Publishing via RSS waives your copyright
Or so it was claimed to me the other day. Not necessarily your entire copyright, but certain protections within it.
I was speaking with some other webmasters the other day when the issue of scraping other site’s RSS feeds for content was brought up. We got to talking about the legality of this. I personally was surprised at some of the arguments put forward justifying, if only in a legal sense, the scraping of RSS feeds.
Since you are publishing your content via a public syndication channel, your RSS feed, you waive your right to disallow republication. In effect, you are giving away your content for people to do what they want with it, almost as if you had published it under a Creative Commons license.
Obviously, that is an undesirable interpretation of the purpose of RSS feeds - if it were so simple, I would cut it off entirely. Unfortunately, 90% of my regular readers are reading via RSS. If I were to stop publishing my RSS feed, I would likely lose a large precentage of my audience. And this interpretation must be wrong on another level - I am quite sure I would get sued if I were to take the content off of the feed of any big-name blog and republish it in a book. I doubt I would win.
So certain rights must be retained still when publishing an RSS feed containing your content.
Let’s take a look at this from a legal perspective.
When you are accessing the RSS feed on a website, you naturally would assume that there is a certain implied license to the data. It would be fair to assume (and legally defensible) that the owner who made the feed available intended that you be able to add the feed to Bloglines, Google Reader, or another similar aggregator.
This is where the implied license idea breaks down. A scraper could easily claim that he is ‘another similar aggregator’. He is doing a fairly similar job to Bloglines and Google Reader; he is taking your data, and aggregating it in a single place for readers. His layout may not be useable, and the purpose of the site may only be to raise Adsense money, but in effect, when using your data, he is considering himself just another aggregator.
This means that the implied license idea does virtually nothing to protect your data from aggregators, even if you do not yourself want them to use your data.
So how can we make undesirable resyndication illegal?
The best recourse currently available is to specify on your blog what rights or license is granted to the content within your feed. As to where this license must be placed, well, that is another question. Should it be on a seperate page? Under the ‘Syndicate’ link? Within the feed itself? This in itself could have legal implications - the legal best method would be to make someone explicitly agree to your terms via a double-confirmation form prior to accessing your feed, or even learning the location of it.
Any license should contain an explicit, enumerated list describing who is allowed to access your feed, for what purpose, and under exactly what conditions they may use your content. Do not leave any grey areas.
So what? People are still going to scrape my content!
Undoubtedly. However, depending on how important it is to you, this will go a long ways to firming up your legal footing in case you decide to take action against unauthorized resyndication. I would hope that people take this matter seriously - every time someone scrapes your content, you run the risk of losing ranking for the terms contained within the content. While Google does a certain amount to filter out these ‘webspam’ sites, they aren’t perfect.
Related Link: ghostwriter ought to be careful, as RSS feeds can waive your copyright.
Share This