Questionable ethics abound in the blogging world, and in many cases it’s due to sheer greed and lack of human compassion. Spammers, scrapers, and splogs are just reprehensible, period. In many cases, though, ethical issues arise due to ignorance of the law or innocent failure to imagine the logical long-term consequences of a thing. Here are a couple of examples:
Infolinks
In and of itself, there’s nothing particularly wrong with using in-context text linking on your blog. But when applying it to third-party content such as guest posts or comments, you risk running afoul of copyright law (comment authors do not automatically relinquish their copyright by posting on your site) and you create an ethical dilemma for yourself and your contributors. I left comments on a popular blog, and was surprised to find certain keywords in my text had turned blue and had been linked by Infolinks to off-site content:
Note that I’ve removed the URL (because the blogger quickly and courteously resolved my complaint) and
I have blurred others’ comments (out of respect for their copyright).
This particular example isn’t too objectionable; I happen to be an AT&T customer. I’m reasonably satisfied with their service, particularly the fact that I get better cell phone coverage in remote areas than anyone else I know. I don’t always get it in my office or my living room, but I got crystal-clear reception in out-of-the-way spots like Icy Point Strait in Alaska, where no one else was getting any signal at all. But I never signed up to run ads for them, nor did I receive payment for my writing or a share of the ad revenues (think “blood from a turnip,” here – I know) in exchange for this implied endorsement. Do I object? Yes. Mind you, my complaint is not with AT&T, but with any blogger running Infolinks (or any other text-linking system) on my content without my knowledge or consent. From Infolinks FAQ (emphasis added):
- Can I use Infolinks with user generated or 3rd party content?Yes, just like any content you have in your website. Please notice that it is your responsibility to obtain legal rights to use any such content.
Now, take this scenario one hypothetical step further: What if I worked for Verizon or Sprint? I certainly would object to running ads that might present a conflict with my employer. What if I said something critical about AT&T in my comment? I assume a plug-in that automatically scours content for keywords and inserts links is just mindless enough to lack the ability to judge the content as being “positive” or “negative,” and I can imagine some ugly possibilities. Not to mention the potential for abuse.
From this point forward, I intend to boycott any blog that uses such plug-ins on contents or other third-party content (such as guest posts) without stating it clearly in their comment policies or obtaining their contributors’ written consent.
Translations and RSS Feeds
On the one hand, I want lots and lots of subscribers! On the other hand, I don’t particularly want my content embedded into anyone else’s Web site or blog without my consent – particularly if it puts my words in an unintended context or uses them for an unforeseen commercial purpose (e.g., the addition of text links, or posting a children’s story on a porn site – both of which have happened).
I do not authorize posting of any translations of my content (machine translations or human translations) without specific written consent. It’s one thing to use Google’s translation tools for your personal convenience – as a reader – assuming you understand that the tools are imperfect and likely to yield occasionally weird results. For example, I once wrote a comment that was intended to be a parody making fun of spammers, sploggers, and plagiarists, and decided to add a little authenticity. First, I wrote: “You do not mind if I put a fictitious name on your free article and pretend that my imaginary friend wrote it, do you?” Then, I went to Google.com, selected Language Tools, and pasted that into the text box. I choose English > Ukrainian, having just dealt with an extremely unethical blogger in the Ukraine. That yielded, “?? ?? ???????????, ???? ? ?????? ?? ???????? ??’? ?? ??????????? ?????? ? ??????? ??????, ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???????, ???” Just to be safe, I decided to “round-trip” it back to English, with hilarious results: “You have no objection if I put in a false name to the free sex and pretend that my imaginary friend wrote you?” IS IT ANY WONDER WE HAVE MISUNDERSTANDINGS ONLINE? @#$%!
Translations are, by definition, “derivative works” under copyright law. As such, posting a translation without the author?s expressed consent is a copyright violation – even if you found that content in a free articles database. That’s right; I have posted articles at EzineArticles.com, but I have never given permission to anyone to create derivative works or to modify the original content in any way.
Your thoughts on this or other ethical issues in blogging?
About the Author Holly Jahangiri
Holly Jahangiri has decades of experience in tech writing, freelancing, fiction, poetry, and editing. Writer, wife, and mother, Holly is the creator of Trockle and instigator of the Puppy-Guppy Rebellion.
- Web |
- More Posts (626)
Top Commentluvvers