UPDATE: The below should be read first, and then this could follow. Very interesting indeed, especially the comments section…

I’ve been updating my list from the other day with new articles I’ve found that are plagiarising my work. My guess is there is still more to add….

The good news:

1. I had originally written something else for this post, mainly about noticing a single hit to my site 24 hours after my original post from eHow’s staff (I know their IP by the parent company’s name). But in the past few days I have had a steady flow of hits from a variety of IPs, all checking eHow content titles against google searches and other results. It’s nice to see that finally someone is checking this stuff. And nice to see someone finally responded to my comments left on their site (which initially were actually deleted, even a day ago; seems someone clued in that I wasn’t going to go away… And all it took was a little bit of pushing…), although the response has been “please report it via email…”

2. It would seem daunting to prove who wrote what first on the net; but luckily for me I had a lot of ways of pushing notice of my site in various places: leaving links to my site on various forums, Yahoo Answers, and other things, shows not only the dates on which I posted (some several years old) but also showing the transition from Puppets in Melbourne to School of Puppetry: links I’ve left and can no longer edit to the updated URL. I’ve heavily branded all my profiles too, which means that it’s easy to connect the two sites together. Add this to Archive.org’s own … archives, and you get a pretty good backlog of proof of date.

The bad news is four-fold.

1. The more I visit eHow, the more content I see is mashed-up versions of my content. In true form to what’s called “content farms", eHow’s site is full of contributors who write articles on the exact same topics, often with the exact same titles. And are using my 4 years worth of original research and original writing to do it.

2. The more I visit eHow, the more my web stats suddenly make sense. That visitor from last month who took 6 minutes to view each definition of a type of puppet: not interested in learning, just wanted to copy and paste for their latest faux article. Suddenly, all my complaints of fly-by visitors seem more like rip-off writers, just looking to cash in on my hard work.

3. The more I visit eHow, the more I see that contributors not only don’t know what they’re writing (I’m all for research, heck I do that all the time), but they don’t understand what they’re reading. This follows up on my above point: contributors often not only confuse terminology, concepts and styles (see my updated list for a couple of examples), but they invent their own stuff. Suddenly, my complaints about weird search terms popping up in my stats make perfect sense. Example: I wrote a post ages ago on “how to insert a mouth into a puppet". This is a video question title given to one of Paul Louis’ videos, and posts on eHow. It’s not a question I’ve ever, ever seen asked by any puppeteer, or discussed by any book or pattern. Just eHow.

There are any number of search phrases that are commonly found on eHow articles. And the worst of it is, that any professional puppeteer - or heck, even an amateur - would never hear of these terms. Not because they’re obscure: but because people who’ve read even one book on puppetry would know that nobody uses them. Case in point: eHow is full of articles that talk about “stick puppets", a common misdirected phrase attempting to describe what most puppeteers know as “rod puppets". Now I know that puppeteers have various names for various things, and nothing is as well-definied as I often make it seem. But I have never ever seen a single puppeteer use the phrase “stick puppet". Even when they were using popsicles. They even reiterate common myths about puppets (the one about a muppet being a combination of a marionette and a puppet, which anyone with five seconds worth of experience in puppetry would know that it’s a really really weird misunderstanding) which means not only are they not reading or understanding what I write; they’re not reading and understanding what other puppeteers write (or simply not having the skills to critically evaluate what non-puppeteers have written, because they got it wrong too).

And this is what frustrates me the most. These contributors are only an means to an ends for eHow; and eHow is only a means to an ends to the contributors. Content farms need no journalistic or editing standards. And anyone can become a paid writer on content farms. Problem with that is what you see above. People who don’t know what they’re writing about and don’t know how to research (or at least seem to have comprehension problems) can believe they’re doing a good job because the content farm lends them legitimacy. The content farms don’t particularly care about well-researched, accurate writing, because as you can see by the repeated titles of articles, it’s all about quantity; aka, advertising bucks.

How sad for both eHow and their contributors that it has one more knock-on effect - other than annoying legit writers like me. Most people do not treat what they read on a website with scepticism. They assume that content farms, since they have ‘quantity’, will also have ‘quality’. They do not fact check their facts, or check on the fact checkers. This means that a lot of this information that purports to be correct is assumed to be correct. No wonder I have to constantly explain that you can’t make Potter Puppet Pals on Yahoo Answers: there’s at least 3 how-to articles on eHow, one of which specifically suggests copying the - copyrighted - characters. Once people get an idea in their head that something can be done, it’s very hard to correct them out of it. So not only do the writers get ripped off, but so does the audience, because they’re told something very very wrong. And apparently, not only do contributors not care about ripping off other people’s writing, but they also don’t care about any other kind of copyright either. Maybe each contributor needs to go through a “copyrights for dummies” course before being able to publish (*shudder* I hate to think of what’s written in any article on that site in regards to issues that involve the law).

4. The more I read eHow the more I notice that there may be an obvious and devious reason for the garbled concepts. It seems that of every article I’ve read that specifically plagiarises - whether it was my work or someone else’s that got stolen - the contributor has gone out of their way to ‘tweak’ it to the point where someone could say “that’s an original eHow work, you don’t have rights here". Are eHow staff aware of this issue? Do they encourage it? Do contributors give each other tips on how to avoid copyright infringement? - More terms suggest that the parent company is more explicit than eHow (scroll down to “your grant of rights"); “Each of your Contributions will be original and solely created by you as a “work-made-for-hire” specially ordered or commissioned by us". Hardly…

5. (Yeah, I know I said four… but wait, this’ll actually prove my point for me) The contributors’ work is not overly checked for consistency. I’m not talking about style guides, typos or even consistency in describing things. I’m talking about the way in which references are given. Some photos are credited; some are not. Some are clearly stolen; some seem to be reused like from a photo data bank. Some are suspiciously copies of mine - creative commons pics from Flickr - used on articles for the exact same topic that I used the image for on my site. The references and resources section at the bottom of most articles can have a short word or phrase describing the link; others actually name the website it’s linking to (which I would guess is standard practice for references online). Some link directly to images or files; others link to the website itself. Some are incorrectly labelled (indeed, the first time I noticed my site linked on eHow was to the marionette tutorial, and had Puppetsinmelbourne.au as the link, which obviously won’t work. I tried to leave many comments over time in order to get it corrected so people wouldn’t get confused. The comments were never published or responded to. The link is still as it was). You know how I said this would prove my point? A good writer/editor/publisher would know how to implement some basic standards and see that consistency exists; like knowing how many points you are making. Yeah, website admins are chock full of stuff and it’s not the best way to keep costs down, because it requires knowledgeable trained staff to slog through content tediously. But you know what? … It’s about quantity, not quality. No wonder journalists are a dying breed.

Except, ha ha, get this: the parent company even hires copyeditors. One of their jobs is to “fact check"; funny, in my proofreading and editing course, I was taught that fact checking included doing a basic scrounge for copyright infringements on behalf of the author. Apparently, my accredited course was wrong. It also means that my request for their contributors to stop using my content is pretty meaningless, as their editors don’t seem to be doing their job in the first place.

I was curious to see what exactly one does to get a job with this site - I had assumed you just create a login and off you go - but actually their (parent company) website requires submission of a CV and portfolio of work, and notes that CVs are checked for legitimacy. Apparently the submission process is about as stringent as their content standards, given the above comments about quality. Anyone with a tiny bit of experience as a professional writer would know all of the things above, to say nothing of editors.

… But you know, I will say that of what I’ve seen, a tiny little of it is well-written and researched. Those that are should be applauded, and kept in mind, because honestly I’m not out to tar everyone. Just those who take money, time and words as if they mean nothing.

My last comment, I’ll actually leave to eHow. Their tagline is “Trusted advice for the curious life”. And that says everything, doesn’t it?

PS. Don’t believe me? All of the above comments are researched and you don’t have to take my word for it. Where I’ve made specific examples, you can just search on eHow’s site for the relevant article and check it all out yourself. That’s what good research and critical thinking is all about. And I won’t say that everything I write is a 100% accurate; but where and when I discover that I’m wrong, I make an edit and announce the change. I avoid copyright infringement by doing the work myself, even if a pattern or article takes months to draft; and I consult books and websites for information, not for copypasta. I’m not perfect by anyone’s standards, but at least I try…

UPDATE 27/8/11: Some of the links below no longer work as it’s clear that eHow has been deleting some of the articles; despite me not receiving any reply to my email/tweets/facebook posts. However I have not completed my check of their site, and new links may still appear.

UPDATE: I have some additional thoughts on the situation here. But the below list is the most up-to-date of eHow’s articles vs my own.

Today was the last straw in an ongoing problem for me: probably a year or two ago I noticed referrals to my website from eHow.com. Curious to see what it was all about, I clicked the referral link and was instantly annoyed. Some wannabe writer with no clue as to the meaning of “copyrighted” decided to completely copy one of my tutorials. (Read more here) If you click on that link, you’ll see just how blatant it is: and trust me, (or not, go do some googling and see if I’m right) nobody else has written a tutorial that takes a stuffed teddy bear and turns it into a marionette. Marionette tutorials on the net are practically unheard of, and I know that it’s unique. I also know that I posted the tutorial first. (Sadly, eHow has also removed all “date posted” info, so there’s no way to legitimately tell.) I should have mentioned this in my letter below too: for every tutorial and pattern I make, I strive to do something that I’ve not seen or done anywhere else. As such, it becomes even more obvious when something’s been copied, because nobody else will have done the preparations; pattern making; edits; or anything else. I strive not to churn out content purely because it brings in the advertising dough. I actually do put a lot of effort and research into it, unlike the majority of eHow’s contributors. And where I mention other people’s tutorials: I clearly link to them, I don’t copy and paste the whole of their content onto my site and then tweak it.

At first, I reported the articles for copyright infringement. No answer (and they’ve removed the button to do it; although not for the photos!). I left comments on the articles; often removed (up until they introduced a Facebook plugin, which was only recently) or left unanswered. I took to tweeting @eHow with a link to the article and a link to my own for comparison; no response. I have even resorted to blocking any referrals from their website (I can’t block contributors - average people - from visiting my site. But I can prevent people from viewing my site if they click a link from eHow).

Today I discovered that somehow someone avoided that block. I have been keeping tabs on eHow and if new content appears that I’m not familiar with - on the subject of puppetry - I check to see if my site is listed. (Some contributors are respectful and only link to the site; but there are many who copy outright) I had noticed recently that eHow uses a service from optimost.com which refers all links. I didn’t notice any change in my stats, and assumed it was harmless. But today revealed that these referral links all now avoid the block; and updating my files doesn’t prevent it either.

This is really the last straw. I’m perfectly happy for people to link to my content; happy for people to use it as inspiration. This isn’t some person on the net screeching about a case that’s unfounded or just wanting attention. And it’s not me screaming over a potential business competitor; I do fine knowing plenty of other puppeteers sell books, patterns and puppets online (and even go out of my way to help them earn money). This is actual, real, clear plagiarism. And there’s a very fine line between inspiration and plagiarism and eHow’s contributors have crossed it numerous times, not just with my work. That eHow never responds to my requests is infuriating, even though the writers have clearly broken eHow’s own terms and conditions (see below). Ironically, even the contributors rip off other contributor’s content (UPDATE 21/08/11: The resource referral link seems to have been changed). And even the images that go with the articles sometimes are exactly (creative commons found on Flickr) what I use on my site.

So I wrote a letter to eHow and am posting it here for posterity. I will be screenshotting all the articles mentioned below, along with my own content (which by the way, can be seen on Archive.org, as a good way to discover who wrote what first). If there is no reply - and I have cc’d as many people as I could find who work with eHow - I will be doing whatever I can to at least catch their attention. So if you’re a writer, if you’ve had your work copied by them or anyone else, please forward this to everyone, make comments to eHow and generally get the word out. More importantly, if you’re a puppeteer, you should check them out. I’ve seen blatant rip-offs of many other people’s work (Puppetpub.com comes to mind, along with Sagecraft, Puppeteers Unite, and even my friend Kelvin Kaos. There were many many more) and if you’re concerned, please let them know.

(Note: I should have added below, but didn’t, that SOP content comes from PIM and so some of the referral links from eHow is outdated. However, anyone who spends 5 seconds looking into this issue will figure it out…)

Hello eHow,

I am writing to you to complain of the numerous articles found on your website that considerably plagiarises content from my website. I do not mind being used as a referral when people list it as a resource or reference link: however many many of the articles written by your contributors have been “rewritten” versions of tutorials that I have spent many many months writing and researching, and have existed on the internet far longer than has been published on your website. The articles on your website always are ‘tweaked’ just so they appear as though not to be copied and pasted from my site; but I know my content well and can spot a re-write. (I have been employed as a journalist and writer over the past 10 years. I know what a rewritten article looks like) Additionally to that, I am on the internet a considerable amount and know of most of the puppet tutorials and articles out there; I am familiar enough to judge where ideas are similar and where ideas are unique (see my list of articles below)

I have tried numerous times to make comments on those articles (see below), only to have them disappear or not be approved. I note that once when I could report an article for copyright infringement, this option is no longer available (I do not count “inaccurate” as the same thing as “stolen or rewritten work”.). Interesting still to note that there is a “flag this photo” option, but not a “flag this article” option. Even funnier to see that photo credits are given, but no credit to me as being the originator of the work.

I do understand that your contributors are mostly members of the public and not part of your staff; however, as you are the ones hosting the content, and as I assume you have some sort of editorial process, I would think that an understanding that plagiarism is not ok would be at the heart of contributions. I understand that your staff, if there is an editorial approval process, can’t check every article against the whole of the internet.

And so I have tried to make you aware of the problem; with no response. I have used the comments form on the website; tried to report the article; tweeted @eHow when I notice an article plagiarised. I have not even received one reply back asking me to discuss further my concerns. This is the first time I have contacted anyone via email, and I hope it will be the last.

Quite frankly, this issue makes me furious, not so much because often the content is stolen: but because the content is rewritten in a manner that makes my original tutorial worthless and reduces the professionalism of my writing, as well as being incorrect on a number of points. I am happy that my website and writing can offer a useful resource, and that’s why I do it: but not so that other people can reproduce my work and reduce the quality of the information to less than worthless. Add to that the fact that writing is often my sole income and your website redirects interest in my articles/tutorials to a very poor copy of the original where it prevents visitors from enjoying the tutorial and using it to its full extent. I can barely cover the costs of running my website as it is, I’d appreciate it if other people didn’t take away from my income as well, as a lot of my income derives from patterns provided at my site in conjunction with other articles not behind a pay wall. [In fact, this whole thing makes me question the validity of offering everything for free, and perhaps should seek to put up a pay wall around everything on my site]

I have worked for a number of website companies (including my own websites), and frankly, think it very poor of another online business to have such little respect for copyrights. One of the first rules I learned was that if it’s copyrighted, link to it: but DON’T REPRODUCE IT. My website policies clearly state that the content is copyrighted (NOT creative commons, but copyrighted completely) and I have never been contacted for permission to use or rework my content from your staff or any of your contributors. Your contributors have broken the Terms and Conditions of your website, as stated here: http://www.ehow.com/terms-of-use.html

And I quote: “a. you own all rights in your User Generated Content and the performance contained in your User Generated Content or, alternatively, you have acquired all necessary rights in your User Generated Content to enable you to grant to eHow the rights in your User Generated Content described herein and for us to exercise the rights with respect to such User Generated Content that you grant herein; … e. your User Generated Content is not defamatory in nature, does not infringe the intellectual property rights, privacy, rights to publicity or any other legal or moral rights of any third party.” And is similarly written further down in the terms.

Herein I enclose a list of the articles which infringe on my copyrights, against the articles/tutorials on my website. A quick comparison will show that anyone can easily see that it is a poorly written version of something on my site. This list does not include articles on your site which reference, but do not rewrite, my work; nor does it include URLs which no longer work and I could not find copies of using internet archival services.

[Note: the below list may change if I find further articles; these will be clearly marked and not sent in the original email to eHow. EDIT 30/11/08: Also assume that all of the articles on eHow.com are on eHow.co.uk or vice versa]

Lastly, I note that there are many professional puppeteers who provide content to eHow. Paul Louis and Emily DeCola are two names that come to mind: so it’s not like you don’t already have some good relationships with other puppeteers, nor the ability to source puppetry content another way. Do you extend respect of copyrights only to those who provide you content/you pay for content; or does that extend to everyone else as well?

I would appreciate if the articles were removed, and care taken to prevent further copyright infringement of my work. I will be following up on this issue if there is no response, and will be making sure that further steps are taken to ensure I am either given proper credit for my work or the offending articles are removed. Note I also regularly check eHow for new puppetry articles and will be making similar requests if further infringements are found.

I’d appreciate some sort of response from you, and will be publically posting this request on my website in order to ensure my readers are aware that the original content has been distorted and used without my permission.

Regards,

Naomi Guss

Puppets in Melbourne has a brand new logo. (The previous logo discussed and shown here.)

Way back when I was discussing making changes to the PIM side of the business, I thought about changing the name/logo. The name is pretty generic, but turning it into “Shadow Puppets in Melbourne” just made the whole thing hard to say. (I’m already known for weird company names, like “Sticky Apple Legs") Changing it to something else entirely didn’t seem right either, seeing as how I’ve done a lot of branding and marketing based on that name. So I decided to keep the label and kick the logo.

Click on the image to see the logo in complete glory.

Why? Well, the logo itself was the larger part of the problem. Not wanting to advertise PIM as a ‘catch-all’ business that makes every kind of puppet under the sun, and wanting to encourage the concept of shadow puppetry, I thought the logo change was necessary. Particularly as the old one pictured Doc, my muppet-type puppet from a 2007 show.  Which subconsciously signals to the viewer that that’s something I specialise in.

So I asked my favourite graphic designer, Beatriz Vega (beavega4 AT gmail DOT com), to make a new logo for me. She did the last one, along with the logo/graphics for School of Puppetry. Out went the reference to ‘Melbourne’ (the tram) and in went the new signature character shadow puppet. And what you see to the left is what she came up with!

As always, Beatriz does fantastic work. She captures the fun of the puppet along with the overall design: notice that where the black legs/arms overlap with the purple body, there is a slight and subtle change in hue. I really love that kind of detail, and it’s why I keep going back to her for this stuff.

So for the most part I’ve updated various places where the logo is used, and this brings me to the second part of the blog post. I’m really more of a Twitter person than a Facebook person, so I find myself spending little if any time on Facebook. (Twitter feeds through to Facebook, so it updates whether I visit or not)

To that end, I am ‘closing’ my profile. FB doesn’t actually allow you to do this easily if you have fan pages, which I do. So I’m really just hiding my profile. Instead of being my friend, please go and like the fan page for Puppets in Melbourne. You’ll get the same updates, but less redundancy of profile/fan-pages.