n

Spotting an opportunity, I commented on the post with a link to our <\/span>own blog post<\/span><\/a>, a streetstyle shot of G\u00fcnther walking through Graefekiez. Sure enough, that brought us a lot of clicks – about 40% more traffic than in the previous month – but it also brought the attention of websites that pride themselves on finding and sharing viral content. They\u00a0refer to\u00a0it as \u201csharing\u201d, but we call it what it is: stealing.<\/span><\/p>\n

The biggest, and probably the first, of those was Bored Panda (no, we aren\u2019t going to link to them!). We found them via a trackback, a notification that WordPress sends us whenever someone links to one of our posts. Clicking through, we were shocked to see Zo\u00eb\u2019s photos being used in a post that (apparently) now has over 180,000 views, 50,000 Facebook Likes, and is surrounded by ads that make money for the site\u2019s owners. Alarmingly, there\u2019s an \u201cAdd post\u201d button that allows anyone to create their own article, with terms of use that place the responsibility for copyright compliance on the \u201cauthor\u201d.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/p>\n

Bored Panda set the tone for all the other articles we were able to find through trackbacks and <\/span>Google reverse image search<\/span><\/a> (which we learned about from <\/span>@eljojo<\/span><\/a> – thanks!) Have a look <\/span>here<\/span><\/a> – each of those thumbnails leads to at least one article that has used that image in those dimensions. That\u2019s just one of our three images of G\u00fcnther, and it doesn\u2019t included photos edited beyond recognition by Google\u2019s bots.<\/span><\/p>\n

Most of the articles we found included the 104, many with that weird get-out that \u201cthe Internet\u201d is getting its facts wrong, and all featured images alongside ours from sources who presumably weren\u2019t contacted for permission either. A lot of them completely ripped off the \u201coriginal\u201d Bored Panda article. But, as it\u2019s not their content anyway, why should they care?<\/p>\n

When we contacted Bored Panda, we received an email from the article\u2019s author saying that they\u2019d decided to remove the images. The fact that they responded so quickly, to an email sent via a form that actually has a field for \u201cremoval request\u201d, leads us to believe that they subscribe to the school of thought that one should \u201cask for forgiveness, not permission\u201d.<\/p>\n

\"G\u00fcnther<\/p>\n

Bored Panda were only closing the barn door after the horse had bolted. By the time our images were taken down from that site, they were all over the \u201cviral\u201d Internet. It takes just one website to turn stolen content into fair game, and other sites are happy to rip off photos, as long as they include the name of the source, and a link to it.<\/strong> Those second-tier sites are legion, and rarely have contact details through which to demand a removal.<\/span><\/p>\n

A couple of bigger websites approached us for our permission (denied), and, when pushed, a national British newspaper offered an insubstantial amount of money. Given the circumstances, we were almost flattered that people had thought to ask us, but Zo\u00eb can\u2019t pay her rent with \u201ccredits\u201d, and we can\u2019t build an audience on the clicks of curious people wanting to ogle an apparently ancient \u201chipster\u201d. Our uptick in traffic came primarily from my comment on So Bad So Good\u2019s Facebook post, and those people won\u2019t be back. If we were playing the same \u201cviral\u201d game as these websites, those clicks would translate into money. But we aren\u2019t – we\u2019re focussed on creating original content.<\/span><\/p>\n

And that\u2019s the most depressing part of all of this: watching the Internet cannibalise itself.<\/strong> As soon as one online entity had a \u201chit\u201d with the G\u00fcnther photos, everyone else had to have them. Major newspapers and best-selling magazines aren\u2019t above this – everyone wants the hot new thing to post, in the hopes that their improved Google rank will inch their audience, and profits, up ever so slightly. This “viral” layer of the web relies on content creators like us to thrive, but we won’t be able to create the content it needs if we can’t make a living.\u00a0It’s pretty<\/span>\u00a0disgusting to see this up close.<\/span><\/p>\n

So where does that put us? We\u2019ve been advised that we are in a position to demand our content\u2019s removal from all these websites, and to even invoice them for the revenue they likely generated from it. But how do you contact a site that doesn\u2019t feature so much as an email address, and what are your chances of getting a response, let alone compensation? Right now, we\u2019re focused on INTERVIEW.de, who aren\u2019t responsive despite me taking to Twitter and Facebook to complain (<\/span>sound familiar?<\/span><\/a>) We think they\u2019re taking Andy Warhol\u2019s art of appropriation a little too far\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n

Let\u2019s be clear: we love it when you share our content. When you tweet one of our photos and @-mention us, you could bring us followers; when you link to our website, we may gain readers. Sharing the photo without a credit isn\u2019t exactly in the spirit of Twitter, but at least you wouldn\u2019t be making money from our creative work. To all our genuine fans, thank you for sharing!<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

And to all the people out there creating unique content, keep up the good work.<\/strong> Take solace in the fact that this is one of the few cases of plagiarism we’ve (knowingly) experienced, and it can be traced back to us \u201cputting ourselves out there\u201d. Let us know if you ever encounter anything like this, and we\u2019ll be happy to share our learnings and give you some support. Together, we\u2019ll kick some web ass!<\/span><\/p>\n

\"G\u00fcnther's<\/span><\/p>\n

EDIT: INTERVIEW.de have since responded to my Facebook post and taken down the photos. However, I still take exception to them using the photos in the first place. Here’s how that\u00a0conversation is developing…<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\n