Content SYNDICATION
& Management Guidelines 0.9
The purpose of this document is to provide a starting point for a broader discussion of content syndication, address key issues and propose solutions that benefit publishers, syndicators, aggregators, and consumers of content. Almost by definition then, this document and the following recommendations will be imperfect, yet we trust that the spirit and intention behind the effort will be respected and useful to build upon by others, or as Chris Ahearn, President, Media at Thomson Reuters, implored, “Let’s stop whining and start having real conversations across party lines.[1]”
The recommendations are based upon the various conversations that we at Attributor, under the rubric of the Fair Syndication Consortium, have had over the past several months with numerous publishers of all sizes and types of content, ranging from the largest newswires, newspapers and magazine publishers to creators of recipes, poems, lyrics, how-to guides, current event commentary and other genres. It’s impossible to consolidate such diverse voices into a unified voice, but we’ll try just the same.
“We have the unique opportunity of
collectively defining a
new set of rules for the Content
Economy, bringing the industry further into the realm of self-regulation and
adopting respectful practices that benefit all participants.”
And yes, it would not be unreasonable to say that some of the effort is self-serving as Attributor’s technology has a role in how this plays out. We feel that it is better to have the conversation in a manner that allows public feedback and discourse than making decisions behind closed doors or denying that there are issues to be addressed and doing nothing. The introduction of new technologies like Attributor carries a responsibility to use it in a manner that benefits the common good, please do hold us to high standards!
While the focus of the document is on textual content, the concepts and processes can be readily applied to other media types like photos, graphics, video, and audio content. Each of these has special nuances that probably merit a separate document.
This document will cover concepts like the Link Economy and the Brand Economy while tackling thorny issues of how undesired syndication, often described as piracy, can be reasonably addressed. We view this as the beginning of the conversation around how publishers of all sizes can further embrace online syndication, leveraging the Internet for what the Internet does best, while outlining some simple and fair guidelines to ensure that existing and new monetization mechanisms can prosper. Clear guidelines about how content can be reused will hopefully lead to more content being published in more places by more people.
We recognize upfront that for some publishers the recommendations will not go far enough in protecting their content, with tougher positions desired and more protective actions sought. From that perspective, one can view these recommendations as attempting to be minimally sufficient and establishing a wider consensus for which other frameworks can be built. A healthy debate is an open debate and one from which all can benefit.
Acknowledgements
This document benefitted greatly from the various and numerous conversations we’ve had with the Fair Syndication membership, members of the news and newswire communities, as well as other publishers, bloggers and journalists. In particular, we would like to thank Steve Outing of steveouting.com and Zach Seward of the Nieman Journalism Lab for their review and feedback. Without such input, this document would have suffered greatly.
Syndication Concepts
There are several new concepts to the Content Economy that are important to address in framing an online syndication policy – the Link Economy, the Brand Economy, and the management of undesired syndication.
The “Link Economy” refers to the value exchange between other publishers linking to your original content. As Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine aptly puts it:
Links
can be exploited and monetized; get links and you can grab audience and show
ads and make money.[2]
Much of the current debate around the Link Economy focuses on the value exchange between newswires/newspapers and headline aggregators. Some may argue, "Yeah, right! Low-CPM ads aren't going to let us survive." To counter this point, Steve Outing[3] suggests that, “by exploiting links a publisher can grab audience and monetize the audience in many ways – advertising, targeted ads, e-commerce, paid referrals, reader donations, etc.” We agree and feel there is a broader set of issues to be considered and leveraged around the Link Economy, which we will outline in more detail below.
We’d like to bundle some existing ideas and mechanisms into a new concept called the “Brand Economy.” The Brand Economy can be defined as the value exchange between others mentioning your work and the brand associated with you, the publisher and/or author of the original content. This concept is influenced by the attribution element of moral rights afforded to the creators of content globally under civil and/or copyright protections. It adds to that framework by recognizing that creators of content and their respective publishers have brands associated with their works and benefit from having their brands consistently visible and properly attributed. As a direct example, the above reference to Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine provides attribution to both Jeff as the author, which extends his brand as a journalist, as well as to BuzzMachine, which extends the brand of the blog itself. Both author and publisher brands accrue value from increased recognition, which is why we refer to it as the Brand Economy.
The final concept worth highlighting focuses on how undesired syndication is managed. To date, there is no uniform manner in which the undesired reuse of content is handled by publishers of media content. A rare and unique opportunity exists to define the set of rules which are reasonable and benefit everyone. Other industries like music, movie, television, and software have handled this in a variety of ways, with varied results. We feel that the publishing industry can learn from and leverage past experiences to provide a contemporary approach, which we will outline below.
What’s being SYNDICATed
Analysis of how content is syndicated across the Internet, with and without permission, yields three main types of content reuse – headlines, excerpts, and full copies. We feel that any online syndication policy needs to address each of these three elements in tandem, as they are interrelated yet often debated as though they were separate – resulting in cross talk and increased confusion over the issues at hand. The definitions for each were created with an eye toward simplicity.
Headlines
Headlines are defined as reuse of the headline of an article as denoted in an RSS feed, NewsML feed, or the like. One could place a word limit of say 40 words or so (this is based upon our analysis of headline length across millions of headlines) to help prevent people from claiming that the entire story is a headline.
Full Copies
Full copies are pages that reuse over 80% of the original content AND reuse more than 125 words. The AND is important here as the minimum word count helps weed out cases that could be considered Fair Use. This definition also supports existing syndication licensing frameworks where the entire article is being licensed for reuse.
Excerpts
Excerpts then are defined as being everything that is not a headline or full copy. This broad definition will cover most cases of quoting, excerpting and referencing that exist today. While there are sure to be exceptions, the purpose here is to cover the majority of simple cases first, and then see what exceptions may need to be taken into account.
The below table provides definitions of what is being syndicated.
|
What’s
Syndicated |
Definition |
|
Headline |
The article headline is reused How calculated: headlines of up to 40 words are reused |
|
Excerpt |
A portion of the article is reused How calculated: Not a Headline AND not a Full Copy |
|
Full Copy |
The entire or nearly the entire article is being reused How calculated: the number of words reused is more than 125 words AND more than 80% of the original article is being reused |
Desired outcomeS and Benefits
Let’s take a look at the combination of what’s being syndicated with syndication concepts. Legal frameworks are being tested to handle the systematic unauthorized reuse of breaking news under the hot news doctrine and compilation arguments that can be applied to the systematic excerpting of content which result in financial impairment. Though for now, we’ll identify those use cases as exceptions and treat headline aggregation and excerpting as being fair use.
The use of your headlines and excerpts by others generates link and brand value assuming correct attribution is provided. Others providing visibility into your content helps raise awareness for your content and drives interested parties to your original content site. Outside of a few exceptions, there seems to be little debate that providing attribution is the fair thing to do as this practice is widely adopted by many types of content creators and publishers today.
The desired outcomes around full copy reuse vary based upon the monetization models of the rights holders. The most widely used monetization method today is the explicit licensing of the content for full copy reuse, e.g., a newswire licensing the use of a newsfeed of articles for publication in full by a newspaper, a freelance journalist licensing the use of an article for publication by an online publisher, etc. The act of licensing typically requires an agreement in advance of the usage and requires some form of negotiation amongst both parties, which adds friction to the process and limits the scale of licensing that can be achieved.
In some cases, compensation is sought to cover the financial impairment for content reuse that occurred in the past, which is an even more expensive and time consuming process for all parties involved. This form of monetization typically involves lawyers threatening to sue the reusing party.
A new model of monetization
is being proposed by the Fair Syndication Consortium that allows for the
sharing of advertising revenue generated by the page reusing the content in
full. The notion is to allow content creators to specify the percent of
advertising revenue they wish to share with the syndicating party. The
payment to both parties is handled by the advertising networks, who receive
their share of the transaction as they do today for displaying the ads.
This proposal enables online content syndication to publishers of all
sizes, not just those with licensing teams.
In essence, this model can create a self-service method that enables syndication for publishers of all sizes while reducing the infrastructure required. This approach has many parallels with Google AdSense, which greatly simplified the online advertising market and enabled an enormous segment of publishers to put ads on their sites.
As with the headline and excerpting, there are cases of systematic full content reuse that may require the removal of the content as well as the removal of the listings that point to the copies from search engines. That is, a publisher does not necessarily have to allow every site to continue to publishing its content and generating ad revenue. For instance, there may be reusing sites that contains adult material, or be considered hate sites, or sites that are of a competitive nature to the content-owning publisher, or the dreaded spamming and splogging “Made for AdSense” type sites. In all cases, it is important that the content owning publisher be able to make decisions about whether the syndication that is occurring is appropriate and of a desirable nature. Exactly how that can be handled is discussed in the next section.
The below table provides a summary and codification of the recommended syndication policies as described above. We hope this format is conducive to a healthy and structured debate on the issues raised, and that it provides a basis from which other syndication policies can be framed.
|
What’s
Syndicated |
Definition |
Desired
Outcomes |
Benefits |
|
Headline |
The article headline is reused How calculated: headlines as identified up to 40 words are reused |
ü A link back to the original article ü Appropriate author &/or publisher attribution |
ü
Link value ü
Brand value |
|
Excerpt |
A portion of the article is reused How calculated: not a headline AND not a Full Copy |
ü A link back to the original article ü Appropriate author &/or publisher attribution |
ü
Link value ü Brand value |
|
Full Copy |
The entire or nearly the entire article is being reused How calculated: the number of words reused is greater than 125 words AND more than 80% of the original article is being reused |
ü A link back to the original article ü Appropriate author &/or publisher attribution ü Licensing, sharing in the advertising revenue, or removal of search engine listings and advertising |
ü
Link value ü
Brand value ü Monetary value |
syndication management
Regardless of which syndication policies content creators adopt, the issues surrounding how the policies are managed require careful attention. This is especially true as the industry currently has no defined set behavior, creating a rare opportunity for an industry to help define a new set of rules and norms. There is also much that can be learned from the syndication management practices of other industries like music, software, movies, and television.
The philosophical approach we embrace is one that views the world as one where people are willing to cooperate and intend to do the right thing. This is not to say that there are not any bad actors or abusers, but rather that systems should be designed treating these cases as exceptions. This philosophy suggests a graceful path escalating issues rather than abrupt and rash actions.
“An important criterion to weigh
before taking any action is to consider the frequency and extent of the reuse
that is occurring. Many cases of casual, incidental, or unintentional reuse may
not require any action to be taken.”
The first step in managing online syndication is to understand how and where your content is being reused today, for headline, excerpt and full copy reuse across all licensed and unlicensed instances. For example, Attributor provides both free and commercial solutions that provide deep visibility into content reuse across the Internet. With this technology, sites that are reusing your content can be quickly separated into groups – instances that are honoring your syndication policies and those that are not. The former cases require no action as they are embracing your content in the way you desire; it’s the latter cases that require attention and management. The question then becomes, “What can I do about it and how do I go about affecting change?”
An important criterion to weigh before taking any action is to consider the frequency and extent of the reuse that is occurring. Many cases of casual, incidental, or unintentional reuse may not require any action to be taken. This is a difficult measure to apply as a community in a uniform manner as it will vary from content producer to content producers. That said, a great guiding principle is, “Do unto others,1” as suggested by Chris Ahearn, President, Media at Thomson Reuters.
For those instances where one decides to seek a change, we propose that the simplest and fairest way to start the process of addressing unauthorized syndication is to send a notice to the reusing party, as in many cases they may not even be aware of your syndication guidelines and/or licensing terms or they may even have a valid license! This initial notice can be tailored to handle the cases of headline, excerpts, and full copy reuse issues.
For the cases of minor headline and excerpt reuse, these notices may be all that is required, i.e., a request is made to fix the issue, but there is no consequence if they do not provide link and/or brand attribution. For more systematic cases there are other options.
Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)[4], one can send a notice to:
1) the search engines asking them to remove the links to the reusing page from their search results,
2) the advertising networks asking them to remove their ads from the reusing page, and/or
3) the host of the site that is reusing your content asking them to remove the content directly.
Assuming the notice asserts under oath that the content in question is rightfully yours, the above three options in practice are being honored by the majority of advertising networks, search engines, and hosting sites today. The DMCA also allows for the reusing party to contest the request in an established counter notification process which helps eliminate bogus requests.
“We propose that the simplest and
fairest way to start the process of addressing unauthorized syndication is to
send a notice to the reusing party, as in many cases they may not even be aware
of your syndication guidelines and/or your licensing terms.”
Search engine removals hurt the site’s ability to attract an audience by removing the undesired pages from the search engines, making the content harder for users to find. This method of syndication management is also quite effective as it decreases the reusing site’s ability to create an audience around your content. This notice is sent under oath, so there are legal ramifications for falsifying claims.
Similarity, the benefit of sending an ad network removal is that it allows the content to stay up while sending a message to the site that they need to follow your syndication policy. The consumers of your content are not harmed. This method of syndication management is quite effective as it directly impacts the reusing site’s ability to make money off your content. As with all DMCA notices, the threat of perjury exists if rights are wrongfully asserted helps provide the checks and balances necessary to make sure this method is not abused.
This is an important point and one that is different from other escalation approaches taken to date. It basically says that the first set of recourses should be between the content creator and the reusing site owner, leaving the consumer experience untouched.
Content removals are the most extreme option and our recommendation is that this method be used as the last resort. With this option, the hosting site is asked to remove the URLs that contain your content permanently, disrupting the syndication of your content through that entity and therefore eliminating any link and/or brand building you might have been receiving from the reuse of your content. While not impossible, it’s hard to go back across a bridge once it has been burned and systematic requests to remove content from a site may result in the site being permanently banned from the hosting site.
Proposed escalation paths
Our proposed escalation path for undesired headline, excepting and full copy reuse in which the content producer has decided to take action, is to start with a notice requesting the issue be resolved. We think this is the most rational approach as it assumes the reusing party wants to do the right thing, i.e., why not start a conversation and see if the issue can be resolved amicably?
“The benefit of sending searching
engine and ad network removals is that it allows the content to stay up while
sending a message to the site that they need to follow your syndication policy.
The consumers of your content are not harmed.”
If after a period of time the issue has not been resolved, we propose different paths based upon the nature of reuse. For many cases of headline aggregation and excerpting, if the reusing party does not respond by appropriately attributing the author of the work and linking back to the original content, it may just be best to drop it and not take any further action.
In the event of repeated or systematic headline aggregation (rather obvious what that is) and excerpting (e.g., republishing the first three paragraphs from Financial Times articles on a daily basis), one has the option of escalating. The options to escalate include attempting to have the pages removed from search engines as well as the adverting on the pages removed, pursuing the removal of the content from the hosting site, and/or engaging in special legal action. The degree to which these escalated actions for repeated or systematic headline and excerpting will be successful will vary based upon the specific nature of each case as well as by jurisdiction. For example, it is unclear how systematic excerpting would be handled under the DMCA.
For the cases of full copy reuse, if the reusing party does not respond after a certain period of time to the initial notice requesting the issue be fixed, simultaneous requests for search engine and ad removal can be issued. It is important to note that no content has been removed at this point. While the site owner may feel some monetary and traffic impairment, the consumers of the content have not been harmed or impaired as they are still able to access the content. Hopefully these actions result in a meaningful dialog between the content producer and the reusing party as if someone is reusing full copies of someone else’s content on a regular basis, they should share in the revenue being generated.
It is only if these attempts fail to produce the desired outcome that we recommend issuing a request to the hosting site for the content to be removed. In special cases, specific legal action may be required to handle systematic full copy reuse.
|
|
Escalation
Path |
|||
|
What’s
Syndicated |
1st |
2nd
(if
there is still an issue) |
3rd
(if
there is still an issue) |
4th (if there is still an
issue) |
|
Headline |
ü |
Possible, but only for systematic cases |
Possible, but only for systematic cases |
Possible, but only for systematic cases |
|
Excerpt |
ü |
Possible, but only for systematic cases |
Possible, but only for systematic cases |
Possible, but only for systematic cases |
|
Full Copy |
ü |
ü |
ü |
Possible, but only for systematic cases |
The above table summarizes the various escalation paths based upon what content is being syndicated. It is important to remind the reader that the first criterion to consider is whether the reuse warrants any action. This initial step of reflecting upon and deciding what is worth pursuing a fix for and what is not will hopefully ensure that only the cases that are of significance will be acted upon. Pursuing action for casual, incidental, or unintentional reuse may not be a great decision, especially if the reuse only occurs a few times.
This framework and path of escalation was intentionally presented on the simpler side to help spark conversation and debate amongst the various constituencies. Some will argue for more aggressive action, this we can count on, but for others who are not sure what action to take, we hope this provides a helpful and balanced approached to the issues.
Putting it all together
A healthy content ecosystem is one where there are clear ground rules for content syndication along with defined paths for fixing issues when they arise. A system whose rules are structured around the behavior of a few bad actors is quite different than one that presumes cooperative participants.
The below table combines all the elements above with the intent of creating a simple set of initial definitions, outcomes, benefits, and escalated paths.
|
What’s Syndicated |
Definition |
Desired Outcomes |
Benefits |
|
Headline |
The article headline is reused How calculated: headlines of up to 40 words are reused |
ü A link back to the original article ü Appropriate author &/or publisher attribution ü Some systematic cases may require licensing, content removal, or other legal action |
ü Link value ü
Brand value ü Managed syndication |
|
Excerpt |
A portion of the article is reused How calculated: a Headline AND not a Full Copy |
ü A link back to the original article ü Appropriate author &/or publisher attribution ü Some systematic cases may require licensing, content removal, or other legal action |
ü Link value ü
Brand value ü Managed syndication |
|
Full Copy |
The entire or nearly the entire article is being reused How calculated: the number of words reused is greater than 125 words AND more than 80% of the article is being reused |
ü A link back to the original article ü Appropriate author &/or publisher attribution ü Licensing, sharing in the advertising revenue, or removal of search engine listings and advertising ü Some cases may require content removal or other legal action |
ü Link value ü
Brand value ü
Monetary value ü Managed syndication |
These guidelines are meant to be just the start of the conversation – a conversation that will strengthen the Content Economy and all its stakeholders by providing transparency, accountability and increased revenue for anyone who produces original content. A world in which there are clear guidelines about how content can be reused will hopefully result in the spread of more content to more audiences along with others begin able to comment and quote others work without fear.
To date, there is no
uniform manner in which the undesired
reuse of content is handled by publishers of media content. A rare and unique opportunity exists to define
the set of rules which are reasonable and benefit everyone.
We hope this provides ample food for thought and helps structure further debate on how best to embrace the Internet while allowing for content syndication to flourish for all.
We’re very interested in your feedback on these guidelines. Please send your comments and suggestions to guidelines@fairsyndication.org.