Examples of Great Content Creation/Curation/Traffic Leaks

[doublethinker]

Every day we encounter great examples of content creation, curation, and leaks. Why don't we share them here as a library of exemplary work that a bootstrapped builder can apply?

Source: https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/248989-blackberry-keyone-review-roundup
...
Last week, reviews started to roll in on a new BlackBerry device, albeit one marketed, manufactured, and distributed by TCL rather than by BlackBerry itself. It’s the last smartphone BlackBerry intends to design on its own, and according to all the reviews we’ve seen to date, it’s a surprisingly excellent device. Engadget, PCMag, and The Verge have all published reviews of the new BlackBerry KeyOne and they’re collectively the best we’ve seen on a BlackBerry product in years.
...
Everyone complimented the fit and finish of the device and compared it positively with the Priv, whose form factor and overall size profile were not well-regarded (that’s the opinion of the various reviewers, not myself). PCMag notes that the physical keyboard is “full of cool tricks,” with a fingerprint scanner built into the spacebar and the ability to assign shortcuts to custom keys
...
The Verge describes the fit and finish of the KeyOne as being “very good,” with satisfying response from the keyboard and buttons, and a rubberized finish on the back that makes it easy to hold the device.

What worked

Engaging writing, while using the hands-on reviews of three leading tech sites to generate more content and create authority via brand association. Well used paraphrasing which blurs the lines between the author's voice and the voices of the other tech sites.

What it costs

Time to research, the effort to write.

 

[darkzerothree]

The interesting thing here is how they got to use the images (something that would be more difficult for a lone webmaster)

PCMag and Extremetech are both owned by Ziff Davis.
Engadget is AOL
TheVerge is Vox Media

How those are connected, I dunno.

 

[doublethinker]

@darkzerothree Either licensing, fair use or part of a paid media campaign.

Paid Media POV

It's highly possible that Blackberry engaged in a paid media campaign to publish these articles. I was in a tech company prior and it's usually almost always the case.

Fair Use POV

In consideration of fair use, it's not a commercial page (for profit). Nothing on the page has a call-to-action to monetize the page except for a content discovery plugin. The content in itself more journalistic in form and attribution is given clearly. If you consider that it is an investigation of 3 reviews to form a new point of view, one might argue that it is transformative and not derivative. (read up on copyright and fair use if unfamiliar with these terms)

These are not indicative of any legal ground to use though (that can only be decided in court) and no one should haphazardly follow the same without making some effort to justify/defend the use- or don't at all.

 

[darkzerothree]

I'm aware of all those and they don't apply if you use the pictures 1 to 1.

Fair use is not gonna fly. The site is clearly commercial, not a non-profit or charity.

Transformative also does not apply to the pictures as they weren't changed.

I think the bug boys are just sharing or throwing money around.

However, the concept is still great!
If doing this, I'd go for official press release pictures. The companies want to have those distributed.

 

[doublethinker]

Hey @darkthreezero, your understanding of copyright and fair use seems different from mine.

1. The site is commercial yes, but note that I said page and not site. News sites have to make money too, that doesn't stop them for 'fair using'. The page does not have a clear method to monetize from the image. Indirect sources (other pages, unrelated plugins in page) would normally not be considered. That would be unlimited liability if so.

2. Transformative does not have to be literal, e.g. I changed the image. There's also the intended purpose, or use of the media. For example, seller has a picture to sell pizza. Pizza creates mass diarrhea. I use same unaltered picture in my public service article to show what diarrhea inflicting pizza looks like. This use is as I may argue, transformative.

That said, again fair use is a very gray area. Your suggestion to use official pictures is the safest and surest.

 

[darkzerothree]

@doublethinker

Yes, our understanding is very different.

As I am not in the US, I am taking this as primary source
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

However, we got similar laws here.

So, there seems to be some central toughts

use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright

While you could say that this is "news reporting" - taking an image from the review/news article about a new phone to use in your article on the new phone is hardly news reporting.

Different, for example to picturing an art installation that was vandalized to talk about that event - that is news.

It also seems that the transformative nature is part of fair use.

Transformative means turning lyrics into parody, or photos into sketch, etc...transforming the very nature of the work.

The case they cite is an artist using part of an ad in a collage.
Now THAT case had to be decided by a court.

You think that if a court has to decide if a piece of art is fair use, literally using the same picture for the same purpose is even debatable?

I would also not buy into the "but my page is not for profit, even thpugh the site is" I dont think any judge would fall for that.

But...

dont take all this too harsh.

In fact, I think you got a great strategy laid out. I just thin, ypu should use official press release pictures to navigate around pesky lawyers and you are golden!

 

[doublethinker]

@darkzerothree There is no subject that cannot be considered as news, even if the type of news is not well respected. Say entertainment, a news report about Kendall Jenner, is still news. "It's not news" is a personal view that it does not deserve being called that, but news is news.

Yes, whether the usage is transformative is a large part of deciding fair use (during a dispute in courts). We are on the same page here.

You think that if a court has to decide if a piece of art is fair use, literally using the same picture for the same purpose is even debatable?

What we disagree on is the purpose of the article or but I'm not too sure if I am reading you correctly, so here is an oversimplified table.

Oversimplified Copyright Equations
- Same picture + same purpose = Infringement
- Same picture + different purpose = Fair use
- Altered picture + same purpose = Depends on the amount of alteration
- Altered picture + different purpose = Best defense of fair use.

Correct me if I am wrong, you maintain that the content of the article is not transformative, hence the usage of the pictures are derivative. I posit that the commentary and the combination of various sources to form that commentary is transformative in nature.

I would also not buy into the "but my page is not for profit, even thpugh the site is" I dont think any judge would fall for that.

A commercial site is not a decisive factor that indicates a clear infringement. Fair use guides tend to confuse readers with this. What will be more substantive argument (besides the other factors mentioned) is:

a) whether the alleged infringer tangibly benefited from the alleged infringement;
b) the copyright owner suffered a tangible loss (or can it be argued as a benefit).

Just because the commercial site got more traffic from the article (hence a benefit), is in my personal opinion reaching too far and a weak argument at best. Consider the implications of free speech if this is actually true and enforceable. Every blogger with an ad banner, content discovery tool are criminals just by having a voice on something that they don't own.

So going back to the article in question, Extremetech does not seem to have a clear monetarily benefit from the article. The copyright owner similarly, does have a clear method to monetize the article.

The problem with fair use guides

The problem with fair use is that the people who read the "factors of fair use" tend to take the factors too literally. The watered down non-conclusive lawyer guides only serve to push that confusion. Which makes perfect sense, they need confused people to provide a service to. That's not dissimilar to what builders do. DON'T FALL FOR YOUR OWN DAMN TRICKS!

The point is, just because one factor doesn't check doesn't mean you will lose. The factors are a layman's super-general guide to fair use and it's a bad guide at that.

It's like that ridiculous misinformation for a period of time that caused people to have disclaimers about being liable for giving bad advice to people, and then being smug about it. You can't warranty or be liable for free advice, period. There's no consideration (a term in contract law).

Everything we've said here is not conclusive until it goes to court. So I may be flat out wrong. I do have some legal experience (in a real law firm, but not a lawyer), that's unfortunately not in copyright, so I have a heavy opinion on this. You (general you as in any builder) should not believe what I say just because I said it.

At some point in this refreshing and frankly enjoyable debate, I must confess that we are moving into armchair expert territory. I hope this serves as a starting point for builders thinking of copyrights though.

Food for thought: Using official pictures makes you equally exposed/unexposed to copyright infringement. The safety is only in knowing that a publisher would likely be more trigger happy to send a legal letter your way than the advertiser/merchant who wants more exposure.

 

[doublethinker]

You can use the same subject and market it to a different audience.

A question is more engaging than fact.

http://www.boredpanda.com/cynical-comics-eduardo-salles-cinismoilustrado/

 

[darkzerothree]

At some point in this refreshing and frankly enjoyable debate, I must confess that we are moving into armchair expert territory. I hope this serves as a starting point for builders thinking of copyrights though.

true.

I am also coming from a way different background (middle Europe)

IN Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, a cease and desist will already cost you money.

Copyright is also handled VERY strictly.

There is an infamous couple in Germany making insane amounts of money because people are using their food pictures for recipe's etc. VERY bland food pictures - as in "put tomato on table, snap pic with phone"

http://www.marions-kochbuch.de/index/0837.htm

They get thousands and ten thousands of bucks awarded by the courts.

That is why I am so reluctant.

Food for thought: Using official pictures makes you equally exposed/unexposed to copyright infringement. The safety is only in knowing that a publisher would likely be more trigger happy to send a legal letter your way than the advertiser/merchant who wants more exposure.

What I meant was pictures published by - for example - Samsung FOR redistribution.

but yeah, while I enjoy this discussion, I am no expert - my advice would be to be careful.

 

[doublethinker]

There is an infamous couple in Germany making insane amounts of money because people are using their food pictures for recipe's etc. VERY bland food pictures - as in "put tomato on table, snap pic with phone"

http://www.marions-kochbuch.de/index/0837.htm

That's very interesting, I have pondered about steps to incorporating a builder business overseas as a simple means of risk mitigation against copyright trolls (if there's such a thing), but I'm unfamiliar with international copyright laws and governing laws/jurisdiction. I also don't live in Europe which as you've said is very strict.

I did a quick search. Israel, Kenya, Nigeria, Venezuela, Monaco, Bolivia do not have copyright treaties that are in force. I.e. ideal candidates to protect your business. Future thoughts.

 

[doublethinker]

BuzzFeed on content

@algospider He's not the best presenter in the world and it takes a bit of effort pay attention to him. The real substance really comes in at the 10:00 mark on consumable content vs shareable content.

Most of the info (this video and BuzzFeed case studies) is from 2014-2015, so granted what was groundbreaking has become conventional- but the essence is very relevant to almost any type of content and building an authority. I love how Jonathan emphasizes and repeats the vanity of why people share- not quite to tell people about the article, but to tell people about yourself.

He also divulges (unwittingly or otherwise) social patterns that college students tend to share a certain type of content during stressful exam periods, or what grievers share after a tragic event. BuzzFeed studies people to find out what type of content you want to read. So you get the content you deserve.

At the 15:38 mark.

 

[doublethinker]

Street Fighter = Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Amazon.

Capcom probably gave the simplest answer to why platforms always end up screwing the top players. They want more players.

 

[doublethinker]

I talked to my marketing guy. He says there are 9 types of internet marketers. I will list them here.

1. Lawful Good
2. Neutral Good
3. Chaotic Good
4. Lawful Neutral
5. True Neutral
6. Chaotic Neutral
7. Lawful Evil
8. Neutral Evil
9. Chaotic Evil

Neutral Evil
It is possible that the Neutral Evil-doer may have never left the basement of his home, he wanders around blackhat forums asking for review copies but doesn't really know how to use a scraper tool. He gets free wordpress themes and plugins from sketchy sources can't launch because he ends up worrying what if one of his plugins are compromised (they are). So he spends another month looking for a trustworthy and free source (it doesn't exist) to download.

The Neutral Evil-doer knows what he's doing is illegal, but a tool in the hands of a fool is like plastic in a paper recycling bin. He doesn't know how to commit evil, even if wants to be one. He will spend most of his time still in the basement until he finds a magic staff from a Nigerian prince.

Chaotic Evil
This is the devil reincarnate, after all the lengthy ritual process and the hero actually failing to stop you.

Clickbait porn is on your resume. "I have this really great photo of Amber Heard on Teresa Palmer, click here to view". 5 clicks and 3 pop-ups later you're not there yet and you've forgotten what you were searching for.

I may have helped contribute to your income on that regard.

Lawful Evil
You are Alex Jones.

Chaotic Neutral
Moving up the ladder is Chaotic Neutral. These are the people that recognize that the world is unfair, that a system only works because people believe, but you don't. So you look for every opportunity to get ahead and you do it with a fervor. Because of this you are constantly looking for the fastest, cheapest and bestest product or strategy to adopt.

This is not good, imagine a dog trying to bite its own tail. That's Chaotic, but it's also not evil because you're hurting no one, and it's definitely not good.

True Neutral, Lawful Neutral, Neutral Good and Lawful Good
True Neutral, Lawful Neutral, Neutral Good and Lawful Good are the type of people that just want the world to be a better place. They will thrive if the budget they begin with lines up with the journalistic integrity they apply on each piece of article they provide. Because of this long-term journey, many solo questers will find themselves wearing the shame of being called a blogger, or worse- an influencer. With no platform that they can call the shots on, they are the equivalent of fodder being passed around whenever the adults fancy, hoping that one day they may be relevant again.

The people here are just not competitive enough.

Chaotic Good
You might have disagreed with me when it came to Chaotic Neutral. And on prima facie, that would be an easy juncture to make, I agree. But remember that the first term (Lawful, True, Chaotic) refers to the method and with it, the boundaries you will respect or traverse to reach your goal. The second term, refers to what type of goal you want to accomplish.

A neutral person cannot think beyond himself. Because of that, a neutral person can only provide neutral value or less to another person because the fastest, cheapest bestest method works to the person and not the quest.

As a Chaotic Good, you understand how society works, how cultures form and laws are made. You know how to apply that knowledge to do real good things, even if the method is questionable, grey or just outright illegal. You are thinking big when you do things for other people.

Does this make you want to play Neverwinter Nights?

 

[CCarter]

I just saw this traffic leak in the wild. I was reading an article on a local news site, nbcnewyork.com, and saw a nice looking chart (https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/cor...cases-as-neighborhood-concerns-mount/3149382/).

Looking closely I noticed it was generated by something called Data Wrapper (https://www.datawrapper.de/). Took a closer look and wow, they are literally winning at a level not seen in a long time.

Recall my create compelling content argument, use charts and other visuals. Well Data Wrapper took it another step and allows OTHERS to create charts and visuals then created a SAAS around that, and the free version, which the majority of people will use has a nice fat backlink (dofollow) to DataWrapper.

Smooth and I think it can be taken to another level by someone coming out with a similar or competing SAAS just to take them on. But it's a big difficult to argue with "free", and they've got a massive moat already built.

 

[Philip J. Fry]

This went viral on Reddit last week. Thought I'll post it here. The story is real. It happened in Zimbabwe. I looked it up. The traffic leak is the first line of main content. "A man hired a prostitute from Airbnbsex.com..." That wasn't in the news article and that's the traffic leak. Clever, clever